Jump to content

Talk:Rapid transit/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Rapid transit
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vaoverland (talk | contribs) at 20:16, 25 December 2004 (WikiProject Streecars). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I am bothered by the line that says that the tunnels are sealed from groundwater by concrete. Very bothered. As anyone with construction experience would know concrete is porous and water passes right through it, this is not a defficiency of concrete, its a strength, since water makes concrete (a lot) harder. What I am trying to say here is that while tunnels are often lined with concrete, concrete itself can't seal against water the concrete is primarily structural.. even though it does stop some water.

For any one out there about to bring up a dam, take this into account: Concrete lining a metro tunnel is probably no more that 40-50 cm (probably less, this is an estimate, im not an expert). Dams are way thicker, the water that seeps through is a neglible ammount. They are probably made of a special kind of concrete anyways.

point being, can anyone fix that line? i would have done it myself.. but i do not know what to say.. i'll say this though concrete is mostly structural, while it does stop some ground water from seeping in, thats not its porpouse, if you made a bucket out of concrete and filled it, the next day it would probably be empty. Think of it as a paper water cone.. yeah it works as a cup for a couple of minutes, but would you ever considering using it as a long-term cup?

Lightning 17:34, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This page is now part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Streetcars. On Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Streetcars we are developing a great place to talk over our ideas and work out our differences about articles.

For reference purposes, here is a listing of some of the WP articles which relate to streetcars. Please add to the list for project for working purposes.


Bordeaux

I lived in Bordeaux until a couple of months ago, and I never figured out how the trams worked. Now I see in this article that Bordeaux has "hidden wires". Where on earth are they? Is it that funny strip in the middle? Chameleon 16:51, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

they're "hidden" in rails. It's explained here : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tramway#Alimentation_par_le_sol ;o) --Pontauxchats 09:14, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Translation from french

I'm in the middle of translating from fr:Tramway so I'm parking my notes here in case I never get back to it.

--

OK I got back to it so I removed the notes. The translation needs wikification. The only factual differences were - the Swansea thing (which I think was wrong) - the first electric tram (which I re-integrated into the translation). NB: I did this because of a request on Wikipedia:Translation into English#French-to-English.Sbwoodside 02:14, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Translation into English:



Appropriate header image

In the previous change comment, IsarSteve wrote Why delete the Athens Tram image ? ...Modern Manchester Trams?? These trams typify the "Third World" attitude to Public Transport in the UK! in response to G-Man replacing a picture of an Athens tram with a Manchester tram as the lead photograph in this article.

Whilst I'm not sure I follow the third-world bit, I too think that this replacement harmed the article. The Athens tram depicted is a latest state of the art vehicle, running on one of the newest systems. It is a 100% low floor model, and an example of a standardised model used in many other cities recently. As such it is a good representation of modern trams.

On the other hand the Manchester Tram represents 10+ year old practice and, whilst locally significant in the UK as the first new generation system here, has actually turned out to be something of an evolutionary dead-end. It is a high floor vehicle designed for use with high platforms (a combination little used elsewhere) and it is a system specific model used nowhere else. As such it probably deserved its previous appearance adjoining the 'Regional variations' section, but certainly not a headline appearance.

I have therefore reinstated the Athens tram, and moved the Manchester one back to its previous location. -- Chris j wood 13:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The reason I replaced it was because it is a terrible photoraph, most of the tram is cut off, and the enlarged version is barely any bigger than the thumbnail. Surely a better image can be found than this one. G-Man 18:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi Guys.. maybe the third-world was a bit OTT, but it had the desired effect.. As an ex-pat I have to admit that I get very frustrated with the UK and it´s tram developments... My Third- World remark, which by the way I feel welling up in me as I write this, has more to do with the timescale regarding new and updating systems in the UK... I have good friends who are employed by a Transport undertaking running Trams on the coast in the North West of England and the stories they tell me would make your hair curl.. compare that with tramway systems in Karlsruhe, Hannover or Freiburg/Breisgau in (Western)Germany and it´s just a different world.. Even cities that used to be in Communist East Germany e.g. Chemnitz have/are improved/ing their systems and have already overtaken the UK. Seasonal greetings from a cold and snowy Berlin IsarSteve 19:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I found a better image on the Finnish Wikipedia, I hope you all agree that it's OK G-Man 21:52, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Duplication

