Talk:Cross-platform interchange

Untitled

Added a picture of an interchange in London. I think personally it is more representative of a cross-platform interchange than the Montreal picture which is confusing at first glance. The london picture is straightforward and grasps the article matter fully. Architect2k 22:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The poly-cross-platform interchange system in Hong Kong MTR

File:Mtr-interchange.png

With 2 (or more) continuous cross-platform interchange stations serving 2 different lines, a more complicated but communter-convenient interchange system has been introduced to Hong Kong MTR. The system was firstly applied in 1982, this involved 3 continuous interchange stations (technically 2), Prince Edward, Mong Kok and Yau Ma Tei of both Tsuen Wan Line and Kwun Tong Line.

Prince Edward and Mong Kok stations basically form a 3-directional cross-platform interchanges. In this case, the Kwun Tong Line plays the role as a branch to the eastern Kowloon district. Passengers only need to follow the announcement in the car and choose their suitable CPI, so they don't have to change the train by crossing stair/escalator/lift to the platform at different level.

This system has been reused in the connection between Tseung Kwan O Line with Kwun Tong Line (branch) within the stations of Yau Tong and Tiu Keng Leng

-- Sameboat 17:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Oxford Circus not the best example in London

Oxford Circus is perhaps not the best example in London; although the platforms on the Victoria and Bakerloo are parallel and close, they're not a single platform. At Mile End there's a pair of single platforms with two faces each, an excellent example. Many of the District / Piccadilly stations are like this too, as is Finchley Road, and there are plenty of examples on the National Rail network south of the river.

Hmm. Thinking about it, this is probably just a manifestation of the different constraints on building deep-level and surface or subsurface stations; Oxford Circus is deep, as are Finsbury Park and Highbury & Islington, which are of similar layout, whereas Mile End, Finchley Road and the District / Piccadilly and National Rail stations are on or near the surface. I can't think of a deep-level station with what i would consider 'true' cross-platform interchange.

The reason i draw a distinction between the two is that in a pair-of-platforms style interchange, passengers still have to crowd through passageways to get from one line to the other, whereas on a single-platform design, they can simply walk straight across.

So, essentially, ignore me.

-- Tom Anderson 2006-11-25 01:10 +0000

I think this is even more deliberate. Island platforms are especially prone to overcrowding, particularly when both trains pull up at the same time. This can be potentially dangerous at peak hours, particularly at deep levels where it takes time to clear the platform. Having a wider gap between the two tracks that allows for corridors makes it easier to disperse the passengers quickly and a corridor arrangement limits the number flowing onto the other platform. Off the top of my head the only deep level island platforms still used are Clapham North and Clapham Common and both of these are incredibly narrow and almost scary at peak hours. Similar platforms at Euston and Angel were both replaced by more conventional arrangements when passenger numbers grew. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No I won't ignore you Tom. I agree. I have changed the bit on LU somewhat to deal with this point and the point was also make in a least one book (The Story of the Victoria Line by John R Day if I remember correctly). A bigger problem for me is where do you stop. Do we mention Stratford (Central line and National rail) as a special case ?--Pedantic of Purley (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed that there is a picture of Stratford. So thats good--Pedantic of Purley (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Boston's North Station

Boston's North Station has a single platform from which one can board a southbound Orange Line train on one track and a southbound Green Line train from the other track. From the article text, I'm not really sure whether that makes it an example of a cross-platform interchange; clearly a southbound passenger on one line can transfer to the other line without using stairs etc, but the article doesn't make clear whether that's sufficient to qualify as a cross-platform interchange. JNW2 (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have changed some minor phrase in the article so that CPI isn't island platform exclusive. By following WP editor guideline this article is lacking citation. But I doubt that there're any public sources about CPI we may refer to. So I try to write only the observable fact in this article. That 2 platforms in North Station may resemble to the Tai Wai Station in Hong Kong I guess. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Separation of sections?

Although I have to admit that I feel elated that NYC has its own special section, it does not seem fair to the other cities mentioned in this article. Shall city-specific section titles be added? -Herenthere (Talk) 19:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sydney

Cross platform interchange is also available on Cityrail in Sydney at Central and Town Hall, though it isn't really obvious, and you need to plan your journey properly to use it.

For example, to go from Parramatta to the airport, you would arrive at platform 16 in Central and could walk across to platform 17. The train at platform 17 will take you round the city circle, back to Central platform 23 and then to the airport. You could change directly to platform 23 at Central, but there are stairs or slow lifts to negotiate. Unless you want to get sweaty before your flight, by the time you get to platform 23, the next train will be the one that left platform 17 anyway - because it takes 15 mins to go round the city circle, and there are 4 trains per hour. (However, because they broke down the green line into two lines on the map but not in reality, the train you catch from platform 17 will have its destination as Museum, and at Museum you would need to stick your head outside the doors to make sure it became an Airport and not a Bankstown train - in which case you would get off at Museum and get the next train from the same platform [i.e., there should be 8tph from platform 17 at central]).

On the way back, you could go round the circle from your airport train, arriving at Town Hall platform 1, then walk across to platform 2 to get the yellow line to P'matta. (From personal experience.) Now, can some railway buff with more time on their hands work out how to incorporate this into the article without seeming like OR? 94.173.122.171 (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Images

I recently removed two images: [1] [2], but it was reverted. Both the images I removed were at conventional rail train stations, which exhibit a "cross-platform interchange" configuration... for basically every platform. If you include them, this article would be non-notable since almost every station in the world would qualify. Commuter rail is conventional rail, not a metro. I realize that the photos depict a transfer from the metro to conventional rail line, but that's still a very different concept than what this article seems to be going for: a quick rapid transit transfer configuration, not a conventional rail to rapid transit transfer. Thoughts? Thanks! -Multivariable (talk) 05:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is linked from the {{Railway track layouts}} template and as such needs to have it's focus broadened from metro/rapid transit only to a universal application. You are correct that many railway stations (both mainline and commuter) have cross-platform interchanges, quick examples include Trenton Transit Center, New Jersey and Jamaica (LIRR station), New York City stations. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

If the scope of this article is to be expanded to all stations, then I don't see the point of this article anymore; it would occur with any island platform configuration and would merely be a characteristic rather than anything noteworthy. By the way, are rapid transit/metro track layouts not considered a type railway track layout?

The point of this term lies in the fact that metro/rapid transit systems have set routes, track usage, stops, and time intervals that rarely change, if at all. They have their own right-of-way and exclusive platform usage, which means "cross-platform interchange" serves a single purpose: transfer between two specified lines in a specified travel direction. Contrast that with normal train stations, where every single island platform configuration would count if you don't add the exclusivity or single-purpose requirement. How would this article be any different from an island platform configuration then?

If anything, I may have been a bit hasty in image removal. If commuter rail lines have a set platform usage, then it should be fine as well. Also, if the first usage of the phrase was with the London Underground (in circa 1959) (see Google Books Results), then it clearly did/does not apply to all conventional rail stations. Thoughts? Thanks! Multivariable (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cross-platform interchange. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140424171235/http://www.chengdu.gov.cn/special/yitihua/detail.jsp?id=277890 to http://www.chengdu.gov.cn/special/yitihua/detail.jsp?id=277890
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cnhubei.com/news/ctdsb/ctdsbsgk/ctdsb25/200805/t325004.shtml
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://cjmp.cnhan.com/cjrb/html/2011-12/17/content_4936326.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cross-platform interchange. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111130133506/http://gleisplanweb.bplaced.net/index.htm to http://gleisplanweb.bplaced.net/index.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20121206001321/http://cjmp.cnhan.com/cjrb/html/2011-12/17/content_4936326.htm to http://cjmp.cnhan.com/cjrb/html/2011-12/17/content_4936326.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Train fancruft

This article has become a numbing enumeration instead of simply informing the reader of what cross-platform exchange is. EEng 19:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@EEng: WP:SOFIXIT, I suppose (since no one has bothered to do that yet). The article could reasonably be whittled down to about five varied examples to show the earliest uses and most different variations, as with some other rail infrastructure articles like Spanish solution. Jc86035 (talk) 13:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I lack the energy to take the lead, but I'll be happy to help. EEng 15:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

It's getting worse -- a numbing recitation of station after station after station. EEng 02:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Separation by continent/geographic region

The list is getting longer and longer. I think it would be best to at least group cities by country or continent to organize what is a growing list. In particular, new Chinese systems are incorporating cross-platform interchanges into their networks at such a rate that it seems wise to group them together. In fact, so many of them use the same forms of cross-platform interchange (same direction or opposite direction) that it might be advisable to not even have subsections for each city and simply mention the cities.

Of course more interesting examples like those in Taipei and Hong Kong should maintain their own sections since those examples are complex and/or pioneering.

What do you all think? ----Sparen (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@SparenofIria: Similar to what RoySmith did to Spanish solution, I think it would be more appropriate to delete all unsourced examples, since the list currently seems to comprise almost every rapid transit or commuter rail station with two lines on separate tracks meeting at a platform. It's absolutely unnecessary and most of the examples aren't significant, especially since newer stations tend to have cross-platform interchange wherever it's feasible. Jc86035 (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)