Talk:Railway station layout

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Trains Portal
DYK August 22, 2006
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale within the Trains WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Stations.

I think that diagrams of the layouts would be useful, what does everyone else think? Djm1279 20:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

This article was created to house an ever-expanding list on Train station article. Perhaps one or two examples should be in main article - but how to agree? In any case, content on main page replaced with a description of configurations. Zoney 21:23, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've taken the opportunity of the appearance of this new article (for which, thanks, Zoney) to lose the (to me) childish-sounding term "train station" (I know that's a term commonly used in America, but most of the English-speaking world's railway stations are not in America). I hope my other edits will be found unobjectionable too. I've also removed the (asd)-type abbreviations following the Dutch station names. These seem to have originated in an original Dutch-language version of the station article, but were pretty meaningless here IMV. I agree that the list of "special-layout" stations is potentially near endless, but I'd say, let's just sit back for now and see if anyone else wants to contribute their particular favourites. I've added Liskeard. Tipperary Junction surely merits an article all to itself! -- Picapica 17:42, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Large Stations Notes

I've just updated the numbers of tracks for Euston and Birmingham New Street using the track diagrams I have here. I'm not quite sure what all the rules are, but the looks of Paddington suggested underground station platforms were included, so I applied the same rules to Euston, plus the "Middle Sidings" and came up with 26.

As for Birmingham New Street, for those who are interested, there are 12 main platforms with signals half-way along so that two (or indeed more) trains can be parked in each. There is also platform 4C, two "dock" sidings (used for out-of-service units) and three through roads to allow parked trains to be overtaken - total number 30!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.213.172 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 24 May 2006

I think that 30 is far too high for New Street. We're counting platforms, not tracks, i.e. places where passengers can board a train. This rules out the through lines, plus the two docks which aren't signalled for passenger lines. Whether counting platforms 1a and 1b (for example) as one or two platforms, though 4c is definitely separate. By this reckoning, Birmingham has either 13 or 25 platforms. I'll put it to 25 for the time being.--Tivedshambo (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

From the article:

This is a list of largest railway stations in the world in terms of number of tracks. Note that the number of platforms is usually smaller, as many of these stations have island platforms, with a track on each side.

Tracks, not platforms. — Larry V (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
A diagram showing the different meanings of the word "platform" in the context of a railway station. The fictional station has * 1 island platform (green) * 2 platform faces/platform tracks (blue) * 3 independently signalable platforms (pruple) * 4 designated platforms (red)

What would be helpful here would be if someone could draw some diagrams showing what we are counting here. The word "platform" is very confusing as it has several meanings. For example the station to the right could have 1, 2, 3 or 4 platforms depending on which definition of "platform" you are using -

  • 1 island platform (green)
  • 2 platform faces/platform tracks (blue)
  • 3 independently signalable platforms (pruple)
  • 4 designated platforms (red)

Thryduulf 11:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that the number should reflect how many passenger trains can be handled by the station at any one time. This would split platform faces into two where signalling or "call-on" facilities exist. Simply counting tracks is misleading, and probably not what the average reader wants to know. However, I'm happy to hear what others think.--Tivedshambo (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Problem: at Glasgow Central station, for example, where 2 car trains are normal, each platfdorm can take at least 3 trains. Therefore:

P1+2 (c 12 cars)= 2(6)= 12 P3-9 (c 6 cars)= 7(3)= 21 P10+11 (c 12 cars)=........12 P11a-13(c 6 cars)= 3(2)= 6

TOTAL = 12+21+12+6 = 51 trains at any one time. (This is theoretically possible, although highly unlikely)

So it should probably be numvered platforms (including a and b platforms), accounting for cases when multiple trains at one platform is normal.

82.40.75.55 12:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

So the hypothetical station in the image would have 4 platforms? Thryduulf 17:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
In this example, yes. The problem is knowing what call-on arrangements apply. For example at many terminus stations, it is common to have two short trains ready to depart, though the platforms are not always numbered separately (1a and 1b for example). However, I think that counting the platforms (including the sub-divisions) is the simplest method of sorting stations by size. This is why I count Birmingham New Street as 25. I've got a complete set of track diagrams for the UK, and I'm willing to go through counting platforms by this method, if general concensus goes this way.--Tivedshambo (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Platform/Track numbers for British stations

The number of platforms for British stations are hopelessly bloated. Counting a track two or three times just because in principle two or three of the ridiculous british 3 car "trains" can be parked there. Compare this with the figures for the Continent where 30 tracks means 30 *proper* tracks. Either use some coherent measure or stop ordering by track number but alphabetically. --195.128.251.193 (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume you are only referring to Birmingham New Street and Manchester Piccadilly. Actually in the UK, we count the number of signalled platforms. At Birmingham New Street, there are 12 through tracks, a single track for terminating services and 2 service platforms (although they can be used as spare platforms). Of the through platforms, they are each divided into A and B sections. Each section is independently signalled, and there is a system of scissors crossovers between the two sections. Local services will stop at one section and not the other (a westbound train can use one section and an eastbound train can use the other section of same platform). A longer Virgin Train may use the whole platform. In Cardiff Central, for example, two platforms are also split into A and B sections, but they are not separately signalled (drivers stop in which ever section they can stop in) so the sections do not count as seperate platforms. As for Manchester, I don't know whether this system applies but Birmingham New Street seems to be all right (I have a feeling that was put in with Mancunian bias). Anywikiuser (talk) 12:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
By the way, the figures for the London terminals are accurate: I have counted the main line platforms (none of them are A and B split), as well as the Underground ones. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Counting platforms

The number of platforms depends on definitions, and gets complicated. What about having either a single number if the count is simple, and a min-max pair of numbers for the complicated counts. Thus a station will call on signals would ignore the call ons for the minimum count, but include the call ons for the maximum count. In this way the imprecision of the definitions is simplified without giving excessively misleading answers or taking up too much space. Tabletop 11:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thus Sydney Olympic Park - 2 tracks with 4 platforms would be a min/max 2/4.

[edit] Large station list

The list is getting out of hand, growing into stations with as few as 8 platform tracks. I think we should have some objective criteria for inclusion such that only truly huge stations are listed, or we will eventually end up listing every semimajor interchange station in the world. I think 20 platform tracks (counted in whatever manner) would be a reasonable lower limit. Opinions? Henning Makholm 15:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. A lot of the numbers don't add up and there are plenty of big stations missing and mediocre ones listed. Maybe it's worth listing the 'biggest' 5 or 10 stations and describing them in a little more detail, including maps. The list doesn't add much. Pete Fenelon 13:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The limit of 20 was a good idea, but what counts and what doesn't? You say "20 platform tracks". The article say "number of tracks", which to me would include run-round tracks and other tracks with no platforms.
What to include in the count appears to have been interpreted differently by different contributers.
Do you include underground lines? Are you counting S-Bahn/RER, which may be underground? What about special cases like London Paddington, where two of the underground lines are on the surface at the same level as the main station? Do you include trams and Stadtbahn which may stop outside the station, underneath it or, as in Karlsruhe, share tracks with "normal" trains outside the station, but stop in the station forecourt?
We need some rules to ensure all entries are comparible. TiffaF 07:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What about a new page, where the lower limit is, say, 10? Just to bo more thorough and detailed without ruining this otherwise great page! 82.40.75.55 23:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just noticed the number of Platform tracks at New York Grand Central Terminal doesn't make sense. Can somebody verify the total of 67?
Zürich Hauptbahnhof:
  • 25 tracks (this article)
  • 2,915 trains daily (arrivals and departures).
  • 360,000 passengers daily.
Tokyo Station:
  • 30 tracks (this article)
  • "The main station consists of 10 platforms, serving 20 tracks," (Tokyo Station)
  • "over 4,000" trains daily (Tokyo Station)
Tokyo Shinjuku Station:
  • 33 tracks (this article)
  • 3.29 million passengers daily
New York Grand Central Terminal:
This does look like an excessive number of platform tracks for the number of trains :-) ! TiffaF 13:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I have never been to the Grand Central Terminal, but I am guessing that trains stand there for a long time, and that some platforms are rarely used, or that because of the timetables, there is a time when so many platforms are needed. Anywikiuser (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes all these points are true. I' have been to Grand Central (almost daily). Despite Grand Central's emense size, it is grossly underused. There are indeed 67 tracks but not all are used at the same time, most often never used at the same time. Usually most are empty waiting for a specific train or a train will occupy the track for a good 20-30 mins before departing; it is a terminal after all. During rush-hours, there are often trains departing every two to three minutes and with the 20 min. lag time, 67 tracks makes sense, but not really necessary. I don't think the ridership number is correct, "125,000 passengers"? It's got to be a lot more than that. On the Pennsylvania Station (New York City) article, it says 140,000. I think it's closer to 200,000, but that's speculation. Any hard evidence on this?
What one has to remember is that in the heyday of the trains, Grand Central practically served the entire Northeast region including Canada with long distance service. However because Amtrak has moved to Penn Station, only Metro-North RR occupies Grand Central. It makes sense for you to raise it's concern but the track count is correct.Justin Tokke (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'See also' appears in wrong spot?