There seems to be a lot of duplication between this article and the light rail article. I'm not sure what if anything should be done about this. Any ideas? -- G-Man 20:47, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've noticed the duplication between the tram and light rail articles. In fact I started a 'Tram transport' category only to realise I was duplicating a light rail one. Trams and light rail aren't synonymous, but there is a awful lot of overlap. Not really sure what to do about this. -- Chris j wood 22:00, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, It might be a good idea to move the regional variations bits to their own articles such as Trams in Europe and Streetcars in North America or something, where they could be covered in greater detail. Anyone agree/disagree. -- G-Man 20:47, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not at all keen on this suggestion. Trams and streetcars are just different words for the same animal. I feel making this split reduces the net sum of common understanding. -- Chris j wood 22:00, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

older Talk items

Protest: I am new to Wikipedia, but I am European as well. Trams are still relatively widely used accross Europe. Not only Wienna, many German cities are linked with trains. These trains have 1435 mm rails, and their railway nets are connected with underground net and with train net. And yes, they run on electricity. In history, there were horse pulled trains, and steam powered ones. Such train is on display at Railroad museum at Utrecht Holland. And there are things reversed: Trains in Netherlands operate more like tramways then like trains in the rest of world. Janko Dobričević, Zagreb


This is from a previous version of the article:

However, all such systems in the United States were removed by the 1950's. This has often been attributed to the larger car manufacturers buying out the tram operators and then pulling up the tracks to make more space for cars.

Not all systems were removed, some remain, for example the famous San Francisco trollies. San Francisco still has two separate tram system, the Muni street cars (electric) and the world famous cable cars (pulled).

The second statement, about car manufacturers, should be clarified. Since tracks don't take up space that would be used for cars, I doubt that was the reason for their removal. The article alludes to the real reason: that car manufacturers caused trolley removal in order to sell fleets of buses. This is an interesting topic! Someone with better information should expand it.

In Melbourne, some tram lines run on tracks which are in lanes that cars and buses are not permitted to enter - tram stops placed in the middle of the streets physically stop cars from using those lanes. Therefore, their removal would allow extra lanes of traffic. Increasing traffic flow was certainly given as a reason when advocating removing the tramlines from Melbourne's streets in the 50's and 60's (any such attempt now would be doomed to fail). --user:Robert Merkel

I removed this:

There is a tram museum in Bendigo, some two hours north of Melbourne, and another in Maryland, USA, near Washington, DC.

A quick search shows numerous tram(way) museums in Australia. Unless there is something particularly distinguishing about the one in Bendigo, it seems out of place here. If there is something of special significance about Bendigo, by all means put it back into the article, but mention why that tram museum is notable.

The Bendigo Tram Museum is especially significant, anon. It's far and away the largest one in Australia, and (unless I miss my guess) one of the biggest in the world. There are quite a few others - one right here in Ballarat - but Bendigo is the mecca for tram lovers. Don't know anything about the Maryland one. Tannin 23:12, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Thanks, Tannin! Why don't you edit the article to say something about that. I originally removed it as part of my crusade to get rid of pointless enumerative lists. Not that lists are bad, but for every sentence to turn into something like "there are also tram museums in Adelaide, Antwerp, Atlanta, Brussels, Boston, Chicago..." would be annoying. So if it's an especially important tram museum, I think it should say so to justify its inclusion in the article. --Nate Silva 23:16, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
My pleasure, Nate. I am horribly pushed for time right now, unfortunately) and won't be on-line for more than a few moments till next week sometime, so hopefully someone else will take care of it. And good luck with your campaign: I hate those pointless lists too. Cheers -- Tannin

Good info on National City Lines, thanks to whoever put that in!

I wrote the original sentence that there are tram-type systems in the US, but not normally known as trams. I just removed a statement that they are known as "streetcars". That is partially true, but they're known by many different names. Light-rail, commuter rail, trolley, etc. Some of these names may not be totally accurate but they're what people call the systems that are otherwise known as trams. Examples: Portland Streetcar, Portland MAX Light Rail, San Diego Trolley, San Francisco Cable Cars. All of these operate, at least paritially, as trams. However, I don't think yet another enumerative list is necessary ("...also known as streetcars, trolleys, cable cars, bla, bla").

--Nate Silva 23:08, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"The name "tram" is from Low German traam, meaning the "beam (of a wheelbarrow)"."

