Why doesn't North America have train sheds / pleasant platforms?

[williamn]

I recently spent a wonderful few weeks travelling long distance in the US and Canada. I saw many wonderful old stations - Los Angeles Union, Chicago Union, Washington Union, Montreal Gare Centrale and Toronto Union. In the past I've visited Philadelphia 30th Street station and others.

What all of them have in common are beautiful (often very underused) public spaces but in each and every case the platforms are utilitarian and often depressing, the parts of the station perhaps most used by passengers have more in common with Birmingham New Street than what is promised by the grand architecture of the entrances. None have glazed train sheds like in the UK and Europe.

Why is this and was this always the case? Are the 'air rights' above stations just too valuable to leave undeveloped in the US and Canada? This said, LA and Toronto haven't been built over, but remain pretty 'meh'!

 

[AdamWW]

I recently spent a wonderful weeks travelling long distance in the US and Canada. I saw many wonderful old stations - Los Angeles Union, Chicago Union, Washington Union, Montreal Gare Centrale and Toronto Union. In the past I've visited Philadelphia 30th Street station and others.

What all of them have in common are beautiful (often very underused) public spaces but in each and every case the platforms are utilitarian and often depressing, the parts of the station perhaps most used by passengers have more in common with Birmingham New Street than what is promised by the grand architecture of the entrances. None have glazed train sheds like in the UK and Europe.

Why is this and was this always the case? Are the 'air rights' above stations just too valuable to leave undeveloped in the US and Canada? This said, LA and Toronto haven't been built over, but remain pretty 'meh'!

I have always assumed (and I'm happy to be corrected by those who actually know) that the difference is that passengers generally wait in the station building and are only allowed onto the platforms for boarding rather than waiting there.

Then again London terminii tend to work in a simliar manner and they were generally built with nice train sheds.

 

[mmh]

I have always assumed (and I'm happy to be corrected by those who actually know) that the difference is that passengers generally wait in the station building and are only allowed onto the platforms for boarding rather than waiting there.

Then again London terminii tend to work in a simliar manner and they were generally built with nice train sheds.

When the London terminuses were built they'd have been more open, e.g. with cab roads etc.

 

[Tinginys]

I have always assumed (and I'm happy to be corrected by those who actually know) that the difference is that passengers generally wait in the station building and are only allowed onto the platforms for boarding rather than waiting there.

Then again London terminii tend to work in a simliar manner and they were generally built with nice train sheds.

I think it's more to do with the general attitude and obscurity of rail travel in USA. Something that is not important and not very much used does not deserve investment and maintenance.

The situation in my native Lithuania for example is not dissimilar, station platforms are often poorly maintained and not really up to the standard of how accessible modern train station environment should be.

There simply is no understanding that these kind of things (accessibility, quality environment, amenities etc.) are important and should be present at all stations.

People who make those decisions from politicians to low level bureaucracy with everyone in-between usually don't take trains and have literally no idea what we're talking about here.

They have no idea what, say, "platform height" is and why it is important and should receive investments. Why signage and general environment are important. It's a different world to them and as a result there is no initiative or push to improve these things because why spend money on something that you have never heard of, don't understand and don't care about?

My speculation, anyway.

 

[gordonthemoron]

At least Quebec Gare du Palais and Montreal Gare Centrale have high platforms, unlike all other ones I’ve used in Canada, California and north east corridor

 

[AdamWW]

I think it's more to do with the general attitude and obscurity of rail travel in USA. Something that is not important and not very much used does not deserve investment and maintenance. Situation in my native Lithuania for example is not dissimilar, station platforms are often poorly maintained and not really up to the standard of how accessible modern train station environment should be. There simply is no understanding that these kind of things (accessibility, quality environment, amenities etc.) are important and should be present at all stations. People who make those decisions from politicians to low level bureaucracy with everyone in-between usually don't take trains and have literally no idea what we're talking about here. They have no idea what, say, "platform height" is and why it is important and should receive investments. Why signage and general environment are important. It's a different world to them and as a result there is no initiative or push to improve these things because why spend money on something that you have never heard of, don't understand and don't care about? My speculation, anyway.

