Bangkok To Close Saphan Taksin Skytrain Station To Ease Bottleneck

[pauljones]

Why did they build that single track station in the first place I wonder?

[zakk9]

I use this station frequently, and during the busy times I have never really seen what one could class as a bottleneck, yes sometimes a train has to wait while the train in the opposite direction clears the track but you are talking less than one minute, I have never had to wait for a train at Saphin Thaksin longer than I have had to wait elsewhere.

Departures are less frequent on Silom Line than on Sukhumvit Line due to this bottleneck. Ever been to Siam Station during morning rush hour?

Yes, I change trains there, but you can't tell me there are many more people waiting for the Silom line there than for the Sukhumvit line. I don't think the amount of people waiting there is caused by Saphin Thaksin station

The Sukhumvit Line has its own problem; only 3 cars per train. The point is that there would be less queues on the Silom Line if they could run at more frequent intervals, but they can't because of the bottle neck at Saphan Taksin.

[zakk9]

Why did they build that single track station in the first place I wonder?

The extension over the river wasn't planned to start with. There were already fundaments for the bridge at that time, but as far as I've understood, those where originally made to extend the number of lanes of the road. But the road ends in a bottleneck as well (the traffic light at Surasak), so they decided to use them for the sky-train instead.

[gand]

I wish they would add a skywalk to the full length of BTS.

[WhizBang]

This makes no sense whatsoever. Saphan Taksin is the only BTS connection to the river boats and the free ferries to the hotels. I use this station quite frequently, as do many tourists.

I am equally sure that the 4000 users per day is a lowball figure on purpose in order to further justify the closure. I would be very interested in what the real figure is.

As for the single line being a bottleneck... I seriously doubt it. MRT runs on a single line without any problems. When I use the Silom BTS line, I see no indications of a bottleneck. These are all just excuses to justify the closure, which I am sure is being done for nefarious purposes.

Indeed, if space were really the problem, they could stack the two lines on top of each other, such as Siam and some MRT stations have done.

There... problem solved and no need to close Saphan Taksin.

[rixalex]

I use this station frequently, and during the busy times I have never really seen what one could class as a bottleneck, yes sometimes a train has to wait while the train in the opposite direction clears the track but you are talking less than one minute, I have never had to wait for a train at Saphin Thaksin longer than I have had to wait elsewhere.

Thaksin on the brain?

It's Saphan Taksin.

Named after King Taksin who managed to unite Thailand after the destruction of Ayutthaya.

[rixalex]

These are all just excuses to justify the closure, which I am sure is being done for nefarious purposes.

Possibly but in fairness, right from the time it was built, they have always said the station was a temporary measure. It's not like they have suddenly decided it's not good enough. They knew from the start, that if and when an extension was built, it would have to be rebuilt or removed.

[webfact]

Taksin BTS Station to be demolished

BANGKOK, 1 June 2012 (NNT) - The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) has revealed that it will demolish the structure of Taksin BTS Station in order to eliminate the current rail bottleneck problem, which has been hindering the service.

Bangkok Governor M.R. Sukhumbhand Paribatra, along with the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) officials and representatives from Krungthep Thanakom and Bangkok Mass Transit System Public Company Limited (BTSC), on Thursday inspected the Taksin Station, the only BTS station with one rail track which leads to bottlenecks slowing down train traffic as trains are unable to run on both directions at the same time.

M.R. Sukhumbhand elaborated that the BMA has submitted a letter asking the Department of Rural Roads to expand the Taksin Bridge to make space for construction of another rail track, but the department rejected the request. He said therefore the Taksin Station will have to be demolished to solve the problem, making room for the construction of another track.

The Governor stated that around 4,000 people will be affected by the change. He added a skywalk will be built in place of the station.The 1-kilometer long skywalk is expected to be equipped with a series of escalators, connecting Surasak Station with the Sathorn River pier.

The construction is expected to cost 70 million baht which has already been approved by the Bangkok Metropolitan Council. Once the plan is approved by the Interior Ministry, the construction will begin immediately.

-- NNT 2012-06-01

[gand]

A waste of money to remove it, add more cars instead.

[pakorn7]

A waste of money to remove it, add more cars instead.

More tea money for building the walk way.

[rixalex]

A waste of money to remove it, add more cars instead.

How about removing the bottleneck and adding more cars?

Don't know how people can fail to see the limitations being caused by a section of one track line, when all the other sections are two track. It's not exactly rocket science.

[OzMick]

Excellent planning! The only station that connects the sky-train to the river boats, and since there's a temple on each side, I guess it can't be expanded. 4,000 passengers per day seems awfully low though. I use the station frequently, and there's a very big crowd getting on and off the trains at every single arrival/departure. Oh well... TiT...

Heaven forbid they should resume and bulldoze a temple! I guess they are lucky the temples didn't decide a railway was inappropriate use of the land.

[OzMick]

I use this station frequently, and during the busy times I have never really seen what one could class as a bottleneck, yes sometimes a train has to wait while the train in the opposite direction clears the track but you are talking less than one minute, I have never had to wait for a train at Saphin Thaksin longer than I have had to wait elsewhere.

D'oh. A train waiting for a minute for another to clear the track is the definition of a bottleneck.... which slows down the whole system. It's a bit hard for trains to arrive at the next station any more often than they arrive at Saphan Taksin.

[Morakot]

[...] definition of a bottleneck.... which slows down the whole system. It's a bit hard for trains to arrive at the next station any more often than they arrive at Saphan Taksin.

When trams were (re)introduced, in a certain UK city, authorities felt the need to educate the inhabitants that: through the technical nature of the track system, trams cannot circumvent obstructing objects...

Edited June 1, 2012 by Morakot

[JayBangkok]

A waste of money to remove it, add more cars instead.

How about removing the bottleneck and adding more cars?

Don't know how people can fail to see the limitations being caused by a section of one track line, when all the other sections are two track. It's not exactly rocket science.

It's not the one track line itself that causes the problem it's the scheduling of the trains using the one track section.

Frequently there is a train in the station and another train waiting.

On the Silom Line the minimum time between trains is 4 minutes 50 (rush hour) and 6 minutes at other times so this waiting would not happen with proper scheduling of the trains.

[rixalex]

A waste of money to remove it, add more cars instead.

How about removing the bottleneck and adding more cars?

Don't know how people can fail to see the limitations being caused by a section of one track line, when all the other sections are two track. It's not exactly rocket science.

It's not the one track line itself that causes the problem it's the scheduling of the trains using the one track section.

Frequently there is a train in the station and another train waiting.

On the Silom Line the minimum time between trains is 4 minutes 50 (rush hour) and 6 minutes at other times so this waiting would not happen with proper scheduling of the trains.

Determining whether scheduling of trains could be improved i would suggest requires a little more in depth study than simply standing at a station.

Determining whether changing a one track line into a two track line would improve flow and could potentially cut down waiting times, on the other hand, seems rather obvious.

[popshirt]

One track is one track.

So, the bottleneck will move to where, again?

The real passenger bottleneck will be moved to Surasak Station. I used to live just steps away. It is a busy station now especially with all the schools and hospital, etc. nearby, god knows what it will be like with the additional riders waiting for trains.

[damian]

A waste of money to remove it, add more cars instead.

How about removing the bottleneck and adding more cars?

Don't know how people can fail to see the limitations being caused by a section of one track line, when all the other sections are two track. It's not exactly rocket science.

It's not the one track line itself that causes the problem it's the scheduling of the trains using the one track section.

Frequently there is a train in the station and another train waiting.

On the Silom Line the minimum time between trains is 4 minutes 50 (rush hour) and 6 minutes at other times so this waiting would not happen with proper scheduling of the trains.

Determining whether scheduling of trains could be improved i would suggest requires a little more in depth study than simply standing at a station.

Determining whether changing a one track line into a two track line would improve flow and could potentially cut down waiting times, on the other hand, seems rather obvious.

It isn't rocket science. The time it takes one train to enter the single line section, stop at the station, then clear the single line section at the other end determines the headway of trains (amount of time between trains) If that time is 4 minutes then that's all that can be operated on the line.