Is this true? I've read in lots of places that they were named after a man called Outram. Lee M 19:22, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject Streetcars

User: Vaoverland

I am from Richmond, Virginia, where Frank J. Sprague is credited with creating the first successful electric trolley-powered streetcar system on some of our 7 hills in 1887-1888. The last streetcars operated here in 1949. However, Richmond has plans underway here for a heritage streetcar system, such as currently described in the Wikipedia article tram. I hope we can have some fun here. Vaoverland 23:09, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

terminology, U.S. vs others

When working on articles for Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains, we have been confronted with a problem in major differences in terminology used around the world. This is going to come up in this WikiProject as well.

Here are 2 examples already:

  • streetcar Should this really be redirected to tram, which is an obscure usage in US? I have never heard the term tram used here except referring to some small rubber-tired people movers used for parking shuttles at places like theme parks and major events.
  • subway should this really be redirected to metro, an inapplicable usage in US? The only time I hear metro used here is occasionally for the formal or slang name of a subway system, such as Metro in Washington, DC.

How can we incorporate the differences and educate everyone?

Comments on the above, anyone? Vaoverland 22:57, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think if the article is talking about a system in an American city, then we should say streetcar. Tram simply isn't used in the United States. Ditto with metro. Mackensen (talk) 23:54, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That is my thinking also. I think we should have articles under subway and streetcar which indicate to SEE metro and SEE tram respectively for the non-North American version, and vice versa, if that is the proper way to differentiate. This would help readers find what they are looking for. This approach would allow us to pull out most of the U.S. related content in each article, and make room for more photos and content. I think the next step would be to post this on the talk pages for tram and metro, and solicit comments and help from other writers to be discussed here. Vaoverland 19:32, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. Mackensen (talk) 19:35, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It appear we have a quorum, so I will make it so, and we'll seee what we hear. Vaoverland 20:04, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)


Should this page perhaps be relocated to Metro? I am a bit uncertain... --Anders Törlind

nomenclature, again. What about an entry that begins with the fact that the words "underground" (British), "subway" (American - New York City and some others), and "metro" (French, American - Washington, D.C. and some others) are by way of being TRADE NAMES for the same phenomenon, which are public transportation systems with underground rail lines, though some of them have stretches of surface lines or even elevated lines as well. Set up at least 2 redirect pages, one for Metro and one for Subway. Leave the initial entry where it was. --MichaelTinkler

Thought as much. Ill do the redirect from subway then --Anders Törlind

Yay, Wiki at its best!

Does anyone know if the #2 and 3 uses of Underground are derived specifically from the London Underground? When is "Notes from Undergound" (and its concomitant usages of the term) first published? All ideas for expansion of the entry.

Ho hum. I should have known that a list of the worlds most famous undergrounds would turn into "oh, i'll add my local subway since this is a list". Facing the inevitable, i'll rephrase th listings heading. :-) --Anders Törlind

I removed the list of cities having undergrounds, which was totally worthless in my mind. Reinstate when you feel strongly about it, and state here why a list of all tube in the world is encyclopedia knowledge. Sounds more like the telephone book to me.

More useful may be some notable undergrounds (the first; the biggest; fastest; still operated by horse carriage; etc.) --Robbe

I thought the purpose of the list was to list the different names of the subway systems. If no one cares about the aliases of such systems then I would propose removing the reference to metro because the name metro does not reflect the underground nature of the railroad like underground or subway do.
To this i disagree. There is only a need to list the most commonly used names, in the same way as we do not list all translation in all languages to all world in this dictionary. The three most commonly used terms should cover 99% of what readers will search for, of this i am certain. If you wish, a Underground listing page linked from Underground (and vice versa) should do nicely. --Anders Törlind
I disagree with your assumption. "Underground" and "Metro" should not be listed as the most commonly used names, though this article title uses "underground". If you judge by the number of passengers that call their local mass transit systems, then subway should be the common name by a big margin because there are multiple subway systems in the US and almost all American knows what subway means. Underground? What a strange name! If you judge by the population of the cities which runs a subway systems, then you cannot omit Hong Kong and Tokyo. Are you telling me these wo major cities only consist of 1% of mass transit riders?
If you were to examine subway and metro, you would experience something interesting. Also, see the first line of the page and underground listing. Personally, I cannot fathom that this subject could evoke so strong feelings. If you are bristling for a fight, may I direct you to football or perhaps Gun/Politics? --Anders Törlind (oh, and by the way, I'm telling you that only 1% of the readers of the english wikipedia would not use either subway, underground or metro when searching for general information on this kind of public transportation system)

My. Folks. Nothing queerer. I guess we should have known it would turn into a list of all public transportations underground. --MichaelTinkler

I see no problem with the list. There is a list of Cities in the world. Is that really necessary? No, but it serves as a centralized place to link all the cities on one page. Same for the Biography list, the Wikipedian list and so on. Then why are people so pissed off when the underground list was formed? I am really puzzled. Perhaps it is because of the phase of the moon!

