Dallas Union Station (Terminal) present, past and future

Advertise with us
Shop deals on ebay
shop deals on amazon
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
cirdan

cirdan

Engineer
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Messages
3,837
MARC Rider said:
In the case of Dallas, the obvious solution to me would be to just run the HSR into the existing station, which is what the French do with the TGV in large old cities like Paris. No additional land needed, good access to downtown, and good connectivity to the extensive light rail system.
Click to expand...
Is there space for additional platforms and tracks?

I don't think sharing tracks with Amtrak or TRE would be on the cards due to platform heights. So there would have to be new (additional) tracks.

The two tracks on the right are used by DART (a DART train is just visible at one of the platforms), the other three platform tracks are used by TRE and Amtrak. Note that the platform on the left is significantly longer than the others. I guess this is to accommodate the Texas Eagle.

I believe the tracks without platform on the side of Reunion Tower are used by UP as a freight bypass. Maybe the car park area at Reunion Tower could be acquired for new platforms and tracks? But this would be a long shot as it is clearly needed by Reunion Tower. There also appears to be space on the headhouse side of Union Station, between the headhouse and the DART tracks (I never noticed this before). I don't know what's up with that or what purpose it serves. So probably there is space for tracks and platforms somehow, but not really oodles of it.

Then there would also be the question of the check-in, waiting room and lounge and whether it would be suitable to share these with Amtrak or there would have to be separate facilities.

union.png
 
Last edited:
The plan for the High Speed station has always been a couple of blocks to the south of the current Amtrak station with a pedestrian corridor (possibly) connecting the two. I have not seen any change to those plans. I don't think they will try to squeeze more platforms at the present station.

I would strongly recommend reading the existing EIS for the TxHSR projects which Amtrak is essentially taking over. The station in Dallas is presented in some detail in it.
 
MARC Rider said:
In the case of Dallas, the obvious solution to me would be to just run the HSR into the existing station, which is what the French do with the TGV in large old cities like Paris. No additional land needed, good access to downtown, and good connectivity to the extensive light rail system.
Click to expand...
It makes no sense to build another station but use Dallas Union Terminal (station). As for platforms add 2 aerial platforms with 4 tracks. DAL US is very large and basically unused. As understood the 2nd floor was originally the waiting room for the station. Then why not build a walkway from the station 2nd floor to the aerial platforms? Better to spend that money for 2nd station instead make this station a 21st century station. More Amtrak trains may serve it in the future including the DFW - Meridian, Also, this Houston train and possibly a direct SAS route + who knows what from the north?

Then you have TRE and maybe some other commuter rail. Then as well the DART light raail as well. A great location for making connections to all forms of public transportation. Not sure about intercity bus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Union_Station
 
At one time the Dallas station did have an overhead concourse from the second floor waiting room with stairways down to each platform. It was later removed, when an underground concourse from the first level replaced it with ramps up to each platform.
The tracks were all on one level.

Having tracks on two or more levels is pretty rare. Ones that come to mind are Grand Central Terminal in New York, Philadelphia’s 30th Street Station, and Oakland’s old one.. I’m not counting station’s where one route crosses over another, such as Secaucus…
 
west point said:
Then you have TRE and maybe some other commuter rail. Then as well the DART light raail as well. A great location for making connections to all forms of public transportation. Not sure about intercity bus.
Click to expand...
The Greyhound terminal is just a short walk away. I guess its wiser to leave it there. The walk is genuinely short and I don't think Union Station site would have the space to accommodate it.
 
railiner said:
At one time the Dallas station did have an overhead concourse from the second floor waiting room with stairways down to each platform. It was later removed, when an underground concourse from the first level replaced it with ramps up to each platform.
The tracks were all on one level.
Click to expand...
Do you know how many platforms there were in the station's heyday? Was the Reunion Tower built on land that formerly belonged to the station?
 
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1196976/m1/1/zoom/?resolution=3&lat=4600.5&lon=8460.5

Gives me a rather fuzzy map dated June 1917 that shows 10 platform tracks, with number 1 immediately adjacent to the building, some space beyond the outermost platform track, then 3 freight bypass tracks. There were also 3 stub end tracks south of the station on the station side of the through platform tracks. This layout probably existing into the 1950's at least. I would say yes, Reunion Tower is on former DUT property, so restoring this layout would not be possible. Did not see track spacing dimensions on the drawing.

It shows five platforms with the overhead walkway about mid platform and an overhead passage for baggage at each end of the platforms. Trackwork on each end was in one word complex. Appears that turnouts and double slips are labeled as No. 7's which would really be pushing the limit that a train with standard 85 feet long passenger cars could navigate. As for the Texas and Pacific 10 drivered locomotives, they may have been prohibited. If not I would want to watch one of those go through these turnouts from a goodly distance. Probable likely speed through these tracks and turnouts would be limited to 10 mph. I would not want to try for much more on these turnouts. Don't know when the overhead walkways went away but they were gone when I was in Dallas in the late 1980's.
 
