Railroad Forums 

  • Station Size/Grand Station Revival - Food for thought

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

 #1340828  by Tadman
 
A few times a year, we get a thread that discusses bringing back a grandiose terminal like Buffalo Central or Detroit Central. The accepted wisdom is that it's too costly to rebuild such a large terminal, but other than that, we don't have much perspective.

Tonight I was reading from an old favorite - "Limiteds on the Lakefront" by Alan Lind. It's the story of Illinois Central passenger service in Chicago. Center to that topic is Central Station. Central Station was a 6-track terminal with a train shed and vaulted waiting room and associated coach yard, commisary, etc... It did not handle commuter trains - IC ran a very dense suburban service handled by Metra Electric today out of Randolph station, half mile north.

Central station handled 58 trains in/out per day in 1934. That's on a six track terminal. Half were IC, half were Big Four and Michigan Central as tenants. Compare that to Amtrak's current 26 trains, and the fact that Chicago is probably their busiest terminal outside of the NEC. You can imagine, then, it would be a bit crazy to restore Buffalo Central or Michigan Central for 4-6 trains/day. That's 10% the load they were designed for (or perhaps even less - not sure how many trains used MCS or BCS). There is no way you could even turn the lights on for that kind of traffic. Hence the reason Amtrak unloaded a lot of those stations fairly early in the program.
 #1340844  by Gilbert B Norman
 
Well stated thoughts, Mr. Dunville.

I think we are addressing a "be thankful for those that were restored" albeit for "mixed use". In this group are included Cincinnati, Kansas City, St. Paul, and Worcester. Also be thankful regarding LAUPT, which had only nine (edit: after review of 5/1/71 PTT) arrivals and departures on A-Day (well technically A-Day+3 as what was out on the roads such as the City of LA continued to their destinations), that someone had the foresight to realize that California would start the largest public initiative to develop intercity, commuter, and rapid transit trains "(as good as) from scratch" ever in the US.

There are some, such as Richmond Main Street, that could handle more trains that are already there if only some comparatively minor access improvements were to be made. In the case of RVM, a flyover of the Acca Yards would be necessary to have any volume of the existing trains use the station (and get rid of the reportedly woefully inadequate RVR).
Last edited by Gilbert B Norman on Sun Jul 26, 2015 3:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 #1340848  by Noel Weaver
 
Buffalo is/was a classic example of an underutilized passenger station especially in its later years. In addition it was not in the central business area or town but out of the way in a questionable neighborhood even years ago. Today Buffalo is far better served by the two Amtrak stations that serve it. Depew is out of town but has good parking facilities, reasonably easy highway access and is in a reasonably safe area while Exchange Place is close to downtown the major problems with Exchange Place are that it is not on the main line and trains 48 and 49 do not serve it and it is in a rather dangerous area especially after dark. I just read somewhere that the folks in Buffalo are not happy with the facilities at Exchange Street, well maybe if they don't like it they should come up with some help to either improve it or replace it. Please don't try to tell me that they should go back to Central Terminal, they would be going right back to where they were 30 plus years ago with a huge overhead expense.
In the case of Richmond it is a shame that they closed the old Broad Street Station which could be accessed rather easily by north - south trains. I am not sure how they would have made out with trying to run a through train to Newport News that way but it was a good facility with ample track capacity. It would have been very adequate for today's passenger traffic levels in and out of Richmond. One thing holding up Main Street is the problem of track access for north - south traffic.
Another example although everything is gone today was Portland, Maine which had a nice decent facility back in the 1950's when there was plenty of passenger traffic to justify its existence. Once the trains came off on the Maine Central and the Boston and Maine (thanks to McGinnis) traffic was reduced to a few Budd Cars a day the passenger traffic did not justify that facility but they sure could have used it today.
Noel Weaver
 #1340863  by The EGE
 
Here in the Northeast, we're lucky that a number of our Union Stations have made it this far. Grand Central, New Haven, New London, Hartford, and South Station are all in full railroad use; Worcester, Framingham, Providence, and Northampton are redeveloped by clients that have preserved their railroad history and sometimes use, and Springfield is being restored after all the years as commuter rail service is closing in. The only truly sad losses are Pittsfield (a near twin of Springfield), Portland, and thew New Hampshire trio.
 #1340897  by Greg Moore
 
To give another point of comparison, Albany has I believe 26 trains a day and will be fine with 4 tracks (once the 4th is built).

And is much smaller than Buffalo was and smaller than others. It seems to do OK.
 #1340902  by Bob Roberts
 
The flip side of this discussion is about the cities that had appropriately sized stations back in the salad days of rail but tore them down and are now saddled with amshacks built during rail's dark ages.

