Stations that need their exits or footbridges removed or altered

 
  Toddles177 Station Staff

Location: Banned
I went past Casula Railway Station yesterday and saw the station has a footbridge over the two platforms when there is a road crossing at the end of the southern end of the platform. It made me consider what other stations have these unecessary structures built.

From the top of my memory, Granville railway station has a footbridge that only connects the 4 platforms at the Eastern end: considering there is an exit footbridge of the western end of the platform.

Also the Sprint platform footbridge at Lidcombe Railway Station could also be removed considering it also has an exit footbridge that connects Platform 1 (where you walk up to the sprint platform to Olympic Park) to the rest of the platforms.

There is a railway station up in Newcastle called Hamilton that also has a footbridge when there is a road crossing at the end of the platform as well.

Any others?

Sponsored advertisement

  Kurmudgeon Junior Train Controller

The Granville and Lidcombe non-exit foot bridges seem to get a lot of use (particularly in peak times (especially when problems cause a train to terminate at either and passengers need to go to another platform to get a different service)). I see no reason to go through the expense and disruption of removing them.
  Kamz Assistant Commissioner

From the top of my memory, Granville railway station has a footbridge that only connects the 4 platforms at the Eastern end: considering there is an exit footbridge of the western end of the platform.
Toddles177
Hornsby has a similar setup.
  Raichase Captain Rant!

Location: Sydney, NSW
I went past Casula Railway Station yesterday and saw the station has a footbridge over the two platforms when there is a road crossing at the end of the southern end of the platform. It made me consider what other stations have these unecessary structures built.
Toddles177
If you'd actually stopped to look at this supposedly "unnecessary" footbridge, you would have noticed that the level crossing is not in use and has been closed. It only remains as a means of getting hi-rail type vehicles on and off the tracks.

From a public safety perspective, better to have people cross at an "unnecessary" footbridge than a level crossing, no matter how many bells and lights it has. Just visit Melbourne, where they have many level crossing related incidents each year, some of them fatal.

From the top of my memory, Granville railway station has a footbridge that only connects the 4 platforms at the Eastern end: considering there is an exit footbridge of the western end of the platform.
Somebody

Perhaps you should visit Granville in peak hour, when people are changing from western line trains to south line trains and vice versa. Having an additional footbridge reduces crowding on the entry/exit stairs at the country end of the platform. This prevents incidents when people charging down stairs to catch a train knock people trying to climb the stairs.

Also the Sprint platform footbridge at Lidcombe Railway Station could also be removed considering it also has an exit footbridge that connects Platform 1 (where you walk up to the sprint platform to Olympic Park) to the rest of the platforms.
Somebody

I'm glad YOU approve of the demolition of this footbridge. If you'd actually engaged common sense when posting this, you would know that during major events, large numbers of passengers want to transfer from the Sprint Platform to Platform 4 to catch West/Bankstown/South Line services. Forcing them to walk all the way to the country end would just create overcrowding and congestion.

There is a railway station up in Newcastle called Hamilton that also has a footbridge when there is a road crossing at the end of the platform as well.
Somebody

Ever consider that this is to allow people to cross the tracks without having to wait for the level crossing to cease? Hamilton is an interchange between Hunter Valley and Central Coast line services, and it is important to provide an option to allow people to change platforms when changing trains.

I don't know your rationale for removing these supposedly unnecessary footbridges, but you'd best actually VISIT the locations concerned before running off on a crusade like this. Do people just not think before posting, or what?
  awsgc24 Minister for Railways

Location: Sydney
The Granville and Lidcombe non-exit foot bridges seem to get a lot of use (particularly in peak times (especially when problems cause a train to terminate at either and passengers need to go to another platform to get a different service)). I see no reason to go through the expense and disruption of removing them.
Kurmudgeon

The extra Granville and Lidcombe footbridges were installed for the 2000 Olympics. They have been retained at these busy stations because they are still useful.

It is noted that in both case, the ordinary footbridge is not in the centre of the platform which would tend to reduce walking distances when changing platforms.

An extra Olympic footbridge at Concord West was removed after the Olympics. Passengers to the Olympics from the Northern line were expected to walk to Olympic Park. This footbridge has no lasting value.

Temporary footbridges were installed at Turramurra and Sydenham to allow the existing footbridge to be knocked down for reconstruction, including provision of lifts. These temporary footbridges have now gone.

An interesting question is whether these temporary footbridges are standard enough to be reusable elsewhere.

