Talk:Grand Central Terminal/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Old text

This stub contains partially incorrect information that requires a page fix - as a Wikipedia novice and someone in a rush right now, I'm uncertain how to do it. "Grand Central Depot," "Grand Central Station," and "Grand Central Terminal" are effectively three different buildings on one plot of land. GCD was built in the 1870s (1872, I think). In the late 1890s (completed in 1898, I think) the headhouse was pretty much demolished (it was expanded from 3 to 6 stories and an entirely new facade put on it) but the train shed (a balloon shed spanning all the tracks) was kept. This was GCS. Starting in 1905 and finishing in 1911 or 1912, the entire building was torndown in phases and replaced by the current GCT. This work was accompanied by the electrification of the three railroads using the station and the burial of the approach in the Park Avenue tunnel.

So, either the name of the page is wrong or we need different pages for the different buildings - Donald Friedman

I think the name's OK, most non-New Yorkers will be looking for "Grand Central Station." Terminal's already a redirect, and I went ahead and made a redirect for Depot.

Probably the best approach would be a history section in the article with a standard header, divided into subsections as each occurred chronologically. I doubt we need a separate page for each unless one of the sections gets really huge. - Hephaestos 16:36, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the save. I'll flesh it out shortly. DF

This should be a featured article

I just read through this article. Wow! Other than the one-sentence paragraphs in the Layout section and the lack of a building schematic, this could easily be a featured article. I'll look through the references that I've got at home to see if I can find anything to add to it (I remember a Trains Magazine article about the station a couple years ago, and I saw something on the History Channel about that time too...). slambo 18:20, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

There are some unencyclopedic elements to the article in its present form that would prevent it from being such. Needs more references, too.

71.241.70.24 (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

PanAm building

There are a number of references to the PanAM building in the article. In the mid 1990's the building was sold and was renamed the MetLife Building. I have updated the article accordingly. --Allan 20:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Question

I am a french reader of this encyclopedia and I was searching for an information about Grand Central Terminal. I would like to know how many people pass through Grand Central Station each day, each months, each year and unfortunatly I have not seen the information in the article. Someone knows? Sorry for my bad english and thank you.

Another thing : maybe It will be possible to add to the article informations about Grand Central Station in popular culture? Movies, books, music, advertising? 11 september, 17h00.

Answer

Statistics about the number of daily visitors is on this page, which is linked from the article: http://www.waltlockley.com/cgt/gct.htm --Lockley 19:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your answer Lockley. And I see that a new section "Grand Central Station in popular culture" has appeared since my suggestion above. Great ! A very good article. fr:Utilisateur:Kuxu

Concourse images

Regarding the recent change of Image:Grand Central Terminal main concourse.jpg to Image:Grand_Central_Terminal_Inside_New_York_City_Long.jpg, I find the latter to be more illustrative of the ceiling, but overall less illustrative since it is a night shot and a darker image. Maybe we will have to wait until the window and exterior restoration is complete to get a bright illustrative day shot. Comments? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 15:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I just nominated Image:Grand Central Station Main Concourse Jan 2006.jpg by Diliff (t c) to be a Featured Picture. Please comment at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Grand Central Terminal Panorama. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Photos before restoration

It would be great if somebody could post photos of the terminal before restoration (e.g., the colorama and host of advertisements. Also, does anybody have a photos of the pre-computer board. Americasroof 02:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Sub-basement

I was watching Jane's New York (hosted by Jane Hanson) on WNBC-TV today. The show was Underground New York (video introduction) and culminated in a guided tour with a GCT historian of an underground sub-basement. The historian claimed that it was far below the lower track level, and an elevator was shown descending to it. The historian said that the room was preserved in its original 1913 fittings. It had control devices, switching devices, and electrical devices. Apparently during WWII, the existance of the sub-based became a national security secret, because if someone sabotaged the electrical systems all troop movements in the Northeast U.S. would come to a halt. The historian claimed that the existance of the sub-basement was one of the best-kept secrets of New York.

Also, they said that there was a system of ropes that were strung up in the tunnels leading to GCT before there was an electric switching system. When a train broke down in a tunnel, the engineer pulled a rope along the track, which alerted the switching room that there was a problem. Ropes were connected to a bell and a tickertape output.

Can anyone confirm these reports? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 05:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the substation is M42, recently shown in the "A Century of Third Rail Power" tour. As for the ropes in the Park Avenue Tunnel, probably true, as the ropes are there right now, but directly communicate with the Power Directors. They are part of the safety system in the tunnel. Keo 07:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The "sub-basement" in question is actually clearly marked on the high-resolution image of the "Suburban Level" tracks. (The image has been on the article for some time)

It's actually known as the "Trucking Subway". --"Subway", in this case, being the British definition of the word (what Americans typically call a "pedestrian underpass"); and "Trucking", in this case, referring to hand-trucks-- It was once used extensively by intercity railroads for the efficient transfer of passengers' baggage.

Since only commuter services now call at Grand Central Terminal, the Trucking Subway is seldom used nowadays, and is now often occupied by "Mole People" (homeless persons that have taken up residence in abandoned underground structures). I am unable to confirm the popular belief that it was a strategic target in World War II; although it is not unlikely since it is often referred to by Mole People as "Burma Road", which is clearly a WWII reference. Pine 00:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The 'flag' image

I removed this image from the bottom of the page for a number of reasons and it has been reverted back by Keo who suggested that I bring it to the talk page. My reasoning was this:

1. There is no citation or reference that the American flag was hung in the terminal after September 11 (or specifically because of 9/11). I did a google search to see if I could find a page that supported this claim but was not able to find anything.

2. The image is basically a duplicate of the lead image in terms of the view. It doesn't really show anything that the existing image does not, except that if anything it does a poorer job of showing the expansiveness of the terminal. Although it is hardly a deal-breaker, we also frown on the use of watermarks within the image on wikipedia, and this image has a prominent copyright notice at the bottom.

3. It is extremely unencyclopedic and NPOV. The title of the image is GodBlessAmerica.jpg (NPOV), it is black and white aside from the American flag in color (which is very misleading for a modern encyclopedia - the image should be in color and only historical images need be B&W). Such a show of patriotism is a bit over the top for an article about the Grand Central Terminal. Yes, if it is true that the flag was hung as a result of the 9/11 attacks, then it should be mentioned in the article and cited, as that is relevent to the article, but this image is simply not NPOV enough in my opinion, despite the fact that it is artistic and emotional. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Good reasoning there, & I now agree with your reasons for removing the photo. But #1 is still correct. I'll try to find some published comments about it & post here for you. Thanks. Keo 07:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

National Geographic has some info Here:

http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0512/feature6/gallery2.html http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0512/feature6/images/gallery.6.2.jpg

I've heard that the Building Services Dept. hung the flag a few days after 9/11 Keo 10:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Fair enough, thats a reliable enough source for me. I still feel the image should be removed for the reasons above, but the caption should be incorporated into the article text somewhere, as it is valid and noteworthy information. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI: There was ALWAYS a flag on the West side of the terminal in the Concourse: it was the largest American flag in the country and hung there for decades until sometime in the 1970s. The return of the flag after 9/11 was just that: a returnDavidMIA 13:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)DavidMIA

Night photo

Is there any reason for this photo? The blurriness makes it kind of arty, but that's not what we need.

