Why do European cities have so many railroad stations?

Hello,

I have to find out why European cities have so many railroad stations...

If anyone knows, please reply to this post!

Thank you!

Well in Londons case , it was because there was 8 or so different railway companies serving London . Kings cross and St Pancras are virtually next door to each other .

If you're in search of an excellent book that suggests we should emulate Europe's outstanding commuter train service:

Allies of the Earth, Railroads and the Soul of Preservation
Author & Environmentalist/Environmental Historian, Alfred Runte

David Benton wrote:Well in Londons case , it was because there was 8 or so different railway companies serving London . Kings cross and St Pancras are virtually next door to each other .

It was actually once quite the same in many American cities- for example, before North and South Station opened in Boston, all the the railroad companies built their own terminals. (and thanks to mergers, by 1890 the Boston and Maine and the New Haven both had three entirely separate terminals) In the US, there was a movement to build "Union Stations" that combined all the various railroads terminals into one (or in Boston's case two), but this didn't happen to nearly the same extent in Europe.

Epsilon wrote:

David Benton wrote:Well in Londons case , it was because there was 8 or so different railway companies serving London . Kings cross and St Pancras are virtually next door to each other .

It was actually once quite the same in many American cities- for example, before North and South Station opened in Boston, all the the railroad companies built their own terminals. (and thanks to mergers, by 1890 the Boston and Maine and the New Haven both had three entirely separate terminals) In the US, there was a movement to build "Union Stations" that combined all the various railroads terminals into one (or in Boston's case two), but this didn't happen to nearly the same extent in Europe.

New York (City) is a great example of this. Although many think (subcontiously) the NYC ends outside of Manhatten, it doesn't. There are many train stations in NYC (not counting the subway) like NYP and GCT (the 2 that are most famous), Flatbush Avenue, Long Island City, Jamaica Station, WTC, Harlem-125th St, and many others that would take too long to list.

I think we'd need to restrict ourselfs to termini for long distance trains .
then i guess the question becomes , why didnt europe consilerdate the number or terminals , upon nationilisation of passenger train services .
i know there is one station in Paris that is now a musuem (Orly ?) , but i dont know of any closed terminals in London .
I would think one factor would be lack of space , not so much at the terminals themselves , but to build connecting railway lines .

The answer is that European cities pre-dated the first railroads by centuries and were already densely settled when the first trains arrived. In other "newer" parts of the world such as the USA and Australia cities tended to grow up around stations.

Many of the present stations in cities like London were originally on the outskirts of town.

David Benton wrote:I think we'd need to restrict ourselfs to termini for long distance trains .
then i guess the question becomes , why didnt europe consilerdate the number or terminals , upon nationilisation of passenger train services

City size and cost considerations? Berlin had several dead-end stations and still has several through stations. Smaller large cities like Cologne, Frankfurt and Munich have one station where long distance trains stop.

Peter's answer sounds right . If you look at London ( the european city i know best , the Railway stations ring the "old city" , only a couple of small stations make it inside the old boundary . Even going underground , unless you go very deep , youd have problems with sewrs and waterlines etc .

StefanBurgi wrote:Hello,

I have to find out why European cities have so many railroad stations...

If anyone knows, please reply to this post!

Thank you!

In Britain railways were not planned by the government but built by private enterprise. The result was many duplicated routes and no planning at all. In London there are many stations: Great Western's Paddington was far out of the central city (still is); the Northwestern station at Euston was to the north (originally it was to take the Great Western as well but the two companies couln't agree.

A similar situation is found in Paris. These two mega cities (for the time) didn't allow trains to cross the city. In Paris they have remedied this situation with the RER network but alas London hasn't yet.

In Belgium the system was planned by the government from the first and so there are no duplicated routes and one station for each town, though Brussels has a string of stations.

In Germany also there are few cities with many stations, though Berlin at one time had several main stations. Now it has one new magnificant main station the Hauptbahnhof.

Netherlands had two stations in Den Haag, built by two companies, but other towns have only one. In Austria, formerly the capital of a large empire, there were stations for the east, west and north. I think this system was planned. Now, one station takes most of the long distance trains, while the others are for commuters.

So, basically it depends on whether the system was planned or left to private enterprise. In the case of railways I have no doubt that planning is best.

George , Do you know if there was ever plans to consolidate the "northen" London trains . i.e Kings cros , St Pancras , Euston ?

Another reason for multiple stations in a given city is that Europeans, from the beginning of rail transport til this day, actually USE the system extensively for not only commuting but for intercity travel, thus many large stations at various locations in or around the city. Hamburg, Germany, has Altona, Dammtor, Hauptbahnhof, and Harburg as "main" train stations for intercity trains, as well as a dozen or so others for their S bahn or commuter lines all within city limits.

Chicago, of course, due to railroads 'doing their own thing' up well into mid 20th century had "Union Station" (CB&Q/MILW+), Northwestern Station (CNW), 12th Street (IC) Station, Grand Central Station (B&O+). La Salle St Stn (NYC+) Dearborn St Station (ATSF+), Englewood Station plus some others in city limits. And don't forget New York, for same "doing own thing" had not only GCT and Penn, but also West Shore, CNJ, LV, DL&W, and Erie stations, albeit across the river with ferries.

I would presume too , that most travel in the old days was from towns to the main city . not from a town on one side of the city , to a town on the other side of the city . Today , with urban spreawl and decentralisation , there is alot more need for service through or around the main city .

David Benton wrote:George , Do you know if there was ever plans to consolidate the "northen" London trains . i.e Kings cros , St Pancras , Euston ?

I doubt it. Brunel did think at an early stage in the planning of the London-Bristol line that he might use the London and Birmingham's station at Euston. I assume that when they heard about the Broad gauge they said no.

St Pancras arrived later than King's Cross and is on a higher level. (I was there a couple of weeks ago to look at the new Eurostar station. It is magnificant, but only Eurostar passengers will see it. I used to wander in, just to stare at the roof. Now, it is all behind passport control.)

Victoria contains two stations: one for the LBSCR (Brighton line); the other Southeastern.

Glasgow used to have a lot of stations but most terminals have closed and only two remain. Queen Street for the north and Edinburgh; Central for the southwestern commuters and the old MS mainline.

Edinburgh had two. One of these closed (the old Princes Street), leaving its hotel still standing. I once took a sleeper from there to Birmingham.

I don't think there are any other cities with multiple terminals in Britain.

The Cook's European Timetable has sketches of all the European cities with several terminals.

Actually, Boston had three railways before London had any. Each had a separate terminal in a different part of town. The Boston & Lowell, near the present North Station, the Boston & Providence near the present Transportation Bldg. (the well known 'Providence Depot' was the second).
and, the Boston & Worcester station was near Kneeland and South Sts.
The London & Greenwich was a couple of years later than any of these. Boston wasn't the first in America to have trains as, London wasn't the last in Europe.