At Newtown, the new stairs and lift is in the middle of the platform, where the narrow platform is at is widest. The old stairs have been retained as an emergency exist.

Parramatta is a very busy station and has two sets of subways.

Chatswood and St Leonards have normal lifts, stairs and escalators, but they also have 2 and 1 respectively emergency exits leading who-knows-where located at the end(s) of the platforms.

Bankstown is a busy station, but the stairs are located right at the end of the island platform, which is less than idea.
  awsgc24 Minister for Railways

Location: Sydney
There is a railway station up in Newcastle called Hamilton that also has a footbridge when there is a road crossing at the end of the platform as well.
Somebody

There used to be four tracks at Hamilton, and it would be possible to rearrange things to create an island platform which would simplify interchange between Sydney and Maitland trains.

You would of course need a footbridge to reach the island platform.
  Toddles177 Station Staff

Location: Banned
If you'd actually stopped to look at this supposedly "unnecessary" footbridge, you would have noticed that the level crossing is not in use and has been closed. It only remains as a means of getting hi-rail type vehicles on and off the tracks.

Hi Raichase. I don't go by Casula that often. It was just an observation. Not every person in Sydney has the knowledge of the closure of the level crossing there.

From a public safety perspective, better to have people cross at an "unnecessary" footbridge than a level crossing, no matter how many bells and lights it has. Just visit Melbourne, where they have many level crossing related incidents each year, some of them fatal.


Perhaps you should visit Granville in peak hour, when people are changing from western line trains to south line trains and vice versa. Having an additional footbridge reduces crowding on the entry/exit stairs at the country end of the platform. This prevents incidents when people charging down stairs to catch a train knock people trying to climb the stairs.

I have been to Granville in peak hour. I have waited for a train many times and haven't seen much patronage across that footbridge.


I'm glad YOU approve of the demolition of this footbridge. If you'd actually engaged common sense when posting this, you would know that during major events, large numbers of passengers want to transfer from the Sprint Platform to Platform 4 to catch West/Bankstown/South Line services. Forcing them to walk all the way to the country end would just create overcrowding and congestion.

I do understand the point about Olympic Park but at the same time, three different services operate on this line from the city and stop at many stations along the way. So for example, Strathfield. It has one exit/entrance to the platforms (from two ramps). Or Burwood (though there are limited Western services that stop here). Assuming that passengers don't just board the services they need to get on (e.g I usually get a Western Line train so I don't need to get on a Bankstown train. Or those that need to get off at Newtown wouldn't catch a Western train because it rushes past it. They would get an Inner West line train.) from stations in or near the city, they can easily change at Strathfield. It's more convenient.

And to rush back to the point of Olympic Park... it'd make more sense to have trains run from Central (Intercity platforms) to Olympic Park or have the Carlingford line train go to Olympic Park (passengers change at Clyde).

Ever consider that this is to allow people to cross the tracks without having to wait for the level crossing to cease? Hamilton is an interchange between Hunter Valley and Central Coast line services, and it is important to provide an option to allow people to change platforms when changing trains.

Then why can't they also have many Hunter trains terminate at Broadmeadow?

I don't know your rationale for removing these supposedly unnecessary footbridges, but you'd best actually VISIT the locations concerned before running off on a crusade like this. Do people just not think before posting, or what?

As for 'overcrowding exits', I see that point but if there is to be a second footbridge at Granville and Lidcombe, then they may as well make them an exit as well.

There's no need to be rude. I am just posting an opinion!
Raichase
  Raichase Captain Rant!

Location: Sydney, NSW
As expected the "he disagrees with me, therefore he's being rude" card is played.

There's nothing wrong with generating discussion, however to just state outright that these footbridges are "pointless and need to be removed" is not an opinion, it is a statement of incorrect fact. Were you to remove the footbridge at Casula, for example, people would have no way to cross the tracks. That does not strike me as a superfluous footbridge by any stretch of the imagination.

Of course, this is Railpage, where the armchair experts know better than those who actually make decisions in the railways.
  Toddles177 Station Staff

Location: Banned
As expected the "he disagrees with me, therefore he's being rude" card is played.

There's nothing wrong with generating discussion, however to just state outright that these footbridges are "pointless and need to be removed" is not an opinion, it is a statement of incorrect fact. Were you to remove the footbridge at Casula, for example, people would have no way to cross the tracks. That does not strike me as a superfluous footbridge by any stretch of the imagination.