I'm not saying that railways aren't under-appreciated in the US, but I don't think this is the explanation here.

I think this is just how railway stations were built in the US back when passenger rail was important, and the attitude remains.

A lot of money went into providing a nice station building for Penn Station in New York (to make up for having demolished the previous one some decades ago) but the platforms themselves remain as they were.

If you stay in a top end hotel in the US with underground parking I suspect not a lot of effort goes into making the parking garage pleasant.

 

[edwin_m]

A lot of money went into providing a nice station building for Penn Station in New York (to make up for having demolished the previous one some decades ago) but the platforms themselves remain as they were.

The original Penn station was actually one of the few covered stations where daylight filtered down to track level. When I visited in the 80s the concourse level was also horrible - the recent Moynihan hall has improved that to some extent but it's still far from ideal.

But I agree generally it's a different attitude where passengers were only let onto the platform when the train arrived or shortly before. That in turn may be to do with more inhospitable climate, or other platform hazards such as the many smaller stations where passengers had to cross another track. The way airports developed probably owed quite a bit to US rail stations.

 

[williamn]

But I agree generally it's a different attitude where passengers were only let onto the platform when the train arrived or shortly before.

This definitely feels like it’s some of the reason, though often the area you do the waiting and the queuing is also the worst bit of the station - Washington, Chicago and Toronto for example.

 

[AdamWW]

The original Penn station was actually one of the few covered stations where daylight filtered down to track level.

Indeed but I believe that was lost long before the original station building was demolished.

So even before Madison Square Garden happened the platforms would have been somewhat dismal.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

There were some with large train sheds in the European style - Philadelphia Broad Street (closed 1952), Philadelphia Reading Terminal (closed 1984, but still extant as a market ) St. Louis Union (closed 1978 but remains as shopping / entertainment complex - trains use a nearby 'Amshack').

 

[Taunton]

I recently spent a wonderful few weeks travelling long distance in the US and Canada. I saw many wonderful old stations - Los Angeles Union, Chicago Union, Washington Union, Montreal Gare Centrale and Toronto Union. In the past I've visited Philadelphia 30th Street station and others.

What all of them have in common are beautiful (often very underused) public spaces but in each and every case the platforms are utilitarian and often depressing, the parts of the station perhaps most used by passengers have more in common with Birmingham New Street than what is promised by the grand architecture of the entrances. None have glazed train sheds like in the UK and Europe.

Why is this and was this always the case? Are the 'air rights' above stations just too valuable to leave undeveloped in the US and Canada? This said, LA and Toronto haven't been built over, but remain pretty 'meh'!

Los Angeles Union hasn't been built over because the platform canopies themselves are streamlined art deco official historic structures. Yes, unusual for US stations, as the canopies, and the platform ramped entrances, were part of the whole, designed by LA architect Don Parkinson's firm, which did several other prominent LA buildings, in particular the classic City Hall.

USA stations very often were just at ground level, with street level crossings at either end (Exeter St David's, looking at you), which doesn't really suit a grand train shed. LA Union was different, during the city's great development period of the 1920s-30s, of its three main railroads each with their own station, Southern Pacific, Santa Fe and Union Pacific, the UP station burned down and the Santa Fe one was wrecked in an earthquake. The city authorities masterminded the 1940 Union Station replacement rather than the railroads, and more attention was given to design than otherwise might have.

But still the platforms are plain, though nicely and neatly so. Nobody is admitted to the terminal platforms until their train is in, so nobody waits there. I can't think of any USA station that has retail or catering facilities on the platform, as in the UK - they are all in the station building, or "head house". LA Union is indeed unusual that this is not across the tracks at the end, but along one side, hence the need for the access subway, which certainly puts similar platform access at the like of Stockport to shame.

 

[Herriot2021]

I've always suspected that it has to do with climate and operational practice. The stations were designed for the passengers to wait in the head houses (which are generally quite spacious and ornate) and only use the platforms briefly while boarding and alighting. The headhouses have been heated since they were built, which necessitates keeping them sealed from the elements.