Further, I have doubts about it being encyclopedic here. It doesn't convey any information that isn't in the lead photo, nor is there any reference to the station looking signficantly different at night. Daniel Case 15:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. LuciferMorgan 00:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

stats cites

I think the stats should be footnote cited and dated, probably using ref tags. It would be very easy for a number like % of lost item returns to change and not be noticed. -- 68.160.160.108 02:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review

This article is currently under Good Article Review. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LuciferMorgan (talk • contribs) 04:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

MNCX

MNCX 002: Mystery train car, super heavily reinforced, in an underground facility near the infamous M42 facility under Grand Central Terminal. Reported on the History Channel, "Cities of the Underworld: New York", 2007, aired November 25, 2007, 8:00-9:00 pm MST. LanceBarber (talk) 03:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Station Infobox

I think it's about time a station infobox is added to the article. An infobox would allow us to bring the train service info (currently located at the very bottom of the page) to the top of the page for easy viewing. Some other info could be added in there as well. For example, if we can find some info on how many tracks and platforms are in the station, we could add them in there. As for a picture to add to the top of the infobox, I was thinking of using one of the pictures already in the article. Give your suggestions. Murjax (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

In principle, yes but a side by side arrangement with the architectural infobox makes a poor layout. Perhaps we need to decide whether this is primarily an architectural and historical article, or primarily one about a working facility, to know which infobox to put on top. I lean towards the theory that the working station and its services are primary, but can see merit in the opposing view. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. We need to decide which box to put on top. I vote for services as the primary. Murjax (talk) 06:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I've stacked the station services box over the NRHP box for now. —CComMack (t–c) 10:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Telephones

People sometimes jokingly answer a busy phone "Grand Central Station!" What does this have to do exactly with a NYC train station? -Rolypolyman (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

At work, a colleague once answered that after taking five calls back to back and exclaiming herself "This place is like freaking Grand Central Station!" So, I guess it has to do with the comparison that a very busy place is "like Grand Central Station". And by the way, it wasn't a client calling: she saw on her caller ID that it was another colleague, so she took that liberty. AirOdyssey (Talk) 03:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Frozen people

what about the frozen people performance? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwMj3PJDxuo i am trying to find more information about this and i thought it should be here--Nauki (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• That's not a bad idea. That event did get a lot of attention. Murjax (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The secret below Grand Central Station - BBC video

This BBC news clip might interest. Not sure if it's noteworthy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned, could be added to the bit about M42. --Prophesy (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Station vs. Terminal

Just to point out for those who keep thinking station is correct, it's not. "Terminal" is a railroad stop where trains terminate, or end the line. "Station" is a railroad stop where trains go through the line. No train goes through Grand Central. It is incorrect to call it station. The workers and MTA make a big deal about this, albeit trivial discourse in semantics. Notice that Penn Station is still called "Station" because the Amtrak goes through it despite the fact that the NJT and LIRR terminate there. Justin Tokke (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

More to the point, the building's owner calls it Grand Central Terminal, thus, its name is Grand Central Terminal, regardless of whether the trains pass through it (as Amtrak trains used to) or finish their runs there. --Badger151 (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You're both right, mostly. All Amtrak trains terminated there, they never went through Grand Central, as that's a physical impossibility. All GCT tracks are stub ended, except for the few that loop around to other GCT tracks. Either way, once a train has reached GCT, it's only course of action is to reverse direction and go back out through the tunnel.oknazevad (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Merely a semantics debate, and a useless and empty regional one at that. Other countries (and other regions in the USA) make no distinction between station and terminal. All of the passenger rail terminals in London, England are without exception called stations, for example; the terminals in Boston, Massachusetts are known as North Station and South Station respectively. Nothing wrong with "Grand Central Station", especially since there used to be a radio show with that title (1937-54) that concerned itself with the rail terminal and not the post office or subway stations. Insistence that the informal "station" moniker is "incorrect" is petty and unencyclopedic, frankly.

71.241.70.24 (talk) 04:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Except that it's would be utterly unencyclopedic to not state plainly objective facts. And objectively, the proper name of the place is "Grand Central Terminal". Calling it "Station" would be just as incorrect as calling Bill Clinton Hillary Clinton (or worse, Roger Clinton). To not describe the difference between it's proper name and it's common mis-appellation would be a disservice to readers.oknazevad (talk) 09:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This discussion reminds me of the movie "The Inside Man" where Clive Owen's character asks the trick question as to what weighs more, the number of trains that pass through Grand Central Station or the number of trees cut down every year to print US money. The answer is they both weigh the same, nothing, since no train passes through Grand Central Station (the post office) and US money is made from cotton, not paper. However, there was some debate in the movie that the North Line does pass through GCT, but others asserted all trains terminated there anyway. Does anyone know the definitive answer?150.203.110.18 (talk) 09:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

All trains terminate; there's no through tracks at Grand Central Terminal. oknazevad (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Questions from an inexperienced user

I'm an inexperienced Wikipedia commenter with experience writing about New York architecture. I'm a co-author of New York 1900, which is included in the page's bibliography.

I'd like to see the page start with a different tone, but I was hesitant about simply making such a large change. I think it would be better to have more about the quality of the architecture and the experience while being less quantitative in the beginning. Grand Central is one of the great civic monuments not only of New York but of the Western world, and it functions perfectly as a gateway to New York that announces that you have arrived in a great city. After all it's called "Grand Central Terminal," not "44 Platform & 67 Track Central Terminal."

There could also be more discussion about how the visitor experiences the station and is naturally led through it, about the quality of the architecture (it's monumentality, the simple but grand details, technological innovation like the windows at each end, etc.), and about the relationship of Reed & Stem and Warren & Wetmore, why W & W were involved after R & S won the competition (Whitney Warren was Commodore Vanderbilt's cousin), and how much W & W improved the grandeur of Grand Central Terminal.

Those additions are easier to make than suggesting a whole new introduction, which is why I wanted to start at the Discussions Page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmassengale (talk • contribs) 05:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that is that Grand Central, while monumental, is not merely a monument, but first and foremost it is an active (and very busy) train station. While discussing it's tremendous beauty is a key feature of the article, focus must be kept on the practical impact of it's everyday existance as a major rail terminal, or else we get what had previously been the case with this article, which is the current, heavily used rail service pushed aside and relegated to almost footnote status. In short, GCT is a train station first, an archetectual treasure second, and the article rightly follows that emphasis. oknazevad (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

---

I am new and inexperienced to Wiki, too, but I totally agree with Mr. Massengale. I love the way we are led into or out of the building via sloping ramps that Slow you down as you are eager to run to work, or help you run faster to catch the train, or help you run down the slope to enter the building. Great architectural features you don't realize until you think about them! You Go, GCT! RonRice (talk) 04:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

List of films

This needs to be thinned. There's too many examples in general (per WP:TRIVIA), and most films mentioned have maybe one short scene in the terminal; it's not a featured location critical to the plot. That's what should be the criteria for inclusion. Any ideas of which films should be included and which should be tossed?oknazevad (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

We could probably include them all if we make a separate article for it like Grand Central Terminal in popular culture. ----DanTD (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

GCT's ceiling was painted by J. Monroe Hewlett, not Helleu.