Of course, this is Railpage, where the armchair experts know better than those who actually make decisions in the railways.

It's not the matter of the "he disagrees with me, therefore he's being rude" card. People can disagree. I'm fine with it. I just felt the tone in which it was delivered was snappy. Anyway, I'm letting it go now Smile
Raichase
  Watson374 Chief Commissioner

Location: Fully reclined at the pointy end.
I just felt the tone in which it was delivered was snappy.
"Toddles177"
What, because your armchair "idea" wasn't even half-baked? These footbridges are not redundant infrastructure like you thought they were. Raichase was not being rude - he was pointing out the blindingly obvious.

The problem isn't with generating a discussion about footbridges. This is Railpage, where there have been threads about painted metal picket fences and the various marques of passenger information display. The problem arises when you assert that they are "unnecessary structures", because they really aren't.
  bernerd Junior Train Controller

Pull out a footbridge at Lidcombe just in time for it becoming a terminating point for the Bankstown Line and all passengers being required to change platforms to continue their journeys... Seems like a solid idea to me.

One could argue that the stairs at Granville may become a bit redundant with the reintroduction of the Cumberland Line... However I am not one and imagine they will continue to get a fair bit of use given the gaps between Cumbo services.
  clrks Locomotive Fireman

I don't know what you guys think, but wouldn't having additional footbridges help to spread the load more evenly, both for passengers that might be catching a train at that station, as well as passengers who might be travelling to those stations (and therefore having a positive impact on loading at other stations as well).

For one, I was sad to see the temporary footbridge at Sydenham go after the new concourse was developed. I personally think they should have made it a second footbridge to benefit interchanging passengers, much like at Lidcombe.

I have also read somewhere Redfern used to  have two footbridges. If there's any station that probably needs a second footbridge, I would say Redfern needs one. The stairs are narrow, they are located right at the front/end carriages of the train, and Redfern is a major interchange station.
  simonl Chief Commissioner

Location: Brisbane
Raichase, as bernerd said the Granville overbridge would see less use with the Cumberland line coming back, but I hardly think that amounts to a reason to knock it down.

awsgc24, the Granville footbridge pre-dates the Olympics significantly.  Correct on the Lidcombe one.

clrks, yes there was an additional footbridge beyond the west end of Redfern's platforms, but knocked down now.  I guess it wasn't safe any more.

Toddles177, what possible benefit do you see from knocking down footbridges?
  Kurmudgeon Junior Train Controller

I think Redfern's previous second footbridge has been mentioned here somewhere. I agree it needs a second one... oh, how about they take the redundant Granville, Lidcombe and Hamilton footbridges and put them at Redfern?
Redfern also needs lifts. I've seen a plan for a new concourse towards the country end of the platforms, with two sets of stairs and a lift for each platform, and four entries/exits. Perhaps another concourse at the country end, with two entries/exits, stairs and lifts, would be enough.
  MoreBurwoodTrains Beginner

Location: Los Angeles, California
I have also read somewhere Redfern used to  have two footbridges. If there's any station that probably needs a second footbridge, I would say Redfern needs one. The stairs are narrow, they are located right at the front/end carriages of the train, and Redfern is a major interchange station.
clrks
Redfern used to have an additional footbridge at the opposite end of the platforms to the current main bridge. In the 80s, I think it only used to be open in the mornings to facilitate the movement of students and staff to Sydney University which is much closer to that end of the platforms. Maybe the afternoons as well, I can't recall. The footbridge was pretty dilapidated.

It must have saved thousands of person-hours each year by saving a couple of minutes off each person's walk to the University. Given the crowding on the existing footbridge, a similar installation, maybe with an additional concourse, is needed now. The University is still there, and now there is the Australian Technology Park and Channel Seven at that Alexandria end of Redfern station.
  awsgc24 Minister for Railways

Location: Sydney
clrks, yes there was an additional footbridge beyond the west end of Redfern's platforms, but knocked down now.  I guess it wasn't safe any more.
simonl

The south end footbridge went to the now closed workshop, with a ticket office on the upper level IIRC. These stairs were very narrow because track centres are narrow. The width of this footbridge was very narrow; it wasn't a "concourse" and had no weather protection.

