The 3 Types of Cities Perspective 2- Central Rail Stations

In a previous post, I wrote about the three different types of cities from the stand point of roads and driving. This post is about the three different types of cities from a different perspective. (It’s funny how the rule of threes unintentionally applies to real life). Anyways. This post’s is about the three types of cities from a rail perspective, and a c. Obviously, this post assumes that your city has a significant rail network. If your city has no rail network, or only a couple of lines, this will not apply to your city.

The first type of city is a city where there is a combined central station for local trains and long distance trans. (A central station in this context is a station where all our most of the rail lines meet). A perfect example of a city with a combined central station for local and long-distance trains is my home city of Sydney, Australia. At the appropriately named Central Station, most, not all, but most of the rail lines which serve the city of Sydney, as well as the trains which serve most of regional New South Wales (the state in which Sydney is located) and interstate services meet at Central Station. This makes it extremely easy for anyone to switch from any long distance service to almost any short distance service with ease. You can travel from almost any train station in Sydney to Central, and then board almost any regional rail service, or vice versa. Alternatively, you can switch from almost any rail service to almost any local rail service, or any regional/interstate rail service to any regional/interstate rail service all at Central. Easy and convenient! Other examples of such cities include, but not limited to Toronto, Canada, (where most local, provincial, national and even international trains meet at Union Station), and Los Angles, USA, with their Union Station.

The next type of rail network is one with two central stations. One for local trains and one for long distance trains. Examples of these types of cities include, but are not limited to New York City, USA, where all local trains meet at Grand Central station, and all long distance trains meet at Pennsylvania station. Another example is Adelaide, Australia, where all local trains meet at Adelaide station and all long distance trains meet at Parklands station. This is the worst system in my opinion, because it makes transitioning between local trains and long distance trains unnecessarily difficult.

The final system is one where there is no central station for local trains. Examples include, but aren’t limited to, Athens, Greece, Singapore and Hong Kong. (These include Larissa Station in Athens, long distance/international lines will meet at a single rail station, but local trains will not. Whilst this makes it difficult to transfer between local rail lines. The advantage of this system is that rail lines can operate wherever they need to operate, rather than having to run through a centralised point.

Then there are hybrid systems. For example, Brisbane and Melbourne, Australia. Brisbane’s central station is the central station for local services, however, most local lines also meet at the city’s long distance station, Roma Street, making transitions between local and long distance trains at Roma Street, as well as between local trains and between long distance trains. The same applies to Melbourne, where the main station for local trains is Flinders Street, but almost all local trains also run through the city’s long distance station of Spencer Street. Also, the aforementioned Los Angles isn’t exactly perfect with its central station, as there a non-negligible number of rail stations can’t be accessed by a direct train from Union station, and it’s quite possible that Sydney will eventually build more rail lines which don’t run through Central station in an attempt to decentralise the rail network