The attribution to Helleu for GCT's sky ceiling appears in error, on this page and on Helleu's wiki page. It seems clear from proof below that the GCT's ceiling was painted by James "Monroe" Hewlett, not Helleu. Please see below, and see if we can get these 2 WIKI websites changed. I am new to Wiki editing so I do not know how to format this properly. Sorry. I hope someone out there will see it and help. Thanks, Ron

---

Forwarded below is "proof" to MAS, with Hewlett's granddaughter's, Lesea Newman's permission. Lesea is willing to discuss it, if asked. I think this would be a great page to add to your website to Promote Good History and Kill Bad. In fact you could use these emails to easily make it a Q&A page with photos. Thanks, Ron Rice

---

Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 Subject: RE: JMH GC Terminal's sky ceiling From Lesea Newman About the Grand Central Station Sky-ceiling. I hope this does the job, but as we both know, bad history is hard to kill. Charles Basing was originally from Australia. I don't know much about him. Gulbrandson worked with JMH too. His grandson was working with John Canning Painting Studios on the latest version of the ceiling.

Although I have articles that credit JMH and articles that credit Helleu, I think the final word is

'1.'Grand Central: Gateway to a Million Lives by John Belle and Maxine R. Leighton W.W. Norton and Co. 2000. On p. 57 it says, "Conceived by Warren and his friend, the French portraitist Paul Helleu, the mural was the creation of J. Monroe Hewlett and Charles Basing. Corps of astronomers and painting assistants worked with Hewlett and Basing."

2. "Hartford Courant" March 2, 1997 "The original 1913 ceiling was designed by muralist and architect J. Monroe Hewlett." Story by Mary K. Feeney starts on p. 1.

3. This article is quite definitive. Contract Interiors 1945 Feb., v. 104 p. 54-57. Over Your Head and Under Your Nose, The year's largest redecorating job. P. 55 "Mr. Helleu suggested an astronomical mural and sent a few rough sketches, but contrary to popular belief he did not make the final cartoon, shown on these pages, nor did he oversee the actual painting. The latter was the work of J. Monroe Hewlett, with considerable assistance from a few professional astronomers and a corps of young assistants."

4. N.Y. Herald Tribune, Fri., August 18, 1944. ".....followed the design of J. Monroe Hewlett....."

5. John Canning Painting Studios who restored the ceiling in 1998, also gave JMH credit in their promotional literature. The Project: Grand Central Terminal, Sky Mural etc. "Designed by J. Monroe Hewlett, arcitect and muralist. Charles Bassing, architect and artist who painted the ceiling."

6. I also confirmed this in a report written by Deborah Rau, an architectural historian and former BBBelle employee, as part of her doctoral thesis. It is included as an addendum to the official Historic Structure Report for GCT. It is the definitive history of the GCT sky ceiling and was the source for the information included in the book by John Belle and Maxinne Leighton. Frank J. Prial Jr. AIA Associate Beyer Blinder Belle

7. Page 172 of the the MAS book, 110 Architectural Walks in Manhattan'''''', credits the cartoons and execution to Hewlett.

---

I also sent this proof to MAS, so they will correct their webiste artilce they posted.

---

Star Gazing in Grand Central - MAS November 11th, 2010, 5:41 pm <http://mas.org/star-gazing-in-grand-central/> On Monday, the stars in Grand Central Terminal’s sky ceiling were once again shining. For several months, electricians have been installing energy efficient LED lights, which are now burning bright, just in time for the holiday season. Having helped save Grand Central Terminal in the 1970s <http://mas.org/awards/jkomedal/#grandcentral> , we at MAS are particularly pleased that the mural painted by Paul Cesar Helleu in 1913, has not only been preserved, but also updated with the latest efficient technology available. Originally, the mural depicting the zodiac used incandescent bulbs to light the 59 largest stars in the constellation, but changing the bulbs in the 125-foot ceiling proved to be a difficult, and labor intensive, feat. When the mural was restored in 1997, a fiber optic lighting system was put in place, but within ten years, many of those lights had dimmed or faded out. Last year, MAS urged the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) to fix the lighting system as it is such an important part of the terminal’s history. “We applaud the MTA for heeding our advice, and once again casting light on this iconic work of art. The newly installed LED lights are not only functional, using about 60% less energy than the fiber optics and lasting five years, but they also serve as a great example of how preservation and sustainability can be thoughtfully integrated,” said MAS President Vin Cipolla. Whether passing through the terminal or rushing to get a train, take a moment to look up at the stars. You can also admire the new and improved sky ceiling during one of MAS’ weekly Wednesday 12:30 walking tour of Grand Central Terminal <http://www.mas.org/tours> . http://mas.org/star-gazing-in-grand-central/ <http://mas.org/star-gazing-in-grand-central/> Star Gazing in Grand Central Grand Central Terminal Every Wednesday, 12:30 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. Municipal Art Society has been giving tours of this magnificent Beaux-Arts landmark for a quarter-century, and since 1978, we have been playing an important part in its preservation. Tour Leader: MAS staff. Meet at: The information booth, main concourse. MAP <http://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&q=grand+central+station&fb=1&gl=us&hq=grand+central+stati on&hnear=New+York,+NY&cid=0,0,11435480081754642777&ei=bILJTLzRNcOqlAe70cmuAQ&ved=0CDAQnwIwAQ&ll=40.754572,-73.977256&spn=0.00 7445,0.013797&z=16&iwloc=A> . Suggested donation: $10 per person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RonRice (talk • contribs) 03:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Station vs. Terminal (part 2)

Surely the article should say that this building is "colloquially" called Grand Central Station, not "incorrectly" called Grand Central Station. See the article on Madison Square Garden, for example. Nobody would say that calling MSG "The Garden" is an "incorrect" name. It's a colloquial name. - 24.209.138.219 (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

A shortened form is a shortened form of the same thing, not a different word with a contradictory meaning. Not that WP:CCC, but until it does, it's well-established here on talk that it should explicitly state that it's wrong not just an unofficial nickname (reverting for now). DMacks (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the change to "colloquially", accepting the nominator's argument though the example is bad. Better nearby examples are West Side Highway, Triborough Bridge, and City of Greater New York. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd certainly support stating that it's a commonly used term if it's also stated that it's technically not correct. All three new examples are still just less formal statements of the same thing (it's a highway on the west side, it's a bridge that connects three boroughs, etc.). It really isn't a station (per the meaning of that word), rather than just not being its formal name. I think previous iterations of the article said things like "commonly though incorrectly" or "colloquially though improperly" or something like that--no idea when or why it changed off of that type dual-statement, but it seems like a good compromise to me. DMacks (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Grand Central is NOT a regular station because no trains go through. Trains must reverse for their next trip, thus it is a terminal. The first line is appropriate, it is often incorrectly called a station. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the discussion could be rolled into the "History" section, since the previous building was named "Grand Central Station". In the lead it could simply say Grand Central Terminal, also known as Grand Central Station? --Badger151 (talk) 03:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Eh? Is one of our industrious and studious editors asserting that because it's a terminal station it's not a train station, or perhaps that a station is not a station if it is "irregular"? Though it's possible for a great many Wikipedia articles to be wrong, and only this one right, I don't think this is such a case. Category:Railroad terminals in New York City is correctly included as a subcategory within Category:Railway stations in New York, because some rail stations are terminal and some are not, whilst all rail terminals are stations. Perhaps someone would similarly like to exclude subway stations from being train stations. However, convention does not classify stations this way; rather a subway station is a type of train station. Similarly where there are subway terminals, they too are included both among rail terminals and among train stations. One meaningful distinction remains, between official designation and colloquial usage, both of which should be in the lead sentence and not requiring more than a descriptive word to distinguish between the two different types of term. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't be me. I'm neither industrious nor studious. I think we're bumping into the varied definitions of station. In it's strictest (railroad) sense it refers to an intermediate stop, but in the larger sense it refers to any stop (stop here meaning a location where a train stops to pick up and/or drop off passengers and/or cargo). Whether Grand Central is a station or not depends on how you're using station. Since the building's owner and operator calls it Grand Central Terminal, perhaps we could list that as the official name, with GC Station being unofficial? --Badger151 (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