Now that that's settled the line is to be extended to Bang Wa (an extra 5 stations) this means more ridership. They have determined this will require a greater headway than 4 minutes and therefore to achieve this they have to remove the single line section.

Saphin Taksin was always to be removed when the line was extended across the river. Designs have been done to keep it but this reqiures some road space to be taken which obviously the roadies disagree to.

Hope that helps to understand the dilemma.

[Payboy]

There goes that Ferry ride from the station to the Hotels that are nearby (Sheraton etc). The guests will now instead have to be picked up from the Surasak station. They ain't gone walk 700 Meters to catch the ferry.

No worries ! If all goes according to plan, by November this year they will be able to board the ferries at Surasak station or even at Saladaeng.

[rak sa_ngop]

This will also deal a blow to the newly opened Asiatique riverside development. Currently there is a free ferry every 30 mins from Sapan Taksin, which obviously will draw lots of visitors arriving by BTS. Adding a 5 min stand/walk (or longer if you get stuck behind some iphoning office workers) will just put people off going or maybe make them switch to taxis. Rebuilding the station over the expressway seems like a good idea to me.

[gand]

More trains running more frequently as in every 3 min is no different than adding more cars and running every 6 min, same throughput.

[Morakot]

More trains running more frequently as in every 3 min is no different than adding more cars and running every 6 min, same throughput.

Don't think it works like this. You also need to add the costs of extending the plattforms at each station.

[whybother]

This makes no sense whatsoever. Saphan Taksin is the only BTS connection to the river boats and the free ferries to the hotels. I use this station quite frequently, as do many tourists.

I am equally sure that the 4000 users per day is a lowball figure on purpose in order to further justify the closure. I would be very interested in what the real figure is.

As for the single line being a bottleneck... I seriously doubt it. MRT runs on a single line without any problems. When I use the Silom BTS line, I see no indications of a bottleneck. These are all just excuses to justify the closure, which I am sure is being done for nefarious purposes.

Indeed, if space were really the problem, they could stack the two lines on top of each other, such as Siam and some MRT stations have done.

There... problem solved and no need to close Saphan Taksin.

Where is the MRT a single, besides terminating stations? Even those have 2 tracks, just with 1 generally used.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Maestro
Deleted troll comment about a shoe.

[whybother]

More trains running more frequently as in every 3 min is no different than adding more cars and running every 6 min, same throughput.

Don't think it works like this. You also need to add the costs of extending the plattforms at each station.

All BTS and MRT stations are already built for 6 cars.

The extra cost for more frequent trains would be the extra drivers.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Maestro
Deleted troll comment about a shoe.

[Time Traveller]

How and where exactly will they build a moving walkway? I assume trains will continue to cross the river after closure of the station, if not then this plan will just further fragment the Public transport system

[Morakot]

[...] if space were really the problem, they could stack the two lines on top of each other, such as Siam and some MRT stations have done.

Why spent more, if you can “solve it” by spending less in an order of magnitude.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Morakot

[01322521959]

Crazy. Must be a big load of "C" involved in the walkway project. Closing a perfectly good station in the middle of Bangkok. The mind boggles..

[gand]

More trains running more frequently as in every 3 min is no different than adding more cars and running every 6 min, same throughput.

Don't think it works like this. You also need to add the costs of extending the plattforms at each station.

The platforms are already long enough to handle a train twice as long, even longer.

[rixalex]

More trains running more frequently as in every 3 min is no different than adding more cars and running every 6 min, same throughput.

Sorry to sound like a broken record, but how about trains running more frequently and adding more cars?

Why do you make it a choice of one or the other? To take the system forward, every improvement in efficiency, throughput etc, needs to be considered and if possible implemented.

[rixalex]

Crazy. Must be a big load of "C" involved in the walkway project. Closing a perfectly good station in the middle of Bangkok. The mind boggles..

Really?

The choice was, close a perfectly good station in the middle of Bangkok, but in doing so, improve efficiency throughout the whole system, or not close a perfectly good station in the middle of Bangkok, but not improve efficiency throughout the whole system.

To me, providing they exhausted all possible ways of adding an extra line and keeping the station - which it looks like they did - then the mind would have been boggling had they not made this decision.