Talk:Railway platform

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Trains Portal 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.

I'm sorry if I'm being stupid here, but in the last bullet point it says this:

for example at the Dutch stations of the DB Regionalbahn Westfalen.

- this reads (to me) like a mistake, insofar as DB Regionalbahn Westfalen is clearly a German undertaking, but maybe it runs on into Holland or something?? It didn't look like it from their website but ... anyway, I'm not planning to change anything without discussion - I'd just like enlightening!

It runs mainly in Germany, I refer to Enschede and 2 more stations in the Netherlands between Enschede and Gronau. There are 2 types of trains running here, the modern one has floors lower than the platforms. http://www.muenster.org/asm/enschede.htm Patrick 00:33 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

Ah! Nice one - thanks for the explanation, and for putting the Enschede link into the article, which should prevent future confusion about this! :) Nevilley 08:22 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

Contents 1 Reworking 2 Illustration 3 Examples 4 Island platforms

[edit] Reworking

I should have added to the talk page here detailing my changes. Essentially, I kept most of the content, but reworked it heavily, rewriting some parts and creating proper sections. Comments/edits welcome! Zoney 11:50, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Illustration

The Japanese Wikipedia has quite an illustration.

After careful study, and a bit of babel-fishing - I would say there are too many specific types shown - covering all situations as relevant to Japan. Practices differ in countries around the world. I'll do up a diagram showing the "simple" or "standard" cases for island, bay and through platforms, without getting into train directions, single/double tracks (as the Japanese version does). Zoney 11:39, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Examples

What is the point of the Amsterdam example? It doesn't elucidate anything on the topic of railway platforms, only how many there are at one particular station. IMHO I would do away with it. TPK 08:57, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It illustrates three platform situations, with 2, 3 and 4 boarding areas per platform. Also it illustrates track numbering. Please add more examples.--Patrick 09:47, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would prefer not to have it. It will most likely develop into another useless boring list. If/when that happens, I will be moving it to a sub-page. We don't want a situation like at train station where it got to the stage of half the article being taken up by lists.

As regards the usefulness of the specific example? It's of no use whatsoever. It doesn't "illustrate" three platform situations. That's been discussed generically earlier in the article. All it does is explain what is present at Amsterdam. It will only encourage more useless "examples".

Zoney 09:58, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That is the whole idea of an example, that it comes in addition to what has been discussed generically earlier in the article. Unfortunately, a deep link to the image does not seem possible. Anyway, let's see your promised diagrams.--Patrick 10:27, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'll most likely get around to diagrams at the weekend (unless I'm busy). Zoney 10:31, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Island platforms

<<Limerick Junction, in County Tipperary, Ireland, is a station consisting solely of an island platform – hosting two through and two bay platforms, as well as the station building – all entirely surrounded by track.>>

This implies that Limerick is a notable exception to the rule, which I feel is misleading. In Australia, while there would be a greater number of non-island platforms or multiple-platform stations (i.e. more than two platforms), stations that comprise a single island platform are not at all uncommon.

<<Usually "platform" numbering is actually a numbering of the tracks in the station (hence one island platform may have several numbered "platforms"). In some case, tracks without platform access, used for through traffic, also have a number. This number may not be indicated, but it shows indirectly by the fact that in the numbering of the accessible tracks a number is skipped.

Track numbers are usually increasing in the direction away from the center of the city and hence away from the main entrance(s) of the station.>>

This is just simply wrong for Victoria, Australia (at least). Historically platform numbers and track numbers have often aligned, except where there were non-platform tracks, in which case they either didn't align, or the non-platform tracks were given "numbers" such as 1A. That is, platform numbers were never skipped.

Historically, platforms were numbered beginning from the main platform, but that platform may or may not have been on the up side. In more recent times, platforms in Melbourne have been renumbered so that No. 1 is the up side platform.

I propose that all the above wording be removed from the article.
Philip J. Rayment 04:12, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is this phrase not still applicable though, the distinction between physical and logical platforms? Usually "platform" numbering is actually a numbering of the tracks in the station (hence one island platform may have several numbered "platforms").

I am happy to remove the rest of that text.

Limerick Junction was given as an example, because, a) common or not it is plain odd to have to access the station via footbridge and b) it wouldn't be at all common here, or I believe in Britain. The stations you speak of in Australia, are they entirely surrounded by track also? zoney ♣ talk 07:57, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I overlooked that bit in parentheses. But no, the first bit (Usually "platform" numbering is actually a numbering of the tracks in the station) should go. Instead, how about Usually platform numbering applies to the platform "faces", so an island platform counts as two platforms for numbering purposes.?

<<common or not it is plain odd to have to access the station via footbridge>>

No, not at all.

<<The stations you speak of in Australia, are they entirely surrounded by track also?>>

Yes.

See [1] for track and platform layouts for the Melbourne suburban electrified area (be aware that sections that are common to two or more lines are repeated in these diagrams).

Stations to note are

• Richmond has five island platforms. The station buildings are below platform level.
• Belgrave is a dead end, but the main pedestrian access is via a footbridge.
• Access to quite a few of the island platforms is via a level crossing. Some island platforms are not at ground level, so a subway (tunnel) or footbridge is an obvious means of access.
• On the three-track sections on the Lilydale/Belgrave and Frankston lines, in most cases the island platform is the "main" platform.
• The linked diagrams don't show the underground loop. It comprises three stations, each of which has two island platforms, one above the other.

Philip J. Rayment 15:06, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've reworked/cut back the relevant sections to take your points on board. I've left LJ as an example (another could be found if there's a better reason to use it, or we could leave out an example). I've also left the "In some cases, tracks without platform access, used for through traffic, also have a number." as that is a relevant observation, even if not usually applicable in Australia :-) Hope the changes are sufficient. zoney ♣ talk 17:27, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)