All right, we've got a few assertions, suggestions or hints that the term "station" when used in "strict" or "railroad" or "regular" sense does not include places where trains end their run, exchange arriving passengers for departing ones, and begin their return journey. Being more a recently hatched architectural photographer than experienced railfan, it's quite possible these senses of the term have escaped my notice hitherto. If this indeed is among the conventional, official or otherwise relevant usages, then our "Train station" article is in error in presenting a photo of GCT as a large "station" without mentioning anything about the strictest "railroad" sense of the word. Do we have any good citations for such a usage? Perhaps they don't have to be solid enough to use directly in either article, but something ought to be available. Jim.henderson (talk) 08:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

See definition number four here. There are only two "Grand Central Stations" in Manhattan: one is the USPS post office "station" located at 450 Lexington Ave, and the other is the subway station located at Park Ave and 42nd Street. Railroad stations (such as Pennsylvania Station located at 33rd Street & Eighth Avenue in New York or 30th Street Station in Philadelphia) are located on one or more railroad lines ("station" is actually a contraction of the term "stationary stop") with trains passing through from one side to another, while a "terminal" is the end (or "terminus") of a line with all trains having to go out the same way they came in. (I have written four books on railroad history.) Centpacrr (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Splendid. Yes, this indeed clarifies the matter. Where we had one question, we now have two. First, can a terminal station such as this be correctly, precisely a station? Yes, says Definition 4. A terminal can include various facilities including power houses, workshops, control towers, yards and a terminal station such as this one. So yes, this terminal station is, among other things, a station, and the fact that trains arrive from and depart towards the same direction does not de-station it. Thus the word "incorrectly" is, umm, incorrect.

Second question, is it commonplace to call this one "Grand Central Station"? To me, sitting a mile and a half from the building in question, it seems obvious that its answer too is "yes" but perhaps additional clarification can be offered. Note that the formal name is not relevant to this question; if the owners were silly enough to rename it as "Grand Union Transport Hub" and commonfolk continued to call it "Grand Central Station" we would rename the article but continue to mention the colloquial term. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The proper name of the facility is "Grand Central Terminal" because that's what it is -- a "Terminal" -- and thus that is what it has always said on the face of the building as shown here. Centpacrr (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Some stations including this one are terminals. Yes, another distinction is that a thing may be called by a number of names, some of them descriptive and some of them not. For example, New York Central Railroad 69th Street Transfer Bridge uses the proper name as the article name, while explaining that the subject is something other than a bridge. That's a case where there isn't a colloquial name; it's just that the proper name is a non descriptive name. GCT on the other hand, has an official name which is descriptive, and a colloquial name which is also descriptive, so the lead sentence should use both, and it does not say that the subject is actually some other class of thing. So, are we agreed that the word "incorrectly" is an unnecessary adjunct to "colloquially"? Jim.henderson (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Grand Central Depot

Why doesn't Grand Central Depot have its own article? Khan_singh (talk) 05:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't seem that we have enough material. If a seperate article were created it'd be pretty much a stub saying what little this article already says. So I think readers are already served well by the info here.oknazevad (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, good point. It's a shame, though. Khan_singh (talk) 03:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Similarly, Wikipedia is without any article on the west side terminals that had existed, in the mid or lower Manhattan latitudes.Dogru144 (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Error in naming the characters in "transportation" sculpture above colonnade

There's an error in the caption identifying the three figures in the photo of the allegorical "Transportation" sculpture on the exterior facade of the Grand Central Terminal (above the colonnade). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grand_Central_Terminal_NY_Mercury_Statue.jpg

The figure on the left is misidentified as Hercules

Hercules is a hero but he’s not a god. He’s a guy with a 12-item to-do list, requiring only superhuman strength and cunning. His most important achievement was killing the Nemean Lion, so he’s typically shown wearing the lion’s skin, and often shown with the cudgel he used to kill it with. Neither object is visible in this jpg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heracles

It would have been an odd choice for the sculptor, Jules Coutan, to make Hercules as prominent as Mercury and Minerva, the other two figures on the pediment.

Mercury was the patron god of financial gain, commerce, eloquence (and thus poetry), messages/communication (including divination), travelers, boundaries, luck, trickery and thieves; he was also the guide of souls to the underworld. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermes

Minerva was the goddess of wisdom, courage, inspiration, civilization, law and justice, just warfare, mathematics, strength, strategy, the arts, crafts, and skill. She is also a shrewd companion of heroes and is the goddess of heroic endeavor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athena

I believe that the figure on the left is meant to be Vulcan, the god of blacksmiths, craftsmen, artisans, sculptors, metals, metallurgy, and fire. He is a natural choice to represent the materials, skills, artistry, and strength it took to complete such a massive public project. He is always shown with his anvil and hammer, clearly visible in this jpg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hephaestus

NB: As you can see from the links I provided that describe each character's attributes, I've chosen those relating to the Grecian (earlier) pantheon. As a member of the Academie des Beaux-Arts, would Coutan have chosen Roman style, as was traditional in the Academie, or Grecian style to conform with American taste for Greek Revival? If true, then names should be changed as well, to Heracles, Hermes, Athena, and Hephaestus, instead of Hercules, Mercury, Minerva, and Vulcan

If I'm right, the text of the article needs to be corrected, too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Central_Terminal#Terminal_City Catpat72 (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The sources, including the ones of the print books in the bibliography I have, call it Hercules. So do, it seems, most online sources. So while I agree with you that the images would seem more like Vulcan (especially the hammer), we cannot draw out own conclusions here, as that would be against policy. Your comment did point out a clearly redundant paragraph, though. oknazevad (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Number of passangers annually

Other important stations all around the world (like Waterloo in London, or Atocha in Madrid) have the number of passengers per year. Why is not appearing for this station?--Eltitomac (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Movement of all long distance trains away from GCT

The movement of all long distance trains away from GCT has not been addressed. During the pre-Amtrak era long distance trains, especially those on the NYC lines, and possibly the NH lines had come out of here. Yet into the Amtrak era (until the 1990s or early 2000s) the Hudson River/Empire Service Amtrak lines continued to terminate here. The fact that they all terminate now at Pennsylvania Station (New York) make that a union station now.Dogru144 (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Did you actually read the article? The former Amtrak service is mentioned right in the lead, where the 1991 date for the opening of the Empire Connection and shift to Penn Station is covered, as well as again later in the article. And, no, that does not make Penn Station a union station by the classical definition; those were stations owned by multiple railroads in partnership, while Penn remains owned by Amtrak in total. oknazevad (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Delaware & Hudson too?

