Embedded Files
I would like to make some symbolic case study, where I am able to download some of the transit station drawings available on the internet. Plus make some graphical drawings of the systems that I have worked on in the past, (due to copyright limitation), so that we could discuss some of the system designs that has been discussed in the past chapters.
THE LONDON UNDERGROUND
THE LONDON UNDERGROUND
© Source. Station Design Idiom. TFL, UK http://content.tfl.gov.uk/station-design-idiom-2.pdf
The station typology of the London Underground stations is mostly defined by the tunnelling system for the underground platform section and the ground condition. Arguably, as the funding pattern is also not challenged, there is perhaps no need for stations to have a different design typology, or a business model, with larger retail component, etc. Hence underground hub concourse, or ground level ticket halls are common in the system. Also having many ticketing concourses / halls, not only limits the numbers of entrances, but may increases operation cost due to higher staff + maintenance cost.
So, let's see what we have in the diagrammatic idiom above:
The platform tunnel has two passages that connects to the central larger passages that has the vertical VT banks to the upped concourse.
The platform needs to be designed to have at least two exits. Which has been enabled via the two passages to the central large passage.
The platform common path of travel on the ends needs to be max 25m or one car length from the platform ends, if NFPA130 is to be followed. In reality, if that was an actual model, then this may be an issue. Also, it is hard to justify not following the one car length requirements, irrespective of which standard the Fire Engineering is following, as this clause makes sense in case of any platform fire.
Onto the central passageway.
Escaping from a fire in this passageway needs an engineering analysis, as there seems to be only one exit out of this platform level.
The Engineered way would be to justify based on the design fire size, locating this in the worst possible location (In the centre of the passage, just after the right platform passage), then justifying that you can skirt around the design fire sized flame, to escape upwards.
Enough escalators or stairs to evacuate all passengers based on a train on fire scenario.
Two upper-level concourses:
Lower concourse allows the system to be connected to other entrances, via new passages.
All of which will require ticketing facilities.
Ticketing Hall
Only one ticketing hall shown in this diagram
At least two will be required, or other egress stairs, req.
This will need to house all the staff offices, most of the plants, etc. So, size may be needed to be increased for substantial plants
Of course, this diagram will not show all the complexity of the station. However, it is a good model to discuss some of the requirements.
Some of the erstwhile Jubilee lines stations have different planning to the above, all of whom have wonderful architectural expression, however the design still limits the catchment - or perhaps such system design does not need to fan out to get more passengers? I am intrigued by the preceding statement I have made, or the financial need in the next sentence, for the author of the Jubilee Line was Rolanl Paotti, the former Chief Architect of the HK MTR, as well as the Jubilee Line.
Similarly, the 10 new station design for the Elizibeth line have the same Architectural DNA for planning, line wide identity, albeit with a more restrained value engineered aesthetics. It is hard to make a more critical review of the LUL, excepting to say that does the TFL need a much more harder working station typology, one that will create a stronger business case for the underground? Perhaps not?
THE AUCKLAND METRO CRL
THE AUCKLAND METRO CRL
This Auckland Metro station
Yes. The typology of the running platform tunnel, station planning with ticket halls, all seems to be borne out of the TFL's design idiom. Till you see the TBM breakthrough cavern. Which shows a different geology, where a substantially large cavern is visible. Could this have been larger, different design than one shown above?
There is a substantial hue and cry about the cost escalation, particularly for a city with a limited population and patronage, which has changed recently. So could this have been designed more aggressively to offer a better return on investment? Comments on the TFL design idom also follows here.
One comment to be made, is that design of systems MAY generally follows what the system designer/contractor is used to. UK/Austrasia designers/contractors will design station in a certain way, Japanese or Chinese designers/contractors in a different way. It may be challenging to reinvent the wheel in most of these large infrastructural projects,
THE KUALA LUMPUR TYPICAL METRO DRAWINGS
THE KUALA LUMPUR TYPICAL METRO DRAWINGS
Ref: MYMRT, Malaysia
Observation, Commentary on Island Platform
Platform Level:
Island Platform: 4 car trains platform. Low to medium patronage, LRT type transit system.
VT no's + Disposition: All VT converges in the centre of the platform. Planning makes sense and wayfinding is simple and effective. Emergency egress planning also seems generally ok, except layout does not show any stair, so only escalator is used. Fire Engineering basis needs justification for these planning type, as no stairs apparent. Note. single escalator = ~7000 passenger handling / hour
Single lift in centre of the platform, plus relatively deep platform may encourage passenger to use the lift? Station dimension does not make other location easy.
Concourse / Foyer Level:
Paid/Unpaid link: Good planning allows for non-transit passengers to use the station for crossing the street, etc. above
Lift Location: Is remote, however not easy to have a better disposition?
For Exits: All of which are relatively close to each other. Particularly the two on the top and bottom. Which nominally seems to be less than a 100m apart. In reality they may be dispersed for better connection.
Limited Space: available at this level for any other additional services? However, such limited patronage may also make retail, etc. not very successful commercially.
Generally: Plant + operation spaces look limited, or life safety plants are simpler.
Observation, Commentary on Stacked Platform
Platform Level:
Stacked/Side platform: 4 car trains platform. Low to medium patronage, LRT type transit system.
VT no's + Disposition: Single up and down escalator serving both platforms (Graphic unclear). Design must have low patronage. Emergency egress planning also seems wrong. Fire Engineering basis needs justification for these planning type, as no stairs apparent or limited no of escalators. + 25m dead end /common path of travel at upper platform needs review.
Escalator disposition on the lower platform ok, however upper platform requires passenger to use on at the ends. Not good planning, reduced level of service
Lower platform width provided perception of excessive width.
