Talk:Chicago Union Station/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

No Picture of Current Station

Why isn't there a single picture of the exterior of the famous current station, neither from it's early years or today? Yet, there are two pictures of the previous station which it replaced? Seems kind of strange doesn't it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.176.103.64 (talk • contribs)

There likely aren't any free photos of the old station available, or there weren't when editors went looking. I'll be in Chicago next month, so I'll try to stop over there for some current photos. Slambo (Speak) 11:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Through tracks?

This is something I was trying to figure out recently, and couldn't. Does Union Station have through tracks, or do all the tracks from both sides end? Whichever way it is, it should be mentioned in the article. --SPUI 05:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There are one or two through tracks on the south end of the concourse next to the river, but the rest are all stub tracks. slambo 13:43, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
I moved a piece of criticism about run-through tracks to its own section. This actually belongs in the Amtrak article, if anyplace. Union Station configuration is not necessarily the problem with through passengers having to re-board if Chicago is not their destination. In fact it has more to do with the routes, crews, train sets, and city track division points, than anything to do with Union Station run-through tracks, or lack thereof. A train could terminate on a south side platform, then continue on from there if the actual routes were specified by Amtrak. A train could follow a route via the Western Ave. yards connector to reach lines the other side of the station, much as the Pennsylvania Panhandle route did to reach Madison St. Station. Group29 (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Image removed?

Why was the image of the grand hall removed? I'm guessing it's because the image didn't have an appropriate copyright tag on it? In a little searching, I found the image on http://www.cityofchicago.org/landmarks/U/UnionStation.html but what I couldn't find was a concise statement concerning using the image except at the bottom of that page where it says "© Copyright 2003 City of Chicago Department of Planning and Development, Landmarks Division. All Rights Reserved." Perhaps someone more familiar with that site or its maintainers can obtain official permission and mark the image as such? I've got a couple photos that I took there a couple months ago, but they aren't near as pretty as the one that was originally linked here. slambo 16:02, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Copyright is an issue with lots of Wikipedia's architecture articles. The really good shots are copyrighted. We're counting on you! --Wetman 18:12, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Neat picture, but I'd rather see a discriptive photo than an artistic one.Cacophony 22:36, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Chicago as railroad center

Isn't Chicago still the railroad center of the US? It's the only city where six Class I railroads meet. Could we change the first sentence of the article so that Chicago doesn't sound like it's lost that?

I think the "Prior to Penn Central and Amtrak ..." map has an error. The labeling of "Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne & Chicago Railway" and "Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad" should be reversed. Rail historians, do you agree? 12/4/201412.25.240.135 (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Info from A Guide to Chicago's Train Stations Present and Past by Ira J. Bach and Susan Wolfson

Built 1881 by consortium including PFW&C, C&A, CB&Q, CM&StP and others, headhouse was to one side of the tracks because tracks approached from both sides, designed by W. W. Boyington, two-story brick headhouse, demolished 1925 for room for trackage to new station a block to the south

construction begun 1914, designed by successor firm to Daniel H. Burnham, known as Graham, Anderson, Probst and White by completion in 1925, originally two buildings - concourse/shed and waiting room/office building, connected by tunnel under Canal Street, skylight over concourse demolished in late 1960s --SPUI (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Usage statistic from On the Bi-Level

Recently picked up a copy of On the Bi-Level, which is Metra's commuter newsletter, and it claimed that Union Station sees 126,000 passengers per day. I added the updated information. However, and I have no reason to discredit OtBL as a reliable source, but it seemed pretty high. Thoughts? Anyone have anything different? Gws57 12:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If you go to the Metra budget section at their website, it contains the passenger load averages for all lines. Based on my calcs, there are 114,000 riders on the lines that use Union Station each day, which isn't the same as how many passengers come through the station. (I took the sum of the weekday average totals. If you exclude reverse commuters, the number is closer to 110,000.) And this is still incorrect because this would include riders who don't board at Union Station.

The only way I got 120,000 was to take the weekly (incl. Sat & Sun) totals and divide by 5, which is very incorrect. Without station level detail, it's hard to say how many passengers ride the train without going through the downtown terminal.

Why are people in suits walking on the roof?

My office overlooks the eastern side of Union Station. One of my colleagues who also overlooks the station has brought to my attention that groups of men in suits have been out walking on the rooftop practically every day. Occasionally they are accompanied by one or more women, also in suits. What in the world are they doing -- perhaps scouting for some sort of renovation or expansion project? Any insight would be greatly appreciated!!

