Talk:Railway station layout
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
| DYK | A fact from this article appeared in the "Did you know" section of Portal:Trains on August 22, 2006. |
 |
This article is maintained by 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)
[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!
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.158.213.172 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
- 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] 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)