Last edited:
The question about what DUT (Dallas Union Terminal) looked like in its heyday piqued my curiosity so armed with Google I went hunting, and here is what I dug up....

Here is an article about DUT which gives some definitive historical dates:

https://www.american-rails.com/dallas.html

Apparently the original station as built in 1916 was a two island platform 7 tracks (4 platform tracks plus three bypass tracks I suppose) facility. It was expanded to the 10 platform track 3 bypass track facility sometime between 1916 and 1930.

There is a photo of the Texas Chief departing the station in 1967. So it would seem that the overhead structure to access the platforms was still in place at that time as it is visible in the photo.

And here is an old aerial image from the SMU library digital collection dating to 1930, giving a lay of the land:

1726150487761.png

The unreclaimed river bed was adjacent to the station back then. It does show the five platforms with ten platform tracks. I don't think all of what is Runion Tower property was even outside the unreclaimed river bed. Only part of it would have been under DUT property, that part of which appears to be on reclaimed riverfront land. The only clue we have is of the position of the then riverfront bypass tracks relative to the curve onto the Trinity River Bridge that is used today by the Union Pacific.

The aerial image set from which this image is excerpted can be found at: https://www.smu.edu/libraries/digitalcollections/dmp. It comes from the "93 images in the Dallas Historic Aerial Photographs, 1930 Fairchild Survey digital collection represent a complete set of aerial images commissioned by the City of Dallas. The images were taken by Sherman Mills Fairchild in October 1930 flying out of Love Field."

This article below has several photos that helps one get oriented as to where the station was located relative to the location of the river channel back then, and incidentally has precious information about Towers 57. 106 and 107, the latter two of which are still standing today.:

http://txrrhistory.com/towers/057/057.htm

Incidentally in 1916 this Union Terminal replaced the older Dallas Union Depot in East Dallas as described in this article below:

https://flashbackdallas.com/2014/06/10/old-union-depot-east-dallas/
 
Last edited:
west point said:
It makes no sense to build another station but use Dallas Union Terminal (station). As for platforms add 2 aerial platforms with 4 tracks. DAL US is very large and basically unused. As understood the 2nd floor was originally the waiting room for the station. Then why not build a walkway from the station 2nd floor to the aerial platforms? Better to spend that money for 2nd station instead make this station a 21st century station. More Amtrak trains may serve it in the future including the DFW - Meridian, Also, this Houston train and possibly a direct SAS route + who knows what from the north?

Then you have TRE and maybe some other commuter rail. Then as well the DART light raail as well. A great location for making connections to all forms of public transportation. Not sure about intercity bus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Union_Station
Click to expand...
If this route succeeds as we hope, DUT will not be big enough to handle the demand.
 
railiner said:
At one time the Dallas station did have an overhead concourse from the second floor waiting room with stairways down to each platform. It was later removed, when an underground concourse from the first level replaced it with ramps up to each platform.
The tracks were all on one level.

Having tracks on two or more levels is pretty rare. Ones that come to mind are Grand Central Terminal in New York, Philadelphia’s 30th Street Station, and Oakland’s old one.. I’m not counting station’s where one route crosses over another, such as Secaucus…
Click to expand...
And Washington Union Station!
 
jis said:
Apparently the original station as built in 1916 was a two island platform 7 tracks (4 platform tracks plus three bypass tracks I suppose) facility. It was expanded to the 10 platform track 3 bypass track facility sometime between 1916 and 1930.
Click to expand...
I suspect this article is in error concerning the 7 tracks - 4 platform tracks. The map I referenced that showed 10 platform tracks, plus the three bypass tracks is a reproduction of the 1917 Valuation Map, which was required by the Interstate Commerce Commission, I suspect as part of the requirements of the government takeover of the railroads during World War One. (These "Valuation Maps" exist for the entire United States Railroad system.)

This would not be the first error I have seen in supposedly accurate professional papers about various engineering structures. One glaring example that I know well because for my senior paper on a significant engineering structure I wrote on the first railroad bridge across the Mississippi built at Memphis, opened in 1892. At that time (1967) I could access newspaper articles written about the structure at the time, plus other contemporary publications available at the Memphis Library. Whether these are still available, I don't know. The bridge as originally built had a single track, planked level with top of rails so it could be used by wagons between trains. The distance between railings was 22 feet and the truss centers were 30 feet. Yet, a publication by the American Society of Civil Engineers talks of the bridge having cantilevered roadways. It never did. Another presumably reliable publication gave the width between trusses as 30 feet. The Harahan Bridge, double track, opened in 1916 did have cantilevered roadways outside the trusses. They are still in place, although no longer used as roadways. The north side roadway is open as a walking and bicycle path. Both bridges are still in use, the original by BNSF and the Harahan by Union Pacific. Another example, the Railway Gazette International a number of years ago published an article on the Chinese (mainland) railroad system stating that they used the UIC 60 kg/m rail section. They did not and never have. Yes, their primary rail section is nominally 60 kg/m, but it is their own design and does not resemble the UIC section.
 
alanh said:
I'll be the one to ask. Why is it Dallas Union Terminal if the tracks don't terminate?
Click to expand...
While the term terminal is sometimes used to designate a stub end type station as opposed to a through type station, as in this case, not always. The term terminal sometimes means that it is a major station, a junction of several routes, and many trains terminate or originate there. In some cases, the station is owned by a terminal railway, that offers connections to most of the major railroads that enter the location, and is sometimes jointly owned by those roads.
 