For the Olympics, the footbridge and stairs at the north end were rebuilt, with the concourse considerably widened. Kiosks were also removed.The dogleg path to platforms 2 & 3 were also straightened.  Future plans seem to be to build new concourse, lifts and stairs in the middle of the platform where the narrow platforms are a bit wider. Not an easy site.
  awsgc24 Minister for Railways

Location: Sydney

For one, I was sad to see the temporary footbridge at Sydenham go after the new concourse was developed. I personally think they should have made it a second footbridge to benefit interchanging passengers, much like at Lidcombe.

clrks

I think there are photos of the new Sydenham in IIRC Transit Australia magazine.

Firstly, the new concourse at Sydenham is much wider.

The stairs to P2-3 and P4-5 are very wide because these platforms are very wide.

Double stairs go to P1 and P2 since these platforms are fairly narrow.

There used to be a food kiosk on the concourse, which added to congestion on the old narrow concourse.  I am not sure if this has been replaced.

As clrks says, it would have been useful to have kept the second footbridge.
  EMD-SD45X Chief Train Controller

The south end footbridge went to the now closed workshop, with a ticket office on the upper level IIRC. These stairs were very narrow because track centres are narrow.

For the Olympics, the footbridge and stairs at the north end were rebuild, with the concourse widened. The dogleg path to platforms 2 & 3 were also straightened.  Future plans seem to be to build new concourse, lifts and stairs in the middle of the platform where the narrow platforms are a bit wider.
awsgc24

Actually the new easy access concourse will be built on the western (southern) end in years to come.
The reason the city end stairs were removed after renovations @ Sydenham was that it wasn't built to spec.
  Watson374 Chief Commissioner

Location: Fully reclined at the pointy end.
There used to be a food kiosk on the concourse, which added to congestion on the old narrow concourse.  I am not sure if this has been replaced.
"awsgc24"
The last time I was there planespotting, a couple weeks back, there was no food kiosk in the paid area; I do not believe there to be one in the unpaid area either.

That said, there's a pub right across the road.
  awsgc24 Minister for Railways

Location: Sydney
Actually the new easy access [at Redfern] concourse will be built on the western (southern) end in years to come.
EMD-SD45X

Hard to see how. The platforms are extremely narrow at the west end, worse than the city end.
  Watson374 Chief Commissioner

Location: Fully reclined at the pointy end.
Hard to see how. The platforms are extremely narrow at the west end, worse than the city end.
"awsgc24"
I really can't think of anywhere to put it besides nearer the middle, perhaps just past the platform buildings.
  awsgc24 Minister for Railways

Location: Sydney
I really can't think of anywhere to put it besides nearer the middle, perhaps just past the platform buildings.
Watson374

Redfern platforms are basically too narrow to fit decent stairs and lifts anywhere.

The only real solution is to put a new footbridge and stairs, with a wide concourse, near the middle, keep the existing stairs at the city end.

The lifts might go in the middle or the city end.

The two concourses would be connected together, so that you can use the central stairs, and the city end exits.

Redfern used to have some food kiosks/newagents but these were removed at the time of the changes for the Olympics in 2000.
  TheLoneGunMan Assistant Commissioner

Location: At NF88.7 taking pictures
Hi All,

Ultimately, this discussion was started by someone who doesn't get around much and doesn't get the scope of passenger traffic volumes that use these footbridges. I've used the second footbridge at Lidcombe & having that indicator board up the top makes it a very useful footbridge when comparing train times when trying to get from Lidcombe to the City or Strathfield for a north connection. Hamilton is a useful footbridge when changing from a Sydney service to a Hunter service & vice versa when the crossing gates are down. I think that there should be more footbridges/underpasses in the network to eliminate the human vs train factor with level crossings, but in some cases, that's not possible. I'm not here to burst someones bubble, just stating the fact that these footbridges are useful besides collecting graffiti (Casula).

TLGM
  RatholeTunnel Locomotive Driver

Location: Sydney Area
Rooty Hill needs lifts. Mt Druitt needs access changes to speed pedestrian flow as its slow during busy times.
  TheLoneGunMan Assistant Commissioner

Location: At NF88.7 taking pictures
Hi All,

I agree there, but logically, "if" a station has ramps from street level, shouldn't it have ramps to the platforms as well? That takes in a lot of stations on the Western Line Rooty Hill, Doonside, Toongabbie, Pendle Hill & Wentworthville. But seriously, the worst "easy access" station that comes to mind is Hurstville. It has the smallest lifts to platform level of any easy access stations with barely enough room for 1 wheelchair & this is one of Sydney's busy stations. I'm sure that planning for Hurstville was given to planners who thought that the disabled didn't catch trains to and from Hurstville?

TLGM

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.