Hi Pavel - thought i'd better weigh in with my opinion as i'd been summoned
In all honesty, this is a interesting photo to me because I can read it two ways...
The first thing that sprang to mind, probably because it'd have been how i'd approached it, is that it's got the potential to be a brilliant architectural shot - the actual build is fascinating, with levels, curves textures and sweeps that are a joy for the eye to wander around. Unfortunately, as an architectural shot it falls down in a couple of minor areas IMO. First thing that struck me was that it's on a tilt. From the horizontal "seam" in the concrete of the back wall, the camera is annoyingly just shy of being level - it's not far enough to be a "statement" but far enough to be reasonably obvious. Secondly, as a purely architectural it definitely needs to lose the people. This shot is just crying out for being shot on a large format film camera, ideally from around 3 feet higher than normal eye level (which this appears to have been shot at) so that you see "over" the LHS wall and balustrade a little more and perhaps past the first curve of the wall to see the foot of the second black cabin in the middle of the court. And of course, being shot on film, you could have stuck a slow ISO film in there, stopped the lens on the camera way down past f64 and got an exposure time slow enough to completely lose any people in the shot. Of course, that's far from a "grab shot", and would probably require permits to shoot, involving tripods, step-ladders etc. so highly unlikely to ever happen unless commisioned by the station owners.
Alternatively though, another way of reading this image is as more of a "street" kind of shot - at which point the whole image has a second, and perhaps more successful life. I love the blur of the train - and the lesser blur of the people in the mid-ground - which speaks to me of the different pace of movement between the human scale and machine. The two other figures to the rear are sadly a little less successful, primarily as they are more static. I still think it'd have been slightly better from a more elevated point of shooting however - while it's not the most discrete way of shooting, with a modern camera with live display on the rear, it shouldn't be that much of a problem to gain maybe a couple of feet more elevation, IMO worth looking a bit of a dork standing there with your camera over your head for a couple of seconds...
On the whole though, you've done something that's unusual for me - you've made me prefer a photo that's about people to a photo that's about a building or landscape - i'm not a people person when it comes down to photography frankly - but for me, the second interpretation of the shot is much more powerful and valid.
Just wish it wasn't on the wonk.