Talk:Island platform

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains: Stations Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Stations.

This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.

Testing[edit]

A[edit]

B[edit]

C[edit]

Geographically limited??[edit]

The inclusion of the "geographically limited" template on this page is, in my view, just plain daft. Island platforms are to be found wherever there are railways. In its examples the article at present mentions six countries by my count. Presumably had it not mentioned any at all it would not have attracted this absurdly misplaced template. By all means let's have more examples, but I propose deleting this silly addition to the page. -- Picapica 09:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Picapica 14:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Importance[edit]

Unless the nominator argues that railways are no longer important then this article, which expands a basic dictdef into a competent rationale, is well worthy of its place. Please remove the tag. --SockpuppetSamuelson 12:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another advantage with island platforms is where rush hour flows are into town in the morning and back at night (or in rare cases the other way round) where marginal use of duplicated facilities is avoided (the passengers can all use the one set of facilities in both directions).. Specifically the whole area of the platform is available to them rather than having one platform crowded and a virtually deserted one on the other side of the tracks. Britmax (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clapham Common Tube Station Platforms - Oct 2007.jpg to appear as POTD soon[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Clapham Common Tube Station Platforms - Oct 2007.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 17, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-11-17. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 18:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

The platform at Clapham Common, a station on London Underground's Northern line. With tracks on either side serving trains moving in opposite directions, this is an example of an island platform. This configuration is popular in the modern railway world, but may present engineering challenges to existing rail lines.Photo: David Iliff

Archive – More featured pictures...

Lower construction costs[edit]

I've removed a couple of completely uncited assertions that island platforms have lower construction costs. Basically this assertion is at best counter-intuitive (and hence needs explanation and citation), at worst it is probably a case of generalising from the specific.

I can see that when constructing a station on a completely new line, the costs of a single island platform may well be cheaper than those of two side platforms. But when talking about constructing a new station on existing track, the cost of slewing the tracks to create the space for the island platform must surely outweigh any duplication in construction costs.

As I said in the edit comment, if you can find a citable source for island platforms being cheaper to construct in the general sense, please feel free to revert my changes and add the cite. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Island platform. 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/20070609114225/http://www.railway-technical.com/stations.shtml to http://www.railway-technical.com/stations.shtml

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) 11:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]