Talk:Interchange station

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 references.

Prince Edward Stn in Hong Kong MTR is NOT an exchange station only with no exit and entrance. It's obviously wrong. Please check the wikipedia article on Prince Edward Station (number of exits 7). It's close to some of most well known tourist attractions like Bird's Market, Women's Market, etc. Prince Edward has never been without exits, (if that is true, it would have been a disaster for millions of people use it daily) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonhoca (talk • contribs) 18:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a historical period don't allow entrance/exit. Don't remove something you don't actual know. If such information need to be backedup by references, Cornbrook Metrolink station doesn't qualify as well. That assertion provides no reliable source in its article too. Next time your removal of Prince Edward example, I will remove the Cornbrook one. And the reason will be more justifiable by WP policy, lacking citation. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the way that it's currently written is factually correct. I only changed it because the original sentence was wrong. It implied that gates were installed at Cornbrook Metrolink station AND Prince Edward Stn on the MTR in 2005, which of course was a gross error. It was either a grammatical mistake (conditions of one full sentence applies to both clauses separated by "and", regardless of the bracket) or careless writting. I did not need any references to correct this error.

I think it would be much clearer to say "Prince Edward Station on the Hong Kong MTR effectively functioned as an interchange only station during the first seven days after its auguration when all its passenger access points were still under construction." stressing on the fact that Prince Edward was not inteneded to be an interchange only station. 7 days are not really a "historical period", it's more like a "Sorry-for-the-Inconvenience Period"

"Transfer stations" merge?

I would have boldly merged Transfer stations to Interchange station, but I wanted to see if anybody else thinks there needs to be a distinction between transferring within rapid transit versus general railway transport. Tinlinkin (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]