Single lift in centre of the platform, plus relatively deep platform may encourage passenger to use the lift? Station dimension does not make other location easy.
Concourse / Foyer Level:
Paid/Unpaid link: Good planning allows for non-transit passengers to use the station for crossing the street, etc. above
For Exits: All of which are relatively close to each other. Particularly the one on the top. Which nominally seems to be less than a 100m apart. In reality they may be dispersed for better connection.
More Space: available at this level for any other additional services? However, such limited patronage may also make retail, etc. not very successful commercially.
Generally: Plant + operation spaces look limited, or life safety plants are simpler.
THE HONG KONG MTR
THE HONG KONG MTR
Here are two MTR Stations for discussion. The upper one is Mong Kok Station on the Kwun Tong Line, one of the first stations in Hong Kong, opened 1979. The lower one is the Tseung Kwan O Station, part of the Tseung Kwan O Line & built opened on the 2002.
Commonality of these two stations:
8Car trains, similar rolling stocks. So, for a 2min headway can transport around 90,000 passengers (Say 3000 ppl train /(60min/2min HW=30nos) =3000 X 30 = 90,000ppl)
Island Platform
Station box passenger areas generally similar
See other difference below:
Fig. The MTR Mong Kong Station Layout
Mong Kok Station
Platform
Stacked, Island Platform, with concourse level over.
System theoritically handle 90,000 X 2(Line) = 180,000 passenger/hr. However this is not correct. Majority of passengers are interchange passenger. So interchanged island/center platform is key. Nevertheless:
Total 9 escalator. Both platform have two direct escalator from concourse, and 5 are going from level to level. Escalator maybe switched around at AM/PM peak as required.
Two direct escalator for either platform capacity = 135ppl/min(HK Std) X 60sec=8100ppl/hour. So total capacity for the direct escalator is 16,200 passenger/hour.
The calculation for the other escalators is more complex, as they go from level to level. You could say 5 X 8100=40,500 per hour, but!!
There are stairs available too.
When you are designing such stacked arrangement, it will be very challanging to get the VT from the concourse that thread to both the platforms work together, as physically placing this across three level and then lay them perfectly on the concourse is challanding. However with AI this will be easier. For sure.
Concourse
The concourse arrangement is not desirable. yet potentially suitable.
Firstly there are 6 exits from the concourse. All of them super busy.
6 exits leads to 13 entrances.
Unpaid connection around the whole concourse, to allow for easier connection to the middle two entrances C&D
Two hub concourse that is separated by a unpaid link, that leads to entrances C&D
10 ticket gates array
Sizable retail concessions, etc.
Overview
This was one of the early MTR stations, that was highly value engineered and the restrictive arrangement at the concourse level shows the impact of the budget concious design. Wayfinding is difficult for most people who dont know the system. At best, this is a highly functional interchange station that does it job.
The takeway may be that an interchange station need to have more space around it to breadth. Something that an station sizing numbers may need to be LoS C, number bordering LoSB.
Tsueng Kwan O Station
Platform
Island Platform, with concourse level over.
System theoritically handle 90,000 passenger/hr.
Total 7 escalator. Theoritical platform capacity = 8100ppl X 7 = 56,700 passenger / hour Up/Dn.
4 banks of stair
Total 8 bank of VT to concourse
one disabled lift
Concourse
Concourse at ground level
Reduced paid area, with 5 ticket gate array
3 exit points
Unpaid connection on three sides
Sizable retail concessions, etc.
Overview
This was one of newer generation of the MTR stations. The typology is peculair in that the concourse is at the ground level and the entrances are at the periphery of the concourse. Where the station ends, the property development over takes over. The entrances then links to the VT that takes the passengers to the podium level shopping center, which are then connected by footbridges, which takes you to the large residential towers. At grade connection is also successful and linkages for the new town works well.
As one of the newer MTR stations, coupled with the ground level concourse makes wayfinding very easy and straight forward. The MTR DNA is very evident in this station.
Pic. MTR Tsueng Kwan O Station with some of the residential towers over shown. This is an MTR Property + Rail model
A general comparison of the Singapore MRT and Hong Kong MTR underground system. A global ref.
A general comparison of the Singapore MRT and Hong Kong MTR underground system. A global ref.
Fig. Singapore MRT 8 Car Underground station configuration. Platform on top, Concourse below.
The Singapore MRT:
8 Car rolling stock. Overall capacity less than HK
As headway is/can be similar, less car cap = overall line cap lower
4 banks of VT, two of whose disposition is facing left, and two facing right. VT disposition driven by entrance disposition + volumetric design typology.
Two disabled lift
MEP generally simpler.
Life safety fire engineered, closer to NFPA130
Void at concourse, double height station box. Two hub concourses at the east and west ends, linked by unpaid passage
Passenger entrance decision point at platform level.
Architecturally more creative, will lack a holistic system wide language. Higher maintenance req.
Fig. Hong Kong MTR 8 Car Underground station configuration. Platform on top, Concourse below.
The Hong Kong MTR:
8 Car rolling stock. Overall capacity higher than S'pore (Wider train)
Overall line capacity higher as individual car has more passengers
Correspondingly design stadards for HK MTR is more onerous.
4 banks of VT, two on the left facing to the centre, two on the right mirrored towards centre.
Two disabled lift
MEP generally more complex.
Life safety fire engineered. Enhanced and adapted version of NFPA130
All VT brings passenger to the centre of the large concourse, linked by paid and unpaid passage.
Space allows for the 'All important station retails'
Passenger decision point at concourse level.
May load rolling stock more evenly than the Singapore metro? as escalators are more evenly from abv.
Architecturally less creative, holistic system wide language. Highly systematised, engineering excellence
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse