Timeline for Why does Paris have two large train stations next to each other? (Gare du Nord, Gare de l'Est)
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 8, 2018 at 16:20 | comment | added | xuq01 | Similarly, Nagoya, Japan has three intercity terminuses right next to each other, because they were built by (and still belong to) three different railroad companies. More confusingly, all of them are named "Nagoya" (but commonly referred to as "(JR) Nagoya", "Meitetsu-Nagoya" and "Kintetsu-Nagoya", respectively, after the operating railroad companies). OTOH, JR West opened the JR Tozai Line in 1997 and wanted it to go through Osaka's terminus, Osaka Station, but probably due to the orientation of the railways, they had to open a new station (Kitashinchi) right next to Osaka Station :-D | |
| Apr 18, 2018 at 17:00 | comment | added | David Richerby | (And, to be clear, I'm not disputing that France is very Paris-centric; just that this map really shows it.) | |
| Apr 18, 2018 at 17:00 | comment | added | David Richerby | @Cascabel The map doesn't claim direct trains: it just says "areas served". And if you look at the actual French railway network map, it's clear that you can get from anywhere to anywhere else without actually going through Paris, as long as you're prepared to change trains enough times. So the equivalent map for any French city that has a railway station would still cover the entire country. Sure, Paris has more stations but it also has more people. | |
| Apr 18, 2018 at 16:20 | comment | added | Cascabel | @DavidRicherby How many other cities in France have 7 railway terminuses and direct routes to all of the rest of France? If I'm understanding right these are actually terminuses, i.e. there is no train that goes from the north, through Paris, and on to the south, and if that were the case in many more places things wouldn't be very well-connected. | |
| Apr 17, 2018 at 21:54 | comment | added | Moshe Katz | @Sean that doesn't change the fact that a "Union" station was created to unify the operations of what had originally been separate entities with separate stations. | |
| Apr 17, 2018 at 19:07 | comment | added | Vikki | And they only built a union station because, by 1893, one of the four major railroads coming into Boston from the north had absorbed two of the other three and wanted to unify its operations on the three trunklines; having one union station instead of three separate stations (since the fourth railroad also joined in on the plan) would cut station-associated costs, free up space on Causeway Street, and improve operational flexibility (by removing the need to send rolling stock way out along the lines in order to move it from one trunkline to another). (2/2) | |
| Apr 17, 2018 at 19:01 | comment | added | Vikki | @MosheKatz: Actually, in many cases, they did originally build their own separate stations right next to one another, hence the need to distinguish the later shared stations as union stations. In Boston, for instance, until North Union Station (the first incarnation of North Station) was built in 1893, there were three separate train stations on Causeway Street, literally right next to one another. (1/1) | |
| Apr 16, 2018 at 17:18 | comment | added | Konrad Rudolph | @PatriciaShanahan It still very much is. The separation isn’t perfect but it still exists. | |
| S Apr 16, 2018 at 14:06 | history | suggested | CommunityBot | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
removed a word 'user' which was too much
|
| Apr 16, 2018 at 12:34 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Apr 16, 2018 at 14:06 | |||||
| Apr 16, 2018 at 1:30 | comment | added | Moshe Katz | Similar (but in the end, opposite) historical reasons are why the main train stations in many American cities are called "Union Station" - such as in DC - because instead of each train company building its own right next to each other, they all shared a single station built as a partnership, or "union". | |
| Apr 16, 2018 at 0:11 | comment | added | smci | Ah, capitalism en France | |
| Apr 15, 2018 at 23:37 | comment | added | Ed999 | Historically, if you were starting from London and caught the boat-train from Victoria, you would arrive in Paris at the Gar du Nord, which was as far south as the service ran, and it was then a real pain getting to the Gar de Lyon to change trains for a connection to the Riviera. | |
| Apr 15, 2018 at 22:42 | vote | accept | einpoklum | ||
| Apr 15, 2018 at 21:57 | comment | added | Patricia Shanahan | Similarly, St. Pancras was the London terminus for the Midland Railway, and Kings Cross was the London terminus for the Great Northern Railway. | |
| Apr 15, 2018 at 20:39 | history | answered | Hedgehog | CC BY-SA 3.0 |