Ugliest and Soul-less Amtrak Stations Used in Metropolises Today

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.
How does being inside or outside a "metro area" impact beauty or soullessness?

Mitigating circumstances maybe? Higher pressure on real estate makes it more likely underutilized buildings attract the attention of developers who want to make more money out of them. This is especially true when there is no commuter rail service that can at least ensure the building sees some additional use. Thus when such gems do survive despite all the odds, it is all the more remarkable.

Out in smaller towns a lot of remarkable architecture has survived, not necessarily because of conservation attempts but just because nobody ever saw any need to change anything.
 
Last edited:
Pittsburgh probably deserves to be at least dishonorable mention here. Located in the same building as the old, magnificent Pennsylvania Station (now apartments), the station facility is most definitely soulless and barely adequate. There's now an attempt to dress it up some with a paint job, but you can't put lipstick on a pig and call it beautiful. The Greyhound station across the street, funded in part by the city some years ago, is more functional and attractive than the train station, which Amtrak now laughingly refers to as "Union Station."
 
I’d say some of the worst ones I’ve seen are the non-descript stations Amtrak built in the late 1970s and early 1980s. They all followed a common design, which was meant to improve Amtrak’s image as it largely inherited the older, sometimes disused stations of its predecessors. Here are a few examples:

1. Buffalo-Depew, NY
2. Schenectady (former)
3. Albany (former)
4. Cleveland

These stations have/had modern facilities and a waiting room, but were pretty much the same design and layout. Schenectady’s was built at ground level and had steps/elevator to access the upper level tracks.

In terms of “bare-bones” stations, the worst I’ve seen are:
1. Coatesville, PA
2. Mount Joy, PA (former)
3. Martinsburg, WV
4. Yemassee, SC
 
It's cute - and it's heated unlike some small stations.
Do the tracks go anywhere closer to the town - aka, is there somewhere closer they can put the station to the town? If not, then, be glad they have a station nearby. :)
That is apparently the closest that the tracks come to the town of Leavenworth... definitely a low budget kind-a job!

Screen Shot 2021-08-16 at 7.28.48 AM.png
 
So, really, it doesn't belong in this thread then. It's not ugly and obviously it has the soul of the townspeople who wanted it. :)
I agree. The town only has 2,000 residents, the station is only a mile from city center, it's cute and heated. That being said, it does accommodate around 20 passengers per day - a pretty decent number for such a small community.
 
San Antonio and Houston are also 2 of the Big City Stations that belong on the "Hall of Shame" List.

In regards to Houston, if Amtrak replaced the one downtown statino with two stops, say Katy on the west and outside 610 on the east, ridership would increase......................if we cared about increasing ridership on a three week train.
 
Those stations are all worthy of the list but they don’t beat out LA for me.

LA, Denver and Philadelphia are probably my 3 favorite.
Are those stations you like or stations you dislike for some reason? This is supposed to be about BAD (ugly) stations, not GOOD stations. There is already a thread for that.
 
Are those stations you like or stations you dislike for some reason? This is supposed to be about BAD (ugly) stations, not GOOD stations. There is already a thread for that.

Those are my top 3. If you read the replies in order it makes sense, I was replying to a poster who listed Philadelphia as one of the worst. It’s in my top 3.
 
Those are my top 3. If you read the replies in order it makes sense, I was replying to a poster who listed Philadelphia as one of the worst. It’s in my top 3.
Actually, I did read the posts in order, and was confused. Maybe because Amtrak Blue had already posted her disagreement about including Philadelphia in this list, and you agreed with her (so do I!) and added 3 more to your "good stations" list. My "thread drift alarm" went off.

If we want to say "bad stuff 'bout Amtrak", to paraphrase an old SNL series of skits, I would say the one thing I don't like about Philly is you have to go outside and cross a fairly busy street to get to the subway, which is inconvenient, especially in bad weather. But that is function, not form, so may be off-topic. The building itself is beautiful and pretty well laid out inside.
 
Pittsburgh probably deserves to be at least dishonorable mention here. Located in the same building as the old, magnificent Pennsylvania Station (now apartments), the station facility is most definitely soulless and barely adequate. There's now an attempt to dress it up some with a paint job, but you can't put lipstick on a pig and call it beautiful. The Greyhound station across the street, funded in part by the city some years ago, is more functional and attractive than the train station, which Amtrak now laughingly refers to as "Union Station."