I see the 'see also' category above the table of large stations - even though in the source it's below, as it should be. Do other people also have this problem? Classical geographer 12:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The table somehow migrates below the "see also" section in the HTML I get from the servers, so it does not seem to be a browser problem. –Henning Makholm 20:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
There are some older version (dated Dec 2006) which do not suffer from this problem. May be (repeat: maybe) I'll find the time, patience and energy to go through older versions one by one and try to figure out what causes this strange table displacement. Don't hold your breath, though... --Jotel 21:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freight and Passenger: please decipher ....

Can anyone explain what the author wanted to say:

Mpika railway station in Zambia caters for passengers on a single passenger platform, which most other trackage being for freight traffic. An engine depot is shares. An unusual feature is a master siding that turns 180 degree to place a freight hub onto the same street as the passenger station.

I'll be happy to try to improve the text (i.e. rewrite it from scratch), but the meaning escapes me... --Jotel (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

One month later: section deleted.--Jotel (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I know it's long gone, but this is what I think it was meant to say:

Mpika railway station in Zambia has a single bi-directional platform for passenger services, while freight traffic uses the other tracks. It also has an engine depot. An unusual feature is that the main siding consists of a 180 loop which brings freight trains from the passenger platform to a depot on the station approach.

Tod make it clear, you should see the Mpika railway station article. I don't feel this needs to be added in to this page. Anywikiuser (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Poor or irrelevant examples

The article is getting long and unmanageable. Any ideas on how to cull it down?

Perhaps having a category for each 'type' of station layout, put the current example stations into the relevant categories, then link the categories on this page with a description of the type of layout, and NO examples in this page. Wongm (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe what's needed is an article discussing the 'principles' of station layout (geographical and operational constraints, passenger convenience etc) with pointers to key examples of each major type? Pete Fenelon (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Apart from Railway station layout there already are articles Train station, Terminal station, Train order station, Interchange station and I'm sure many more. Do we really need another one? --Jotel (talk) 11:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
We don't need more (wimper!) Wongm (talk) 11:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
That's what I think this one ought to be. Unfortunately writing good, sourced, text of that kind is harder than just piling on examples. –Henning Makholm 02:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree with that too. So what do you think of my category idea? Wongm (talk) 11:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
We should get rid of former examples e.g. Mangotsfield which are closed, or at least move them below the current examples. Anywikiuser (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Better still, spare Mangotsfield: Order them like this:
Good Current Examples
Less Relevant/Debatable Current Examples
Good Former Examples
Less Relevant/Debatable Former Examples
Include a link to an article for the station. Anywikiuser (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Platform numbering

Why was this section removed?Justin Tokke (talk) 04:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Central Terminal

Today while passing through GCT, I noticed that there are not 67 tracks as mentioned in this article and it's own. There is only about 41 in revenue service and those are the only ones shown on the station maps and directories. Perhaps they exist, but do they still count even though they're not used? Can someone please clarify. Justin Tokke (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)