In article ,
Chris Johns wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009, Stephen Furley wrote:

Just about every American station I've seen, and I admit I haven't seen very
many, is horrible at track level. At Newark Penn the tracks are at an
elevated level, and the platforms are terrible; the edges are breaking up in
places, and have been roughly repaired by thick plates of some sort of thick
material fixed over the worst places, and providing something for people to
trip over. At EWR airport station, built just a few ears ago, the platforms
are very narrow, I would say dangerously so, where there are buildings on
them. New York Penn Station and Grand Central Terminal are both much worse
than Euston at platform level, though they are nice at concourse level.
Poughkeepsie (I'm not even sure how to pronounce that) is a nice smaller
station.

I think it's somehting like "Pur-kip-see".

I didn't get off the train at Newark, but from the window it did look
like it was falling down.

NYP reminded me was a bit like a big Liverpool Street (modern looking busy
but not that exciting above the track level, and dark and dingy down by
the trains) and Grand Central Terminal has a really nice big hall, but is
truly awful at platform level.

Boston South was the best of a bad bunch at track level of the ones I went
to.

Yep. Boston South seemed the best of the bunch on the eastern corridor
when I last did the trip (gosh, about 10 years ago...). Would have liked
it to have had a circulating area as nice (and as warm) as Grand Central
(or Euston), mined. It was damned cold last time I was in Boston.

--
Andy Breen ~ Speaking for myself, not the University of Wales
"your suggestion rates at four monkeys for six weeks"
(Peter D. Rieden)