Charlotte comes to mind. We once had a beautiful station downtown (where a new and very expensive station is now being discussed and delayed) http://www.pwrr.org/nstation/sjpgs/CharlotteSRPC.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Unfortuntely the rapidly declining and poorly designed station that replaced it is neither well located or well suited to the growing demands of contemporary rail.

I huess they real question is what should a modern rail station look like? I certainly love WUS every time I am there (execpt Amtrak's silly boarding process), but I generally hate every minute I spend in NYP or CUS. The Berlin Hopbahnhof is nice while being modern. Smaller stations like the new station in Durham (in an old tobacco warehouse) or the refurbished station in Greensboro can be great. Perhaps its all about design, its possoble that Buffalo and Michigan Central station have too many flaws (including location and size) to ever be appropriately reused?

Edit: the Charlotte station was razed when the tracks were grade seperated through downtown (an important improvement for the city).
 #1340913  by mtuandrew
 
St. Paul Union Depot is far too large for Amtrak as it stands. It's even overbuilt for 4x/daily MSP-Chicago plus 2x/daily MSP-Duluth plus 2x/Daily MSP-GFK-Winnipeg plus 1x/daily MSP-Des Moines-KCY, and could handle commuter rail above and beyond. I'm glad RCRRA redid the place, it's a great anchor for Lowertown St. Paul development, but it's going to be cavernous for a while. I wish Minneapolis still had rail access to their Milwaukee Road depot, since that would be the right size for LD + regional + commuter action.

That said, the busiest stations - WAS, CHI, NYP - are getting to the point of being inadequate for their passenger throughput. Washington Union Station is beautiful and has gorgeous (overpriced) shops, but there isn't enough passenger waiting room for Amtrak alone. Add in VRE, MARC, Metro, and the intercity buses out back, and the place becomes a mess at rush times. I can't blame Amtrak for favoring retail over passengers in its current envelope, since those shops are bringing in $$$$$ to offset passenger fares, but it's time to expand the envelope. (And we all know that CHI is a disgrace and NYP is a disaster.)

As for trains themselves, what kind of facilities did IC have at Central Station? They must have been able to scoot those trains right back out of the platforms, rather than have them cool their heels there like Amtrak often has to do.
 #1340921  by edbear
 
In today's Amtrak environment, most huge stations are not necessary. St. Louis, Kansas City, Cincinnati and some others were major transfer stations. For those of you who collect timetables, look at St. Louis, early 1950s. The Frisco had a train each from Oklahoma, Texas and Memphis all arriving within minutes of each other, Mopac, two trains from KC and the two section Sunshine Special, Wabash, GM&O and IC night trains from Chicago, PRR, B & O and NYC morning arrivals from the East. The trains from Texas and Oklahoma delivered passengers to IC, WAB, GM&O, PRR, B & O and NYC for points East. In short there was a huge amount of activity confined to a relatively short time frame (repeated late afternoon) including shunting some of those through cars from the Frisco and Mopac to Chicago, New York & Washington. Until you get quite a bit more Amtrak activity, you won't need a 46 track (?) terminal for a while. Besides the roads I cited, there were many more using St. Louis. Check Cincinnati and Kansas City. Lots of activity and short time window. Many smaller terminals could handle St. Louis type train volumes. Buffalo Central was pretty much a one railroad operation (PRR utilized it too) but NYC made up a lot of trains there with connecting passengers off the Lake Shore, Michigan Central and TH & B all channeled onto one train heading East. Location probably did not matter much at the time of construction as large number of users were not leaving the premises, just passing through.
 #1341043  by ExCon90
 
Quite a few years ago Trains Magazine (I don't have the back issues) did a story on one night at Buffalo Central Terminal, complete with a diagram of all through cars arriving and leaving, and on which trains; it seems that apart from the Century and a few others, hardly a train left Buffalo with the same consist it had when it arrived. Customarily as soon as a train arrived it would be attacked by switchers at both ends and would leave in maybe 15 or 20 minutes with its consist completely rearranged (imagine having to protect connections if even one train was late). This happened nightly, in midsummer and in a howling blizzard. We're not going to see another station with that kind of workload.
 #1341056  by bdawe
 
Two other things to note is that the grand head houses of grand stations were necessary to provide work-space for the armies of clerks that railroads once needed before CTC and computers. The other that a lot of these grand stations that stand underused and poorly sited were sited relatively late. Thus built after the window where 'build it and send lots of trains to it and they will come' was a successful business model. Here in Vancouver, the Hill System and the Canadian Northern filled in an enormous amount of real estate from False Creek when they decided to make a big entry in to Vancouver, complete with two separate, handsome terminals for the Canadian Northern and another for GN and Northern Pacific next door, trying to draw some of the core of Vancouver over towards themselves. They completed this project in the middle of the First World War, Canadian Northern went bankrupt, NP skipped town, and outside the yards, the great mass of reclaimed land grew weeds for decades (and much of it still does).
 #1341071  by mohawkrailfan
 