There are certainly more-or-less useful lists of cities imaginable under different criteria: all the cities, cities with population above one million, cities more than 1000m above sea-level, cities with a subway system, etc. Of these the last definitely belongs to the lesser useful . All of these lists are arguably not traditional encylopedia material. --Robbe

I understand the rationale behind the article title, but I feel the term "underground" is misleading because not all metro systems are underground. For this reason, I prefer the term "metro." In addition to being a very international term (many, many languages, including English, French, Spanish, Esperanto, Finnish, Italian, Arabic, Greek, and Russian, off the top of my head, use it), whereas not all undergrounds are underground, all metros are certainly metropolitan.

Robert Schwandl of metropla.net defines a metro as follows:


  1. ) An urban electric mass rail transport system, i.e. it is primarily used to move within the city
  2. ) Totally independent from other traffic, rail or street traffic
  3. ) High frequency service (maximum interval approx. 10 minutes during normal daytime service)

(P.S. There is a complete list of world metro systems on metropla.net .)

-montréalais

I agree. Not all metro systems are underground. In my country, the first such system is completely elevated (except for the Terminal tracks). The second such railway completed is mostly above ground and elevated. Only 5% of that is underground. Maybe the definition should be changed so that it would say "although some such systems do not have underground portions". —seav
Most people seem to be in favor of moving this article to "metro", so I have done that. - Patrick 14:31 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

That definition of "metro" excludes most of the Toronto system.

We need to recognize that there are multiple terms, and each of them also has other meanings: "Toronto metro" isn't the transit system run by the TTC, it's the Toronto metropolitan area. In London, a "subway" is a pedestrian underpass. And an "underground" can also be a political organization. I'd leave the main article where it is (though I was raised riding a subway, not an underground), with redirects from metro and subway. Vicki Rosenzweig

In what way does it exclude the Toronto system? - Montréalais

Shouldent this page be moved to something neutral like say Mass transport rail systems. The term "Metro" in this context is little know in Britain, the word "Metro" is usually taken to mean a car of the same name. We had a similar debate over rail transport because Americans call them Railroads, and every other English speaking country calls them Railways. G-Man 17:54, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The word metro is also little known in the US, except maybe in Washington, DC. We usually call it the subway here in the US, but of course that means something different in the UK. I generally associate the term metro with Paris and other continental European cities. (It's also called the metro in Montreal, Canada, but most people there speak French.) Mass transport rail systems seems unwieldy and overbroad; it could also include, at a minimum, commuter rail systems. There's also a US/UK problem there: in the US, we say mass transit rather than mass transport. I see no perfect solution to the problem of what to call this page, and think metro is as good a compromise as any. -- Cjmnyc 04:16, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Metro seems a decent compromise to me, although we never use it here in the US. I do think some of the more specific information should be moved elsewhere: construction information about subways should be moved to either subway or underground (actually probably to either subway or underground (subway) to disambiguate underground). The continental European lack of distinction between underground transport and above-ground transport is not universal: in Japan, for example, the subways and above-ground light rail are two distinct systems, discussed separately and often with separate tickets (most above-ground rail is run by JR, while many subways are privately-operated). --Delirium 00:32, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we need a link to every metro system in the world on this page. And definitely we don't need 4 links to different Iranian metro sites, some of which are not even in English. Paranoid 10:00, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

'operation of trains on the Victoria Line has been automatic since its opening in 1968.' I need to check this, because I find it a little bit difficult to believe. I think the author may be getting Victoria and Jubilee lines muddled up.

Yeah, and a list of all the underground/light/metropolitan railways in the world sounds like a really good idea to me. It would appeal to all the railway fanatics out there.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rapid_transit/Archive_1&oldid=8813085"