 

[Acathater]

The USA does/did have some large trainsheds, for instance the long-abandoned Nashville Union station.
It looked in a heck of a state when I saw it in the 1990's and it has since been demolished but the ironwork looked quite impressive

Website about it at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalhistoriclandmarks/nashville-union-station-and-trainshed.htm

Couple of photos on that page, one from 1970 with the roof intact, one from later with the roof removed but the ironwork beams and trusses still intact - looks quite impressive

 

[43096]

Los Angeles Union hasn't been built over because the platform canopies themselves are streamlined art deco official historic structures. Yes, unusual for US stations, as the canopies, and the platform ramped entrances, were part of the whole, designed by LA architect Don Parkinson's firm, which did several other prominent LA buildings, in particular the classic City Hall.

I am utterly astonished at that. The platform canopies at LA remind me of 1960s Eastern European station “architecture” i.e. utterly hideous.

 

[eldomtom2]

But I agree generally it's a different attitude where passengers were only let onto the platform when the train arrived or shortly before. That in turn may be to do with more inhospitable climate, or other platform hazards such as the many smaller stations where passengers had to cross another track.

At smaller American stations you can generally wait on the platform, however.

 

[The Pelican]

Many North American "Union Stations", like Cincinnati and St Louis, were built with good access from lots of different companies serving the city, and so the station sites or their approach tracks often became important to freight operations as well as passenger services.

When suburban or regional operations were abandoned in the 1960s and 1970s, there were often many more platforms than needed. In Cincinanatti's case, this led to destruction of the distinctive overbridge during gauge clearence for double stack container transport.

Chicago or Philadelphia offer interesting examples of cities where suburban operation wasn't abandoned.

There have often been post-1980s efforts to revive public transport, either with a light rail line, a suburban commuter rail network, or an inter-city Amtrak route to the next major city, separate from the cross country trains Amtrak offers.

 

[AdamWW]

. When suburban or reigonal operations were abandoned in the 1960s and 1970s, there were often many more platforms than needed.

Not to mention almost all the longer distance services.
Even taking away regional and suburban services, Cincinatti to take an example would still have had far more than three trains a week each way.

 

[Taunton]

I am utterly astonished at that. The platform canopies at LA remind me of 1960s Eastern European station “architecture” i.e. utterly hideous.

The sheathing over the prestressed concrete frames and reinforced concrete columns is quite the thing architecturally

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/los-angeles-union-station-platform.html?blackwhite=1&sortBy=relevant

 

[43096]

The sheathing over the prestressed concrete frames and reinforced concrete columns is quite the thing architecturally

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/los-angeles-union-station-platform.html?blackwhite=1&sortBy=relevant

Nope, not getting it. It’s hideous.

 

[Shinkansenfan]

Some of us have been working on injecting a bit of European grandeur into North American stations.

I proposed a new platform canopy system inspired by Vienna's HBF (Main Station) to which a barrel vaulted mid section was grafted on. An architect is quoted in the MSN article; I'm not that person.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/4...xpand-platforms-add-atrium-canopy/ar-AA20YT9j

More information and public open house and presentation here:
https://portal.ct.gov/dot/projects/0301-0522-new-haven?language=en_US

 

[Mikey C]

I recently spent a wonderful few weeks travelling long distance in the US and Canada. I saw many wonderful old stations - Los Angeles Union, Chicago Union, Washington Union, Montreal Gare Centrale and Toronto Union. In the past I've visited Philadelphia 30th Street station and others.

What all of them have in common are beautiful (often very underused) public spaces but in each and every case the platforms are utilitarian and often depressing, the parts of the station perhaps most used by passengers have more in common with Birmingham New Street than what is promised by the grand architecture of the entrances. None have glazed train sheds like in the UK and Europe.

Why is this and was this always the case? Are the 'air rights' above stations just too valuable to leave undeveloped in the US and Canada? This said, LA and Toronto haven't been built over, but remain pretty 'meh'!

I assume Grand Central NY was designed that way from the start, with an incredible surface building, and an impressive network of underground platforms underneath.