According to this link the station also served a Delaware and Hudson Railway line. Should we add the category Stations along Delaware and Hudson Railway lines to this article beneath NYC & NYNH&H cats? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd say no, because GCT was never along lines owned by the D&H; it only reached by trackage rights. D&H never had any ownership of the terminal, so t call it a station along D&H lines would be inaccurate. (Honestly, I'm not Ben convinced that the New Haven, which was all by trackage rights, really belongs.) oknazevad (talk) 02:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so let's find a way to add that aspect to any related articles. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 07:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk page archive ready

In case nobody has noticed, I created a talk page archive for this page and Pennsylvania Station (New York City) on November 6, 2013. Feel free to add and arrange old messages at your own discretion. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The archiving is done. I'm just having trouble formatting it. -----------User:DanTD (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds Like Marketing Promotion

Featuring monumental spaces and meticulously crafted detail... Much of the text sounds like marketing promotional material. :) Just thought I'd mention it. Was the text lifted from public relations and marketing material issued by the MTA, perhaps? Damotclese (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

No, but it is pretty typical of the writing found in articles on architecturally significant buildings, which GCT is. In that regard it's pretty standard and expected stuff, so long as it's sourced. I know previously that some have advocated making that a more prominent part of the article, though I argued then that it should remain an article about a train station first. oknazevad (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You are correct, it's the flowery rhetoric that made me smile. :) I see thatthe Empire State Building article also has the same look and feel. :) Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Platforms and tracks

Continuing a prior conversation, I propose that the table of specific track assignments and destinations (i.e. tracks 103-112 are for New Haven, etc) be deleted. I have several concerns.

• First, it's trivia. I agree that it's important that there are trains to New Haven, but which specific tracks they use is only important if you're walking through the terminal looking for your train. That material belongs in a directory, not an encyclopedia.
• Second, it's ephemeral. While it may be true that certain trains tend to leave from certain tracks, even the official schedule doesn't include that information. You walk into the station and look up at the big board to see where your train is today because sometimes they move. And the whole set could change tomorrow. I assume the switching system is capable of routing any train onto any track.
• And, most importantly, it's all completely unreferenced. Where is there some reliable souce which contains this information? I don't see it on the schedules. I don't see it on the MTA website. I don't see it in google. I'm guessing this is all just personal observation, which is not an appropriate source for information in an encyclopedia.

-- RoySmith (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The whole raison d'être for any railroad terminal or station is to house and support the platforms and tracks which service the trains and passengers that use the facility. Without this crucial infrastructure there would be no purpose for having a station/terminal or anything else associated with such a facility. Even though I did not originally add this material which appears to have been in the article since December 4, 2013, including the information about the Terminal's platforms and tracks and what they are used for certainly seems to me to hardly be "trivia" and is relevant encyclopedic material for inclusion in the article. Centpacrr (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Heartily agree with Roy. First, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Second, too impermanent and changeable. Like every day it changes. Sure there may be some tendencies to use certain tracks for some trains, but it is not written in stone, and therefore does not belong here without very good sources. And it's completely unsourced. The platforms are used for trains on Metro-North's three east-of-Hudson lines. That is what the terminal is used for. That is all that needs to be said, as that is all that can be said with permanence. Anything else is railfan trivia, and not encyclopedic. oknazevad (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

As the editor who originally added the layout to the article, I can say that it definitely doesn't violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY or WP:NOTTRIVIA. The tracks being used are outlined in a table, which in turn is referenced.The track numbers are being shown in a tabular format. Why is this being removed? I can provide references for the numbering of the tracks. Epic Genius (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Epic Genius above. No consensus to remove platform and track information has been achieved. Allow the editor who originally added this material in December, 2013 to add further references and citations as appropriate. The track usage is highly relevant information for the reasons I outlined above. Centpacrr (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The changes to make it more general and not try to state actual track assignments make the diagram much better. And the sourcing has improved. No need to remove it now.oknazevad (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I will put the sources in when I find them. Thank you all for your help. Epic Genius (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The diagram "Grand Central Terminal (NY) Outline of Tracks and Platforms" is relevant because it clearly illustrates the extent of the underground infrastructure of the Terminal's platforms and tracks in relation to the surrounding city encompassing an area of roughly 15 city blocks between 42nd and 49th Streets and Lexington and Madison Avenues. If a viewer wishes to read the text on it that is easy to do by clicking on the image to visit it's host page where it can be viewed at full size ‎(1,151 × 700 pixels). Centpacrr (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I tagged these with citation needed templates, but I see those have been removed. Why? I'm looking at the MTA Train Time app right now; the terminal map included in the app indicates that track 30 is not in use, so we've got one example of (apparently) incorrect data. Please provide sources for this. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

There are cases of tracks being temporarily out of service, as opposed to permanently. The diagram doesn't show the temporary closures. Epic Genius (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

My point remains the same. Verifiability is one of the core concepts of the encyclopedia. If this information is to be in the article, it has to have a reliable source. If it doesn't, it will be removed. -- RoySmith (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I am still trying to find more reliable sources, but the best thing I have at this moment are track maps from various websites. Epic Genius (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Any luck finding sources? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox deletion revert

My edit summary: (Article title & recapitulation in bold in 1st three words adjacent sufficient to establish subject of Infobox image) (And you can add a special explanatory note at the very end of the 1st sentence:

^ Grand Central Terminal is often incorrectly referred to as "Grand Central Station", the name of the adjacent block square U.S. Post Office station located immediately northeast of GCT at 450 Lexington Avenue.[3] In railroading, a "terminal" such as GCT is a passenger and/or freight facility at the end of a rail line which trains enter from and depart in the same direction, whereas a railroad "station" such as Pennsylvania Station is an intermediate facility along a rail line which trains enter, stop, and depart in opposite directions.[4]

Your @Epicgenius: edit summary: (Undid revision 651485595 by Wikiuser100 (talk): The title is also in the infobox in all other articles about MNRR stations)

Does it need to be: Metro-North_Railroad.

Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

N.B. That edit was by me. Epic Genius (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, the reason why I undid that edit is because having the name of the subject in the infobox is not redundant. In fact, having the name in the infobox is universal for almost all other articles with infoboxes. Without the name in the infobox, the infobox looks awkward, like it has no title. All railway stations, not just MNRR stations, have the name of the station in the |name= parameter of the infobox. Epic Genius (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize we had two Epic Geniuses at Wikipedia ;) It displays like this: Epicgenius (talk|contribs).

As for the station name in the Infobox, it really is redundant. The image would only need to be labeled if it wasn't the station the page is on. Like (to create an example) one of Madison Square Garden sitting atop current Penn Station.

As pointed out, the name is in the article title, it's in bold in the 1st three words, there's an extensive explanatory note as to the article and structure's proper name, and a caption identifying the image as unambiguously being inside the Terminal.

"Consistency" is only synonymous with "slavishness" if someone makes it so. See: Metro-North_Railroad page as an example. As well as here, at GCT.

There is utterly no need for the name. At the least, it should be as plain and unobtrusive as these examples readily culled from the top of the list of union stations (perused in the past):

• Indianapolis Union Station, 1850
• New London Union Station, 1887
• Hartford Union Station, 1889

Would you like to make a similar adjustment to the Infobox display, or shall I?

Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Wikiuser100: The following is my signature: Epic Genius (talk)

The "name" parameter in the infoboxes in the above linked articles is formatted for Amtrak stations. In Metro-North station articles, the name of the station is in the infobox. For example, see these articles:

• Appalachian Trail (Metro-North station)
• Ardsley-on-Hudson (Metro-North station)
• Beacon (Metro-North station)
• Bedford Hills (Metro-North station)
• Botanical Garden (Metro-North station)
• Breakneck Ridge (Metro-North station)
• Brewster (Metro-North station)
• Bronxville (Metro-North station)

and so on and so forth for MNRR stations. Epic Genius (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Some ugly. Why not tone it down? Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Wikiuser100: That is not for me to decide. Please post to WT:NYCPT, WT:NYC, WT:WikiProject Hudson Valley, WT:CONN, or WT:TRAINS and ask for a consensus there. I suggest posting your concern to the Trains and NYC Public Transport WikiProjects. Thanks, Epic Genius (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, EG. I say "uncle". Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Location and text of footnote

This edit reverted, without explanation, an edit that shortened the content of the footnote and moved it down to a place where it made more sense:

• First, the link to the Mapquest as a reference to the text on the nearby U.S. Post Office station is not really encyclopedic. If we're going to include content on it, surely we can get a secondary source (like a history book, an official source, something) to support it, which is far superior to "here's a map and something we've flagged on it."
• Second, the part of the footnote saying that GCT is "often incorrectly referred to as "Grand Central Station" is totally redundant to what's in the main text lead section, third paragraph. The rest of the footnote is fine, but should pretty clearly be moved down so it comes right after the discussion of the name.
• Third, I changed the unclear "railroading" to "in railroad parlance" and added the appropriate link (Glossary of rail transport terms).
• Fourth, I condense the ugly "passenger and/or freight facility" to "facility" - the first words don't add any real informative content (if it's a railroad facility, than of course it will be either freight or passenger, correct?), and the nonword "and/or" introduces ambiguity.

I've restored my edit - if there are changes or mistakes people want to make, I'd of course be happy to talk about them... Neutrality^talk 18:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

First electric computer?

Maybe something about this should be added:

http://gothamist.com/2015/10/15/grand_central_computer_video.php#photo-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.39.108 (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Missing something?

After Buddy Holly's death in a plane crash on February 3, 1959, his bassist and future country singer Waylon Jennings put Buddy's guitar and amplifier into a locker and mailed the keys to Buddy's wife, Maria Elena.

I am not certain if I am missing something, or this line from the "Misc. Events" section was misplaced? --Zfish118 ^⋉talk 02:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the point is that Jennings dropped Holly's guitar off in a locker at GCT (which are no longer there). It's not really missing anything, but it's purely trivial and not really about GCT. It could have just as easily been at Penn Station or the Port Authority Bus Terminal, it jts happened to be at GCT. Not really needed. oknazevad (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Grand Central Terminal. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120807041148/http://channel.nationalgeographic.com:80/channel/insidegrandcentral/ to http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/insidegrandcentral/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Should the photo with the caption "Outline of the general location of Grand Central Terminal tracks and platforms showing that this underground infrastructure encompasses an area of roughly 15 city blocks between 42nd and 49th Streets..." be placed at the right side of the screen as opposed to the left side of the History section?174.44.155.197 (talk) 03:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Large Photo

Should the photo with the caption "Outline of the general location of Grand Central Terminal tracks and platforms showing that this underground infrastructure encompasses an area of roughly 15 city blocks between 42nd and 49th Streets..." be placed at the right side of the screen as opposed to the left side of the History section?174.44.155.197 (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Grand Central Terminal. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/insidegrandcentral/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710080742/http://www.ny1.com/content/news_beats/transit/142471/ny1-exclusive--east-side-lirr-terminal-under-construction-for-2016 to http://www.ny1.com/content/news_beats/transit/142471/ny1-exclusive--east-side-lirr-terminal-under-construction-for-2016

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 03:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grand Central Terminal. 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/20071014223242/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1549&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1549&ResourceType=Building

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 09:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Biltmore Room

On my June 2016 NYC excursion, I rode the Hudson Line back to Grand Central Terminal after taking some pics of more than a few stations, and wound up in a section known as the Biltmore Room. The place has a chalk-written schedule that looks like it hasn't been touched since the days before New York Central Railroad merged with Pennsylvania Railroad. However, my effort to take pictures of that part of the station failed miserably, because most of them turned out like crap. Would anyone else be willing to snap some pics from there? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Bad photos of this do exist: (1), (2). It seems there are many parts of Grand Central that are missing photos or only have poor photos. A rarity in New York. I'll ping @Jim.henderson: here; perhaps he can help? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Miserable, all right; they are by our friend DanTD. Perhaps tomorrow afternoon on my way to the WMNYC Annual Meeting I'll have time to go a mile out of my way and give a try. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! If you do, make sure to take a bunch more photos - GCT is lacking in a few parts of the structure, or has awfully poor ones. E.g. the Campbell Apt, the lower level food court, Biltmore and Vanderbilt Rooms... ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I sent up three phone pictures. They are not real good; it's a poor camera. On the weekend I shall send the ones from the real camera. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The biggest problem I had was the reflection from the glass over the chalkboard. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

BTW, if you think those two are bad, you should see the ones I didn't upload. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Shuttle platforms vs Lex Av station platforms

Just to reiterate what was said in the posting explanation - the shuttle platforms are not above the Lexington Av station platforms. The Lex Platforms are east of the shuttle station and are connected by a long passageway (which was intended to be a part of the shuttle station in 1918 but plans changed). Shuttle (original station) - on 42nd St between Park Avenue and Madison Avenue. 42nd St-Grand Central station (Lex Av line) is a diagonal station between Park Av and Lexington Av. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.10 (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Mention of volunteer fire brigade

I wanted to field some opinions about including a sentence or two mentioning the Grand Central Terminal Volunteer Fire Brigade as it's pretty unique since I believe they only recruit from people who already work within the building and similar stations like Penn Station don't have anything like it. The members of the brigade are academy trained, and they actually have their own apparatus (including unique ones specially designed for driving through the wide hallways of the station). Since it's such a unique thing I just thought it deserved some mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.169.83.178 (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Grand Central Terminal celing view.jpg

File:Grand Central Terminal celing view.jpg

File:Blizzard of 2015- Empty Grand Central Terminal (16377099101).jpg

I have undone Okhiria91's recent addition of the image File:Grand Central Terminal celing view.jpg. It seems redundant to the lead image, File:Blizzard of 2015- Empty Grand Central Terminal (16377099101).jpg, and doesn't show anything new other than the fact that the recently added image has a picture of a crowd. That particular section in the article has four images already, so I wanted to put this up for discussion. epicgenius (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, that concourse is timeless without the people pictured. Surely the 2015 photo can stay until Kodak puts a new sign up. Cards84664 (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The 2015 Blizzard photos are our highest-quality photos of the inside of the terminal. Regardless of dates, unless major changes happen to the interior, or unless a better set of interior photos comes along, the Blizzard photos are the best-quality and must stay in place. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 17:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Unknowns

• Square footage of the station house and concourses
  • Main is 35,000 sqft
• Size as compared to Penn Station
• Annual ridership
• To what extent "Terminal City" was developed, as seen here (vs here)
  • Just concept art, per this
• Age of Grand Central Market and prior uses and dates
• Can light still stream into Grand Central? This article seems to suggest not
• Are any light beam photos of the concourse PD?
• Where was the Ladies' Waiting Room located? What is it used for now? When did it change?
  • Located here
• Where was the Board Room? What is it used for now? When did it change?

To photograph

• Retake eagles, Vanderbilt statue and surrounds, Dining Concourse, information booths
• Main Concourse stairs and windows
• GCT friezes above ticket office
• Track 34
• Grand Central Market exterior and interior, chandelier art, (2nd floor?)
• Oyster Bar entrance
• Campbell Apartment and bar extension
• Graybar Passage and ceiling fresco
• Lexington Passage
• Roosevelt Passage? From the Roosevelt Hotel?
• Station Master's Office doors and waiting room
• Transit museum annex door and interior
• Grand Central North tunnels and entrances - interior and exterior entrances
• Hallways to subway entrance
• Any other art
• Views from 1 GCT Place or MetLife Building?

--ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Things to add sources on:

• Grand Central Depot/Station history
• Early history
• Preservation and renovation

Sources:

• Fitch, James Marston; Waite, Diana S. (1974). Grand Central Terminal and Rockefeller Center: A Historic-critical Estimate of Their Significance. Albany, New York: The Division.

I hope to add more sources later. Pinging @Kew Gardens 613:, maybe he has some relevant GCT or Metro-North literature. epicgenius (talk) 12:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I might have some Metro-North literature, but I don't know how much use it would be. I know there are plenty of sources on Newspapers.com.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

35,000 sq ft is the footprint of the main interior space (== area covered by the celestial ceiling painting according to the LA Times ref). The total area originally open to the public (floor space) was 6 acres (260,000 sq ft).[1] That ref (from Railway Journal) says that the men's and ladies' waiting-rooms were attached off the main waiting room. DMacks (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Historical services in the infobox

Also - by listing the NYCRR and NY New Haven and Hartford, we're omitting NYCRR's many predecessors and successors Penn Central, Conrail, and Amtrak as historical services. Shouldn't we have a note of this in the infobox, even if we don't give the full s-rail treatment? In general too, I believe s-rail could benefit from listing simple dates of historical, current, and future operations. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 00:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

S-line is a no-go. These Erie Lackawanna templates were deleted per MOS:OVERLINK. If you need an exact format for listing former companies, take a look at this one. Cards84664 (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

So are you proposing/you would be okay with this same display used in Warren station to be used in this article? Where? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 04:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I am, but it probably hasn't happened yet on modern station articles because it can easily be mentioned under History. Cards84664 (talk) 05:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Tracks

Cards and others: I moved some platform/track info into the Track/Platforms section, but things aren't adding up, as it says 67 tracks are in regular MNR use, with 10 storage tracks, etc, and only 69 tracks total... Also, we should make this align with what's in the infobox. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ɱ: There is a track map of Grand Central Terminal (and of the entire Metro-North network), but for liability reasons it can't be posted publicly. This is an excerpt from that map. Anyway, if we cross-section the tracks near the bumper blocks, there are 54 tracks (obviously we can't cite that). If we count all of the tracks at the northern end of the platform (including the north-south axes that continue beyond the bumper blocks), and if we regard two separate segments within the same north-south axis as one track, and if we also include storage tracks, we get 44 tracks on the upper level, and 23 on the lower level. That makes 67 tracks including storage, and aligns with the sources provided.

However, there are only 44 tracks that have platforms next to them, and 26 platforms. (Or 48 tracks/28 platforms if we count the two extra Waldorf-Astoria platforms). It is a very complex subject because not all of the tracks line up on a north-south axis, but let's just go with the "67 tracks" figure. epicgenius (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I understand, but I'm a little lost now on how to clean it up then. Can you or Cards84664 please try correcting this? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Ping failed, so here: @Cards84664:. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Spinoffs

@Epicgenius: Are you also thinking of some sub-articles? Do you think it would be better to create one on the history of Grand Central, or two for the two previous stations, or perhaps one for the layout, design, and architecture of the current station building? This article is almost clumsily long, and only growing. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 17:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm considering it. I think History of the Grand Central Terminal/History of Grand Central Terminal would be clumsy titles, but it will eventually have to be created. I'm hoping for this article to eventually contain layout, design, architecture, and some historical details, with the rest of the history to be split off later. It should probably be one article for this station's history plus all of the previous stations, since they're all interlinked. But then again, we have a separate article for the old Penn Station because it was so radically different from what exists there today. epicgenius (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Now that I notice it, the prose is around 50 kilobytes, which is pretty long. I was thinking about nuking the unsourced information at first, but it looks like much of this info might find its way back into the article. epicgenius (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah please don't cut anything unsourced yet, because I'll bet we'll be able to find sources. Let's please just work on cleanup first and then probably moving all the history to History of Grand Central Terminal as you said, and creating a small summary in this article. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Accessibility

@Ɱ: According to this page of accessible stations, Grand Central has an ADA logo, indicating the station is fully accessible. The source you provided, this page, also says that this is fully ADA-accessible. While it's true that parts of Grand Central aren't accessible, there are ADA-accessible ramps to all platforms, and the ticket booth and waiting rooms are all accessible. As a result, this is a functionally accessible station.

According to the source in the article, This station meets ADA requirements for persons with mobility, visual and hearing impairments. The features available at this station include elevators and ramps, tactile warning strips, tactile signage, TDD, and variable message signs. The note says *FULL ACCESS stations comply with all requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and have accessibility features for persons with mobility, visual and hearing impairments. Accessibility at other stations is limited to the features listed.

I did look at the Ossining station's page. There doesn't seem to be a major difference between "Compliant" and "Full Access". But Grand Central isn't listed as "Full Access" because there are some parts of the head house that aren't accessible, such as restrooms. Therefore, we should list the station as "Accessible" with the footnote. epicgenius (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

What do you want to change? "Compliant" to "Accessible"? That's okay, just we can't read too far into it/use our own knowledge of the terminal's accessibility. If it's labeled as "Full Access", we should say "Full Access" or "Fully Accessible" on a station's article. If it labels it as "meets ADA requirements" like in this case, we should say "Compliant" or "Accessible". ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ɱ: I realized my comment above wasn't clear. When I said Grand Central has an ADA logo, indicating the station is fully accessible, it's actually just "the station is accessible". So yes, I think we should put "Accessible" in the infobox, which I see you've already done. My complaint, is that "compliant" is unclear to the casual reader. epicgenius (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Lede image

Option A

Option B

@Cards84664: Sure both images are "fine", but now that the one I added (Option A) has been fixed (brightened, cropped, rotated), it is superior to the old one (Option B) for the following reasons. Option A is not as stretched out, whereas the entire right half of Option B is stretched (the north wall), as well as the west wall. In addition, the iconic ceiling in Option A is much more visible, and the information desk is much less stretched out. You can also see much more of the room in Option A, including the ticket booths and parts of both ends of the terminal, as opposed to just the west end with Option B. Lastly, Option A is a much more iconic view of the concourse, and almost certainly the most-photographed and most-reproduced image of the concourse itself, thus it'll be most recognizable to readers. As well, the view of Option A was the lede image here for ten years. See here in 2007, swapped with duplicate in 2010, and I finally changed it last November.

Pinging @Epicgenius:, @Kew Gardens 613:, @PointsofNoReturn: to ask their opinions here. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be better if compared side by side: epicgenius (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

In Option A, the visual center of the great hall is located slightly left of the image's center, so the entire image looks like it's being pulled left. It's annoying once you notice it.

I see slight stretching in Option B, but it's not really that noticeable, given that the entire thing is taken from a corner of the hall.