This Yinzer heartily seconds your nomination. At least the historic building, a turn-of-the-(previous)-century Beaux Arts gem by Daniel Burnham, and its magnificent "turtle shell" rotunda, survived. That wasn't assured. The former western HQ of the Pennsylvania railroad is now apartments. (Disclosure: I have one.) The glorious central waiting room and ticket hall are off-limits except for pricy private events (The Pennsylvanian Luxury Downtown Pittsburgh Apartments) and we apartment-creatures can only view them wistfully. On the whole I'd call this a good "adaptive re-use" of an historic building if only the great hall were open to the public and the disgraceful Amshack were scrapped. Of course, in a perfect world both would happen by, guess what, turning the great hall into a....waiting room. A girl can dream.

Fun fact: The building originally was called Union Station, but never merited the name because it served only one railroad, and was renamed Pennsylvania (or Penn) Station in 1912. Source: Union Station (Pittsburgh) - Wikipedia. An even funner fact is that it dates from the brief period when Pittsburg lost its "h."
 
I think the OP wanted to include only urban or suburban stations to exclude rural Amshacks that only serve a handful of passengers on a once-per-day (or less frequent) train. If we want to generate some sense of priorities for station improvements, reconstruction or replacement, those stations, provided they are safe and functional, would be lowest on the list.

Heavily used stations (or stations that could be if service was better), should be higher priority. I've never seen it in daylight, but I think Cleveland would qualify, as would Cincinnati and Indianapolis (though I've never been to the latter two.) These stations (and much of the Midwest) would very likely be very high traffic stations if Amtrak medium and long distance service was improved (e.g. multiple daily trains to Chicago), and there was local commuter rail or light rail service. (I don't think any of these cities has any public transit except buses.) Local public transit should ALWAYS be integrated with Amtrak.

More traffic would justify rebuilding or replacing bad stations, and if you need to rebuild or replace, it is not much more expensive to build a nice station, or rehabilitate a decrepit but formerly beautiful station. I bet they could even make a TV show about it "This Old Terminal" :)

BTW, Atlanta's station isn't ugly, but it is small and inconvenient to public transit. (It's quite a long walk to the subway, about a mile, there were signs on the road in front for a bus route, but I never saw a single bus, and the closest bus stop was a couple of blocks away.) It's plain-looking, no auxiliary services such as food or a convenience store, has a very small parking lot, and the elevator is apparently broken. If there was day-time service to Washington and/or N Carolina on the existing route, and especially if there was Tennessee/Chicago and/or Florida service added, rebuilding or massively expanding the station would be well justified. (Maybe at a different location.)
 
I have to agree about San Antonio. From the outside the station has at least a little character, but inside it feels to me like a fast-food restaurant.

And it's right next door to the historic Sunset Station, which is lovely. I judge that from online photos only—it's an event venue, and I've never been inside.

[Or at least, it was lovely—I just looked it up. It's been renamed the Espee, and from the photos, I judge that it's been redone so that the high ceilings and such are gone. There is still one photo on the site that is what I remember seeing, but only on the History page. (At least the name is reminiscent of Southern Pacific....)

(Edited to add: More searching reveals that the main area may still be intact—but strangely, this page listing it doesn't seem to be accessible from the home page. I don't understand. But this isn't on topic for this thread. )]
 
Last edited:
I reluctantly nominate Richmond Staples Mill Road Station (RVR). Not that I think it's ugly per se; it's just more "utilitarian".

To be fair though, I've never actually been inside of Richmond Main Street Station (RVM). But the outside looks pretty nice.

Considering that Staples Mill Road replaced both Main Street and Broad Street in '75, the 1970s "Interstate Rest Area" architecture is all the more disappointing.

Newport News NPN is just as utilitarian, opening just 6 years after RVR in '81. At least its replacement is under construction near Bland Blvd, scheduled to open about a year from now.
 
Could see this being somewhat controversial but I'd put forward BBY (Boston Back Bay) — the platforms are dismal (particularly Tracks 5/7) and even though it's my home station I always aim to spend as little time there as possible
 
Back
Top