It's true though, that the platform experience can be depressing. Leaving the lovely Chicago Union building for the dark and depressing Amtrak platforms below. More Sunderland than New Street

 

[ac6000cw]

I assume Grand Central NY was designed that way from the start, with an incredible surface building, and an impressive network of underground platforms underneath.

It was. The route into it from the north was also sunk below ground level (and electrified) to allow - very valuable - property development above it.

Los Angeles Union hasn't been built over because the platform canopies themselves are streamlined art deco official historic structures. Yes, unusual for US stations, as the canopies, and the platform ramped entrances, were part of the whole, designed by LA architect Don Parkinson's firm, which did several other prominent LA buildings, in particular the classic City Hall.

The sheathing over the prestressed concrete frames and reinforced concrete columns is quite the thing architecturally

I'm with you there - I think it's one of the nicest of the major US stations, and the clean, simple open-air platform layout with the streamlined canopies is one of its best features. Even better that it's now (AFAIK) busier than it's ever been.

 

[Taunton]

I'm with you there - I think it's one of the nicest of the major US stations, and the clean, simple open-air platform layout with the streamlined canopies is one of its best features. Even better that it's now (AFAIK) busier than it's ever been.

When I knew (and extremely occasionally used) LA Union, it was down to about six trains a day, three to San Diego and one each to Oakland, Chicago and New Orleans, all hauled by Amtrak F40s. It's had a remarkable renaissance since, in fact rail usage across the metropolitan area has. Notably the station was kept neat and tidy all through this time, unlike some other USA city stations (Detroit, looking at you ...).

 

[Western Lord]

Many North American "Union Stations", like Cincinatti and St Louis, were built with good access from lots of different companies serving the city, and so the station sites or their approach tracks often became important to freight operations as well as passenger services. When suburban or reigonal operations were abandoned in the 1960s and 1970s, there were often many more platforms than needed. In Cincinanatti's case, this led to destruction of the distinctive overbridge during gauge clearence for double stack container transport.

The "distinctive overbridge" was actually the concourse where passengers waited before descending to the platforms to board their trains, akin to an airport departure lounge. There were similar structures at other large stations. For a look at the contrast between stations in the US check out Hitchcock's North by Northwest in which Cary Grant and Eve Marie Saint travel from New York to Chicago on the 20th Century Limited. There's level boarding at Grand Central (I think they even put a special carpet down), but on arrival at Chicago La Salle St. it's low level narrow platforms and a walk alongside dirty bogies.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I have always assumed (and I'm happy to be corrected by those who actually know) that the difference is that passengers generally wait in the station building and are only allowed onto the platforms for boarding rather than waiting there.

-----------I think it's more to do with the general attitude and obscurity of rail travel in USA. Something that is not important and not very much used does not deserve investment and maintenance. ----------

Having lived in the USA for 25 years and only recently retired, I agree with both of the above.

 

[Jim the Jim]

Is some of this a result of relatively modernity? Many places (including Europe and the UK) seemed to have abandoned the idea of pleasant platforms in the 1960s - hence the likes of Euston and New Street. And this has continued with many more recent stations - I think of my journey back from the Netherlands this weekend via the depressing gloom of Delft, Antwerp Centraal and Lille Europe ...

 

[Panceltic]

I am utterly astonished at that. The platform canopies at LA remind me of 1960s Eastern European station “architecture” i.e. utterly hideous.

There's nothing remotely art deco about these structures. I share your astonishment.

 

[Acathater]

Surely part of the reason American stations don't have raised platforms is termites? Wood is the universal USA building material outside cities and any wooden platforms would rapidly become dust. All platforms had to be the same height so even stone / brick ones were at ground level

 

[AdamWW]

Surely part of the reason American stations don't have raised platforms is termites? Wood is the universal USA building material outside cities and any wooden platforms would rapidly become dust. All platforms had to be the same height so even stone / brick ones were at ground level

The design of coaches that provide for different platform heights with internal steps for low platforms and a step plate to allow access to high platforms must go back a fair way.

 

[Acathater]

The design of coaches that provide for different platform heights with internal steps for low platforms and a step plate to allow access to high platforms must go back a fair way.

True but it doesn't mean they were used