I remember reading in the Chicago Tribune a few weeks ago that there are plans to develop a new hotel and perhaps another commercial use (I cannot remember) and that a hotel towel will be built from the center of the building. (I am somewhat surprised that they are going to do something so drastic to what is a truly beautiful landmark.) Armchairexec 16:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-CTA Bus Connections

Does anybody have any concrete evidence that other types of buses stop at Union Station besides those owned and operated by the Chicago Transit Authority? If so, please show it to me, otherwise I'll just reformat the bus connections link to indicate that it's strictly a CTA connection, and add the appropriate link. ----DanTD (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've personally ridden on "Illini Express" buses (i.e., intercity) to and from Union Station before. They actually do directly serve the station (in that they pull up to the bus stand). Their website probably advertises that service, though I wouldn't want to use it as a source lest someone think you were spamming. I've seen other bus companies stop there too, but I never paid attention to which ones they were. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
As indicated on the Megabus (North America) page, the Megabus' Chicago hub is at Union Station. Also Van Galder and Greyhound Lines operate Amtrak Thruway Motorcoach service from Chicago Union Station. The service referred to in the above post is the [Lincoln Land Expresswith service from Chicago Union Station to Champaign. Homeybiz (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

old image

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pingnews/290626660/in/set-72157594337708238/

If anyone's interested in uploading it to commons, here's a beautiful PD image of Union Station

Intercity Train Service

This is no longer true. There is a train from Millennium Station, the South Shore Commuter, that travels between there and South Bend,IN. (see [1]) The Union Pacific North line travels from the Ogilvie Transportation Center to Kenosha,WI. (see [2]) A quick reference, the Metra system map, can be viewed at (see [3]) Click on the UP-N and the SS lines to see where they run to.

I was unsure of how best to add or change the article to reflect this. Does anyone have any suggestions? StarsTrainsAndRandomThings (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I converted the <ref> tags in your comment above to make the weblinks useable. Without a <references/> they're useless. :-) —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
And consequently, you're technically correct. Those trains sure do exist, and they sure do reach other cities. But in terms of the definition of Inter-city rail, I don't think they count. Metra is a commuter rail/regional rail system. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Also note, I think it might be worth clarifying that very briefly in the article. I agreed with you initially until I checked the definition of Inter-city rail, and I could see other people wondering the same, especially those from the area. Though I'm not sure how to unobtrusively do this. Maybe saying "It is the only Intercity rail terminal in Chicago, though other stations have regional rail lines that run to nearby cities"? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing glitch

This is something for admins;

I clicked on the edit button for the Layout section of the article, but it took me to the editing page for Services. It's a minor glitch, but somewhat annoying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartan S58 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit: None of the sections have an edit button until the Layout section, which leads to the Services editer, and then the rest of the edit buttons are halfway through the Prior Routes and Services section. REally bizarre. Spartan S58 (talk) 02:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Title changes

The title of this article seems to have shifted back and forth a few times. The reasons for that are not clear, at least to me. According to the 'official' sources, the name of this station is indeed Chicago Union Station (see http://www.chicagounionstation.com/index.html or http://metrarail.com/metra/en/home/maps_schedules/downtown_chicagostations/chicago_union_station.html). Perhaps the proposal to use Union Station (Chicago) instead was intended as a means to distinguish this from other Union Stations, but I don't know. If we have got it right this time, great. If I have missed something, please discuss!Hypocaustic (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

"Criticism" scrapped

Section seemed lame, and inappropriate. Prior to Amtrak, no passenger trains passed "through" Chicago, do any Amtrak routes now? All other stations also terminals, correct? This is U.S. railroad patterns, not Union Station's problem alone. First two sentences moved to "Platforms and tracks", with slight rewording, rest deleted. Refs coming.Sammy D III (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Contradictory passenger information

  • Chicago Union Station is the 3rd busiest rail terminal in the United States, handling approximately 120,000 passengers on an average weekday...
  • During World War II, Union Station was at its busiest, handling as many as 300 trains and 100,000 passengers daily...
  • as of 2007, approximately 54,000 people use the station on a daily basis...

--12.165.139.33 (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Pass-by Tracks

This part of the article describing the tracks and platforms:

Trains do not pass through Union Station; all rail passengers traveling through Chicago must change trains to reach their final destination. There are 2 pass-through tracks to allow movement between the north and south side, including one with a platform to allow extra long trains to board.

