AHC: Single train stations for some major US cities

[Joe Bonkers]

That didn't have one station. This AHC is for my fellow railroad geeks, obviously.

With a POD no earlier than 1900 and no later than 1930, can you come up with:

-A single passenger station for New York City that encompasses all the routes heading west via New Jersey, north into New York, northeast into Connecticut, and east into Long Island? Bonus points if you can connect all or most of the north-south subway lines too.

-A single passenger station for Philadelphia that has the size and scope of 30th Street Station but the near-the-heart-of-the-city location of the old Reading Terminal or Broad Street Station?

-A single station for Chicago? Can be anywhere reasonably near downtown, but has to scoop in all the traffic from Union, Grand Central, North Western, LaSalle, Dearborn AND Central.

-A station for San Francisco, either using the Bay Bridge or a tunnel, that allows for trains coming from the east to terminate in SF and for trains coming from the north to cross the bay from Oakland, make a station stop in SF, and continue south?

I already know how I would do it, but I'm interested in hearing what other people would do.

 

[Analytical Engine]

Are you discounting small metro stations?

 

[Joe Bonkers]

Are you discounting small metro stations?

Yes, I'm thinking in terms of the central stations alone (Penn Station, Grand Central, 30th Street, Chicago Union Station, etc.) Metro stations can be a part of the system though.

 

[Analytical Engine]

Yes, I'm thinking in terms of the central stations alone (Penn Station, Grand Central, 30th Street, Chicago Union Station, etc.)

That single large station is going to have a lot of traffic, both in terms of people and trains. It's going to need to be big. As in twenty platforms and above.

And it needs to be in a location that allows for through-traffic.

 

[Joe Bonkers]

That single large station is going to have a lot of traffic, both in terms of people and trains. It's going to need to be big. As in twenty platforms and above.

And it needs to be in a location that allows for through-traffic.

Yep. That's the challenge.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Whats the advantage?

 

[CosmicAsh]

Off the top of my head, for New York City, you are looking at a ten year window from 1900 to 1910 where the Pennsylvania Railroad doesn't build Penn Station. This allows the New Haven Railroad, and future rails from Long Island and elsewhere, to instead be forced to used Grand Central Terminal. The reasoning behind it, I do not know, but the easiest way to make a mega station in New York is to get rid of Penn Station.

 

[Joe Bonkers]

Whats the advantage?

The same rationale as that of building union stations in smaller cities - greater convenience for passengers presumably leads to higher ridership; pooling of resources among participating railroads leads to reduced costs.

 

[Analytical Engine]

The same rationale as that of building union stations in smaller cities - greater convenience for passengers presumably leads to higher ridership; pooling of resources among participating railroads leads to reduced costs.

That convenience only works if having a single, central station is easier to get to than several dispersed stations. However, as the OP stated that metro stations are excluded from the "only one station cap", that might be helpful.

 

[Joe Bonkers]

That convenience only works if having a single, central station is easier to get to than several dispersed stations. However, as the OP stated that metro stations are excluded from the "only one station cap", that might be helpful.

Yes, that's what I have in mind. Like (using New York as an example) allowing trains on the New York Central's lines into Manhattan to make stops at 125th Street and other uptown locations while still terminating at The Big Station.

 

[Analytical Engine]

BTW, what are you defining as a "central station"? Is it the amount of floorspace? The number of platforms?

 

[Joe Bonkers]

BTW, what are you defining as a "central station"? Is it the amount of floorspace? The number of platforms?

Not necessarily. Think of it as being along the lines of something like the former union stations in cities like Cincinnati, St. Louis, Los Angeles - the one station where all mainline trains and the majority of commuter trains entering the city either terminate or pass through. In other words, rather than having several stations that each perform a portion of that function.

 

[Analytical Engine]

Not necessarily. Think of it as being along the lines of something like the former union stations in cities like Cincinnati, St. Louis, Los Angeles - the one station where all mainline trains and the majority of commuter trains entering the city either terminate or pass through. In other words, rather than having several stations that each perform a portion of that function.

Except, many of the smaller stations will have a lot of trains "pass through" them. Or do you only count trains that actually stop at a station?

 

[Joe Bonkers]

Except, many of the smaller stations will have a lot of trains "pass through" them. Or do you only count trains that actually stop at a station?

Again, think of it as a single central terminal point for all trains, versus multiple ones - essentially (to pick on New York again) combining the functions of GCT, Penn Station, and the terminals in Jersey City and Hoboken into a single Manhattan location.

 

[fastmongrel]

I cant say anything about US stations but to have a single mainline train station in London would mean a vast structure. There are 10 mainline terminus stations and 8 commuter line terminus stations in London with (going by wiki) a total of 175 platforms or tracks. 590.5 million journeys into and out of these stations a year and they are all linked by London Underground and Overground lines.

There may well be an eonomy of scale but still thats going to be a monster.

 

[MichaelWest]

I think it depends on if your city is an end point or a through point. A city like New York might benefit from more rather than one central station, multiple places to connect from when leaving the city and multiple places to arrive when entering, especially if these stations connect to public transportation. A city like Toledo might be served by a central station given that its connections are to other cities, regionally and nationally, and having a central transportation hub promotes the central business district and urban core. Again in New York you want to be within walking distances to either the ultimate destination, office, theater or home, other modes, the Subway, buses or taxicab, and for commuter rail it might be better to have a cluster of stations allowing passengers to get off enroute or stop closer to the destination. Connections to trains going to other cities are not as vital since the overall system of transport can get you to the station serving any particular train. In other words the commuter who lives North but wants to take the odd train West might simply transfer to another station rather than prefer having a bigger, busier and more densely used central station everyday. Yet I do see the attraction for never having to do so, in my going from Marlow to Paris it is car to station, surface train to London, walk to another station for the Tube and Tube to station to get a surface train, and from Gare du Nord I can get a car or walk to the Metro.

When I look at a Cleveland I see the potential for a central station that integrates public transportation with the long distance trains passing East-West and headed South, the commuter flows also share these alignments, and having the central terminal right in downtown keeps the CBD trafficked. But the real issue is the commuter rail and supporting public transportation system, and next serving the airport, those are more stumbling blocks to keeping these stations relevant even as long distance trains fall away.

 

[Joe Bonkers]

I cant say anything about US stations but to have a single mainline train station in London would mean a vast structure. There are 10 mainline terminus stations and 8 commuter line terminus stations in London with (going by wiki) a total of 175 platforms or tracks. 590.5 million journeys into and out of these stations a year and they are all linked by London Underground and Overground lines.

There may well be an eonomy of scale but still thats going to be a monster.

This could never have worked in London under any circumstances, because London is too decentralized. New York and Chicago may realistically be the same, though it'd be worth the price of admission to see someone try it. Philadelphia and SF I think have more potential.

 

[Joe Bonkers]

The linkage between London stations mitigates the issue anyway. In New York, Philly and Chicago there were limited and inconvenient transit links between the major stations. There was no direct link between GCT and Penn, no direct link between Reading Terminal and 30th Street, and in Chicago a taxi company called Parmelee Transfer based its entire business model on shuttling people between the various stations, since there was no other convenient way to make connections.