Talk:Spanish solution
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spanish solution article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 6 months |
| This article was nominated for deletion on 6 October 2018. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sources
[edit]Is there any source that indicates that "Spanish Solution" has ever been widely used as a name for this technique? I only see a handful of informal references in a Google search, and they appear to be dated after this article was created. Any chance we can get a transportation engineering paper or textbook as a reference? --Frankg (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have made the same observation. I can't find a single WP:RS that uses the term "Spanish Solution". The best I've found is this article, but it looks like more of a blog than a reliable source ("His views are his own and do not represent those of his employer"). And, as Frankg points out, it's dated 2014, more recent than Spanish solution. So, I think we've got a case of a neologism coined on Wikipedia, which is then being used in a circular reference chain. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, GGW is a very good blog, but not a reliable source on its own. This entire article is some unsourced claims about terminology, and then a massive unsourced list. The entire article could be condensed to a sentence or two and merged into railway platform. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
- I seem to recall the name being used when Bloor–Yonge station was proposed for rebuilding in the late 1980s. Useddenim (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, GGW is a very good blog, but not a reliable source on its own. This entire article is some unsourced claims about terminology, and then a massive unsourced list. The entire article could be condensed to a sentence or two and merged into railway platform. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
- All these years later, and there's still no decent source. There's some German sources, but surely they don't use English-language terms! Perhaps we should rename this article - or better yet delete it. Smells of original research to me. Nfitz (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- ...all these years later, I'm still curious about this! I'm going to figure out if there is a proper term for this configuration. This is referenced on the Railway platform page, so I think preserving the description might be valuable. Frankg (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- One English language mention of the concept can be found in the bilingual English/German book München U-Bahn Album (Florian Schütz, Robert Schwandl Verlag, 2008, ISBN 978-3-936573-19-0), which also has a couple of pages dedicated to the underground stations of the Munich S-Bahn network. To quote "Due to the high passenger volume they have to cope with, they were designed with 'Spanish' platforms, i.e. with a platform edge on either side of the train to separate alighting from boarding." (page 134). Hope that helps. Regards, Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- ...all these years later, I'm still curious about this! I'm going to figure out if there is a proper term for this configuration. This is referenced on the Railway platform page, so I think preserving the description might be valuable. Frankg (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Can someone explain why it is the arriving side that gets the island platform?
[edit]It says here that "there is no point in segregating arriving passengers", but isn't it better to put departing passengers together, especially in places where both platforms go in the same direction, so that passengers can hop on whichever train that comes first? Does anyone know why?--144.82.241.147 (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Because in most places the tracks are for traffic in opposite directions, so keeping this e passengers pre-sorted on separate platforms speeds boarding. On the other hand, for passengers arriving at a station it doesn't matter which train the got off of, so a simple common exit makes sense. oknazevad (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Grand Central Station
[edit]I seem to recall this method being used on the Time Square Shuttle at Grand Central. Can anyone confirm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otaku2 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- It is not used at Grand Central. Doors only open on one side. jhawkinson (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Isn't one or more station on MARTA in Atlanta configured this way? 108.28.184.79 (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Columbus Circle station in Manhattan is designed with with four tracks and a middle platform suitable for use as a Spanish system, but the car doors don't open on that side. It's only used as a corridor. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Category:Spanish solution stations
[edit]It feels to me that there should be a category for stations with Spanish solution platforms. Wondering if other people agree, or not, and also wondering what such a category should be called. Ben Aveling 21:00, 8 January 2026 (UTC)