ExCon90 wrote:Quite a few years ago Trains Magazine (I don't have the back issues) did a story on one night at Buffalo Central Terminal, complete with a diagram of all through cars arriving and leaving, and on which trains; it seems that apart from the Century and a few others, hardly a train left Buffalo with the same consist it had when it arrived. Customarily as soon as a train arrived it would be attacked by switchers at both ends and would leave in maybe 15 or 20 minutes with its consist completely rearranged (imagine having to protect connections if even one train was late). This happened nightly, in midsummer and in a howling blizzard. We're not going to see another station with that kind of workload.
I would really, really like to see this article if anyone has a more specific reference.
 #1341075  by Tadman
 
Can't be sure but perhaps it was Classic Trains? I remember the article well and it's very useful in station discussion. It shows the need for a giant station when you have ~100 trains, each with serious consist shift. I've cited to it before in discussion of MCS, perhaps vigorous searching might find it.
 #1341126  by Desertdweller
 
Many of the larger terminals were intentionally overbuilt as examples of civic pride and as monuments to their owning railroads. We are fortunate that the remaining ones survived the 1960's and 70's, when many classic and historical buildings were demolished in the name of "urban renewal".

In the example of the Twin Cities, the survival of St. Paul Union Depot was a victory. It's survival as an office building and historic site enabled its subsequent use as a train station. AMTRAK's Midway station, a temporary stop-gap, was equally inconvenient to both cities.

The Minneapolis Milwaukee Road station, while the right size for today's traffic, is located away from the waterfront that would have provided a clear right-of way. With the supporting yards and structures gone, it would be impractical to run trains back into it.

Minneapolis Great Northern Station, a true union station, had an excellent location with rail right of way to the Hill stone bridge, and support yards north of the station (one on an island). This was flattened with the coming of AMTRAK and the debris used for fill.

Omaha UP station is now a museum. AMTRAK's request to use the lower level was rejected when they insisted on painting it red and purple. This station, although owned by UP (and the gem of their home city), was in operation a union station. The CB&Q Omaha station, just across the tracks from the UP station, was used by AMTRAK until it fell into such a state of disrepair as to be unsafe. Then AMTRAK constructed one of their minimal stations just east of the CB&Q station. Reportedly, the CB&Q station has changed hands a couple times, but has deteriorated to the point that it will be demolished. This is too bad. The CB&Q station was huge and impressive, as it had to be, considering it was so close to the massive edifice of its rival. The city of Omaha could hardly be expected to support two giant preserved station/museums next to each other.

500 miles west, Denver Union Station has been restored as a reminder of its former glory. This major terminal had been allowed to deteriorate to the point that demolition was considered. The Moffat Road station, nearby and still standing after being closed in 1949, was actually considered to be used as the Denver Station (its approach tracks were still in place). It would have been the right size at the time.

The through tracks at DUS were cut off at Cherry Creek. It was then a stub-end terminal approached from the north. Next, all the tracks serving the terminal were torn up. Another AMSHACK was built. Now the tracks are being re-installed, with the intention of using the station for both AMTRAK and heavy commuter rail.

Kansas City Union Station came very close to being demolished. It had been allowed to deteriorate to the point that rain fell in the waiting room and the place was inhabited by pigeons (and worse). Fortunately, this great station has been restored. The attitude that old buildings should be flattened no longer prevails. What KC had going for it that Denver and Omaha didn't was that it was still an important rail hub.

The stations I have mentioned are all buildings I am familiar with. I think that if stations have unused space that could be used to generate revenue, it should be used for that, providing the historical integrity of the building isn't compromised. St. Louis Union Station (a place I've never seen) is no longer a train station, but has been saved as a hotel and shopping/civic center. This is much better than its destruction.

Les
 #1341174  by MBTA3247
 
Desertdweller wrote:Omaha UP station is now a museum. AMTRAK's request to use the lower level was rejected when they insisted on painting it red and purple. This station, although owned by UP (and the gem of their home city), was in operation a union station. The CB&Q Omaha station, just across the tracks from the UP station, was used by AMTRAK until it fell into such a state of disrepair as to be unsafe. Then AMTRAK constructed one of their minimal stations just east of the CB&Q station. Reportedly, the CB&Q station has changed hands a couple times, but has deteriorated to the point that it will be demolished. This is too bad. The CB&Q station was huge and impressive, as it had to be, considering it was so close to the massive edifice of its rival. The city of Omaha could hardly be expected to support two giant preserved station/museums next to each other.
The CB&Q station has just been converted into a TV studio according to the latest issue of TRAINS.