Bob Dylan said:
And Washington Union Station!
Click to expand...
Washington Union Station is not a two level station in the sense that Grand Central is. The throat tracks are all on one level. The tracks that stub end are flat to having a small rising grade southbound. The tracks that are through are on the east side and more or less parallel to the stub tracks. The have a downgrade starting far enough in advance of the station so that they can pass under the station building to be able to enter the First Street tunnel so southbound trains can get to Alexandria VA and from thence points south and west. They are at no point underneath any of the other tracks. Do not remember their track numbers. WUS west side stub end platform tracks 1 through 7 were eliminated due to the WMATA Red Line. Along with this, the number of throat tracks was reduced from 8 to 5. This happened about 1970 to 72. From the roadbed, it appears that at one time there was a 9th throat track on the east side, but that had been gone for quite a while before I was in the area starting in 1972. Sometime late 60's to 1971 a large portion of the WUS coach yard north of New York Avenue was sold to WMATA and their major repair shop constructed on that site.
 
alanh said:
I'll be the one to ask. Why is it Dallas Union Terminal if the tracks don't terminate?
Click to expand...
How old is the "Terminal" part of the name. I always assumed it had something to do with railroads trying to up their game by emulating airline terminology. Speaking of gates instead of platforms and terminals instead of stations etc.
 
I can’t find the oldest use of the term online for a railway station, but I’d wager it was long before the first Wright Brothers flight…😉
 
cirdan said:
How old is the "Terminal" part of the name. I always assumed it had something to do with railroads trying to up their game by emulating airline terminology. Speaking of gates instead of platforms and terminals instead of stations etc.
Click to expand...
It was named Dallas Union Terminal when it was built. The name was changed to Union Station more recently.
 
'Terminal' was often used where the station was operated by a 'terminal railroad' -- which was a distinct category of railroad for ICC regulations and reporting. That was the case in Denver, although the public usually referred to it as 'Union Station.'

As Dallas had already had a union station, calling the newer facility a union terminal for public use was probably an attempt to distinguish the new from the old.

After the Texas Zephyr pulled out of Denver Union Station (as the sign says to this day, or Denver Union Terminal as the corporate papers said), stops included Pueblo Union Depot, but not Fort Worth Union Station, on the way to Houston Union Station (owned by a terminal company). My conclusion is that local usage is the only good explanation.
 
All interesting posts about what the various Cities Rail Facilities were called.

In most small towns along the SP,Katy and Mopac routes, most folks called them Depots, which IINM, came from the Military use of this term.

In larger Cities and Metroplexes, the use of Station and Terminal were the most common names for Railroad facilities.

In towns and Cities that had multiple Rail facilities, all of the above terms were used.
 
In Atlanta, they had a “Union Station” serving mainly L&N and affiliates, and a “Terminal Station” serving mainly SR and affiliates. Not sure why the latter was called that, but Atlanta, from its founding was called “Terminus”, as a nod to its location at Milepost 0, of the Western and Atlantic RR. In 1847, it became Atlanta. Terminal is derived from terminus, so that may or may not have some bearing on the Terminal Station name…🤷‍♂️
 
railiner said:
In Atlanta, they had a “Union Station” serving mainly L&N and affiliates, and a “Terminal Station” serving mainly SR and affiliates. Not sure why the latter was called that, but Atlanta, from its founding was called “Terminus”, as a nod to its location at Milepost 0, of the Western and Atlantic RR. In 1847, it became Atlanta. Terminal is derived from terminus, so that may or may not have some bearing on the Terminal Station name…🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
Atlanta was also named "Marthasville" for a time.

In 1842, when a two-story brick depot was built, the locals asked that the settlement of Terminus be called Lumpkin, after Governor Wilson Lumpkin. Gov. Lumpkin asked them to name it after his young daughter (Martha Atalanta Lumpkin) instead, and Terminus became Marthasville;[16] it was officially incorporated on December 23, 1843. In 1845, the chief engineer of the Georgia Railroad (J. Edgar Thomson) suggested that Marthasville be renamed "Atlantica-Pacifica", which was quickly shortened to "Atlanta". Wilson Lumpkin seems to have supported the change, reporting that Martha's middle name was Atalanta.[17]
 

Latest posts

Back
Top