Overall, Option B may be better, because I can't un-see that Option A is off-center. Sure, Option A is cleaned up from the original version, but I think it needs to be cropped on the right side. epicgenius (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I think your eye to Option A being stretched a little is something readers won't notice, and something we can fix by cropping it. I cropped it a little to reduce that effect; perhaps it needs a little more. However, what about my other points? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ɱ: I don't disagree with your other points. I actually don't have a preference either way with the information booth. However, I will note that you can see more of the northern entrance and western wall in Option B, versus more of the ceiling in Option A. It depends on whatever has more of an impression on the reader. On that point, Option A is slightly better, because you can see more of the room. epicgenius (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but the western wall is stretched in B and the northern entrance is just an ugly escalator... Also, I made a tweak to A just now, is it better? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I suppose so. I'm not an expert at photography but even I can see a little distortion in B. epicgenius (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Literally everything is stretched out in B, it's atrocious... The only thing not stretched is the center, like the right stairwell. That's about it. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 17:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Pinging @Kew Gardens 613:, @Cards84664:, @DMacks: @PointsofNoReturn: to ask for opinions. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 20:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Try cropping the right side of A, as was said above. Cards84664 (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I did since we last spoke, do you think it needs more? About how much? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 20:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Option A right now has the clock and center of the west wall at exactly the middle of the image, I used a grid to see that. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 20:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I was looking at the front two pillars on the sides. Cards84664 (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I prefer the from-the-corner. It seems to give a better perspective on how large area (vs how cavernous) the room is. The other one is such a deep perspective that it seems to lose some visible detail (the special things become a blur) when rendered at thumb size. In a sense, it looks "too perfect" for something that is not just an engineering and design feat, but a space heavily used by common people. DMacks (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is not an art form, for showing the concourse at its most beautiful or aesthetic angle, for what it might represent, etc. There is a long-standing consensus that the lede should feature the highest-quality, least-distorted, most typical and representative view of a subject, with as little cut out as possible. That doesn't mean showing a picture that is extremely stretched out and zoomed in to only show half of the terminal, from a strange and unusual angle, like B is. It means we should use A, which has much less distortion, shows as much of the concourse as possible, and is the most representative view to visitors and readers alike. This is really a no-brainer here. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 05:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

"Technically well-produced" is one explicit MOS guideline: both are high quality images in my opinion but not in yours and others feel the opposite of your one preference. "Relevant" is one explicit MOS guideline: clearly they both are. "Natural and appropriate representations of the topic" is one explicit MOS guideline: both are somehow representative of the subject but we don't agree on what aspects are most representative of it and whether a pedestrian or artistic consideration is more natural and appropriate for this subject. Obviously it's *not* a no-brainer else we would all agree and you wouldn't have bothered to ask others' opinions to reinforce your own apparently for-ordained conclusion. DMacks (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Both may be fine from an MOS perspective, but your view that one looks "too perfect" and that one looks a little better as a thumb isn't very important when I've pointed out major flaws with the other option that would lend it to be axed from any FA. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 12:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I would go with Option A. The image gives a better and more holistic representation of the terminal by showing all of its features, including the entrances, pillars, clock, and ceiling. The image center being slightly to the left of the clock is relatively minor, but could be addressed if need be. The main problem with Option B to me is that it feels like the building is tilting right and down when I look at it, due to it being a diagonal image. I notice it in full-image mode and I notice it a lot more in the main article. It is very irritating. Option B also only shows part of the terminal. In the end, I prefer Option A. I am open to editing of the image to fix the center, if that is possible (I am not an image expert). PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• I am going to link others to this discussion at the relevant WikiProjects. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
• Prefer Option A - it's a more iconic look, despite the minor "flaw" (which, in fact, doesn't bother me in the least). B is just... odd, and almost unrecognizable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
• I think is important to recognise that there cannot be a perfect lead image that captures all the aspects of the topic of the article in one static frame. I also think the above discussion is too limited by only discussing two alternatives. Both "option A" and "option B" show the main concourse from eye level but empty of people, focusing on architecture, when in fact it is the function of the building that is most notable. Even from a spatial representation point of view, views from the mezzanine provide a better overview of the space for an encyclopaedic lead image. Furthermore, showing the place as it is used, lived and perceived by most, full of people moving, is more 'relevant' and 'natural'. Below just two examples I found, with some commentary of strengths and weaknesses. --ELEKHH^T 22:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Option C - strikes a good balance in capturing the space as well as its use, and provides great level of detail; somewhat dark, but that is an accurate representation of it. The centre stage flag is somewhat distracting.

Option D - more focused on use than architecture, captures the dynamic atmosphere of the place, somewhat aesthetised through overexposure

Or maybe an exterior image would help? (Option E, perhaps? And yes, I know this is already in the article - maybe we can swap the images.) epicgenius (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Well, here's my two (more) cents. Option C is too dark, which is why even though it may be more dynamic, it doesn't really fit. I don't know why Option D seems like it's facing downward, but the impression is that not the entire concourse is being captured here. I don't particularly like either of them as much as option A, which is as bright as in Option D, and as expansive as in Option C. epicgenius (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Options C and D would be lovely if they had decent exposure, contrast, framing, resolution, aperture, and any other quality of a decent photograph. Option E was a consideration for me, though the Main Concourse view is far, far more iconic in my opinion. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Option C is by far the best choice as an illustration of the topic. It's labeled a "Quality Image" on Commons, although the version at File:Grand Central Station Main Concourse Jan 2006.jpg, which is a "Featured Picture" on en.wp, shows very slightly less distortion in the foreground. The other choices are much more distorted, and somewhat overexposed resulting in less natural color and lighting. The only drawback is the flag, but overall this is the best composed, most straightforward and realistic representation of the main hall at a non-rush-hour. Station1 (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

It was promoted in 2006 (12 years ago, or an eternity in Wikipedia history) with very little discussion as to the actual photographic quality of the image. As for its quality, it has an extreme amount of grain, and has portions that are extremely overexposed (the lit signs) and portions that are extremely underexposed (the people), and the concourse is unusually decorated for the holidays. Overall it is unflattering, uninspiring, and rather drab. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 13:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't completely disagree, but as an encyclopedia, as opposed to Flickr, it's our job to get as close to the truth as a photograph will allow. Option A and especially B are too distorted. C is hardly perfect, but it's simply much closer to reality, to what the reader would experience in person. Station1 (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Count so far: Three for Option A, one for Option B, one for Option C, with @Cards84664:'s and @Epicgenius:'s current views not clear, nor @Elekhh:'s preferred between C and D. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 13:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Personally, I prefer Option A. On a side note, I might be able to start adding sources for this article tomorrow. epicgenius (talk) 14:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I also prefer A. It looks the most iconic, and I don't see any issues with it.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm gonna !vote A as well. Just gives the fullest picture of the main concourse, even if it's strangely (for Grand Central) bereft of people. oknazevad (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Okay with 6 for A and only 1-2 for the rest, I think it's fair to close this given a clear consensus. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 17:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Just to be clear, in case others aren't noticing what I am, the main problem with Option A is that the walls/columns are leaning in towards each other at about a 70-80 degree angle, whereas in C they are vertical. Station1 (talk) 09:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Station1: I noticed, and it's because of the lens. The effect makes the station seem more expansive, though. "Overarching", if you get what I mean. epicgenius (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• I really have to go with Option C, in spite of how dark it is. It's much busier. If we could add two at a time I'd put E on top and C on the bottom with descriptions for both. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Good Article

Is 11 years enough of a wait to give GA status another try? Cards84664 (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

That's what I'm aiming for - a GA review! But I think we're all so in the midst of the re-writing and re-illustrating (and we're probably gonna move a third to a half of the content to a sub-article) so I think we should wait until we're at least mostly done. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. I want to co-nominate this for GA status. That way, it will match Pennsylvania Station (1910–1963) and East Side Access, two related topics which are already GA's. (Maybe I can finally make a good topic for 63rd Street lines or something.) But in any case, that's what we're aiming for. epicgenius (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)