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‡ 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▸ 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.