Needs to be redone, as the second sentence seems to directly contradict the first sentence. It sounds to me that trains most definitely can physically pass through, if only on two tracks, but that there is/are no service(s) which pass through the station. So, that clarification needs to be made, and you could do it in a single sentence, really. On an unrelated note, while there is a distinction made in some areas of the article, perhaps a quick look-over could be made of where when we're talking about the "station" we've forgotten to make clear whether we are talking about the headhouse/waiting room west of Canal and the actual concourse facility where all of the trains and platforms actually are across the street, and maybe even mention the name and address of the tower built above the concourse. Just some thoughts. Otherwise, this is one of the better pages on large trains stations. --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chicago Union Station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chicago Union Station. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 20:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chicago Union Station. 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:

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) 19:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Not a headhouse – rename section to "Station building"?

I don't believe the existing Chicago Union Station building can be called a headhouse, the way it is in the article. Yes, at least one reference calls it that (http://www.greatamericanstations.com/stations/chicago-il-chi/). However, Wikipedia's own article on Head houses defines them as "an enclosed building attached to an open-sided shed" - a subset of station buildings - and provides examples such as Philadelphia's Reading Terminal and Washington's Union Station. In contrast, Chicago's Union Station does not follow that form. The extant station building has the Grand Hall and passenger facilities, but never had the tracks and sheds (those were across Canal Street next to the river). Without the tracks and shed, that building can't be a headhouse. The subsection entitled "Headhouse" should be renamed as "Station building"; if you have input, please explain below. — Molly-in-md (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done – implemented in March 2020 edits by User:Ɱ. Thanks! — Molly-in-md (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Photo at top

Yesterday, there was a brief dispute about whether File:Chicago Union Station outside.jpg or File:Union Station 2.JPG should be used as the lead image. I think the brighter one ("outside") should be used. It's not much lower resolution, and while it's a bit hazy, you can still see all the fine detail. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I find I prefer the angle of the second photo, despite the darkness. Union Station is hard to photograph given the traffic on Canal and Chicago's generally-poor weather. I don't have any good shots of the exterior. Mackensen (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I think we should really consider putting the main concourse in the lede, instead of/alongside an exterior shot. Most books, newspapers, magazines seem to highlight the main concourse over the exterior, even moreso than happens with Grand Central. This makes the concourse more memorable and distinctive, at least for me. ɱ (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Connections

@RickyCourtney and Ɱ: I offer my services as mediator. What's the locus of the disagreement? Mackensen (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Admittedly it's a bit pedantic, and I'm willing to drop it (I've got dozens more station pages I need to edit)... but here goes:
On most of the other major station pages, in the connections section we list the connecting rapid transit lines by service, by station (For example, New York Penn or Washington Union Station). Under that scheme, on this page we'd list Blue at Clinton, Brown, Orange, Pink and Purple at Quincy. I get that in Chicago, most of the L lines loop around at the "loop" -- so the decision was made to list the stations, instead of the services, which admittedly, is consistent with other Chicago station pages. My feeling is that we should stay consistent with the national format and list services.
Another proposed (and super clean) solution -- drop the list and just add a note that says "See Connections section" with a link to #Connections -- as is done on the Los Angeles Union Station page. RickyCourtney (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • (ec) The other user is making several changes as "cleanup" without explanation. They add an additional line to an already-long infobox to say country = United States, when Chicago is such a notable and famous city that it doesn't even need "Illinois" by it, according to our and others' MOS. They add all the colored CTA lines into the infobox, which creates a visual mess, with Quincy station services split over three lines in the infobox. If readers want to see what services those nearby stations offer, they can click those links to the station articles and see that info very easily. The editor also defies what the "type" parameter is supposed to accomplish - listing out what transit types are offered at the station. Operators need not even be listed there, and the only reason I kept them is that there are only two, each with short names. ɱ (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Rickey, consistency across articles is NOT important. Each train station is a unique place, in a different city, with its own history, architecture, logos, etc. No lay reader is going to read an MTA article and then a CTA article and suddenly feel disappointed the infoboxes aren't the same. You have to be willing to defer to the main writers and editors of each station article. I've put a lot of work into this one, and well more into other large train stations, which have serviced or do service Amtrak, but that is one of the least notable aspects of their history and cultural notability. ɱ (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chicago_Union_Station/Archive_1&oldid=1110192240"