The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Metro-One]

Debating what is not LRT or what is never comes to a complete conclusion.

The only definitions I like are metro vs. non metro.

Fully grade separated urban system? Metro.

Has at grade crossings / runs in the street? Not metro.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Debating what is not LRT or what is never comes to a complete conclusion.

The only definitions I like are metro vs. non metro.

Fully grade separated urban system? Metro.

Has at grade crossings / runs in the street? Not metro.

There are always exceptions though!



(Tyne and Wear metro, which also uses LRVs on mainline track)

[Metro-One]

Like any definition in the world there are always exceptions and grey zones in the edges.

For Canada with regards the term metro in its generally excepted grade separated sense I would define our systems as the following:

Metro: Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Ottawa.

Not Metro: All others

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Like any definition in the world there are always exceptions and grey zones in the edges.

For Canada with regards the term metro in its generally excepted grade separated sense I would define our systems as the following:

Metro: Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Ottawa.

Not Metro: All others

I agree with your groupings.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Like any definition in the world there are always exceptions and grey zones in the edges.

For Canada with regards the term metro in its generally excepted grade separated sense I would define our systems as the following:

Metro: Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Ottawa.

Not Metro: All others

Okay..gotcha!..I've always thought that the term "metro" was French for underground subway system, hence Montreal using that term. As you pointed out, Vancouver's sky train indeed fits that definition alongside the other 3 which have all or large portions underground..The things you learn on this site..Thanks!

[ShavedParmesanCheese]

Originally Posted by Razor

Okay..gotcha!..I've always thought that the term "metro" was French for underground subway system, hence Montreal using that term.

You might not expect it, but Metro is actually of British origin. The oldest underground rapid transport service is actually the Metropolitan Line (previously it's own railway) in the London Underground, opened in 1863. The word Subway, too, used to have a different meaning. In the 20s, when the corridor in Toronto was grade-separated, the streets which passed under were referred to as subways.

Why do we call the transport system a subway? Probably something to do with New York.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by milomilo

There are always exceptions though!

(Tyne and Wear metro, which also uses LRVs on mainline track)

The name that a transit agency gives something has little to do with the correct technical designation. For instance, according to leading transit expert Robert Schwandl (owner of urbanrail.net) "The TYNE AND WEAR METRO system (77.5 km) is not a 'full metro' because of some level crossings, four along the branch to the Airport, one at Howdon, and three on the Sunderland line. Also, the Sunderland branch shares tracks with regional diesel train services."

http://www.urbanrail.net/eu/uk/new/newcstle.htm

In terms of light rail, while there have been streetcars (or trams) in north america long before the term light rail was prevalent, the term was introduced to describe the new modern iteration of streetcars that followed the example of German Stadbahn systems which are robust tram systems that tend to have higher speeds, higher capacities, and longer lengths than legacy streetcar/tram systems. But they tend to have at least some street running - even if just in median - and level crossings and use tram-type rolling stock. This is something described right on the light rail wikipedia page.

So a defining part is the use of tram-like rolling stock rather than just using short trains.

With a metro system that's fully grade separated but uses tram-type vehicles (ie Confederation Line) one could perhaps call it by either name since it has both features. The same could probably apply to a line that operates on a light rail-type route but doesn't use tram-type vehicles (although that seems less common). But I don't see the justification to use the term for a line that has neither a light rail-type route nor uses tram-like vehicles.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The name that a transit agency gives something has little to do with the correct technical designation. For instance, according to leading transit expert Robert Schwandl (owner of urbanrail.net) "The TYNE AND WEAR METRO system (77.5 km) is not a 'full metro' because of some level crossings, four along the branch to the Airport, one at Howdon, and three on the Sunderland line. Also, the Sunderland branch shares tracks with regional diesel train services."

http://www.urbanrail.net/eu/uk/new/newcstle.htm

In terms of light rail, while there have been streetcars (or trams) in north america long before the term light rail was prevalent, the term was introduced to describe the new modern iteration of streetcars that followed the example of German Stadbahn systems which are robust tram systems that tend to have higher speeds, higher capacities, and longer lengths than legacy streetcar/tram systems. But they tend to have at least some street running - even if just in median - and level crossings and use tram-type rolling stock. This is something described right on the light rail wikipedia page.

So a defining part is the use of tram-like rolling stock rather than just using short trains.

With a metro system that's fully grade separated but uses tram-type vehicles (ie Confederation Line) one could perhaps call it by either name since it has both features. The same could probably apply to a line that operates on a light rail-type route but doesn't use tram-type vehicles (although that seems less common). But I don't see the justification to use the term for a line that has neither a light rail-type route nor uses tram-like vehicles.

I agree that the name doesn't make the system, but in the case of the Tyne and Wear Metro, the name is fairly accurate. It's pretty cheap and crappy, but in use it operates as any other metro system despite a few level crossings. It's not like standard LRTs that always prioritize vehicles at some point.

I'm not proposing this as a definition (as it's pointless), but to me an important delineator is whether something can be automated, which requires a few higher quality aspects. REM is top tier due to this, whereas Calgary's LRT and others are a step below.

[ShavedParmesanCheese]

Perhaps we could find help in the historical context.

When the Metropolitan railway opened in 1863, it was not meant to be a simple commuter short line, rather it's own impressive main line, just mostly underground. It's this mainline distinction which helps to better define the differences from an LRT or tram system. Mainline trains typically have:

- ROW when crossing roads, with no/minimal streetrunning because of the high traffic.

- High entry points, to accommodate platformed stations

- Separated, shuntable carriages

Compare this to a tramway's definable features:

- Priority (sometimes) when crossing intersections, typically running on the street for most of, if not all the time.

- Low entry points, to accommodate stations with minimal/no platforming

- Single, usually articulated, vehicles which cannot be divided like a train's carriages.

With LRT the differences become more ambiguous, and takes aspects from both a typical metro line and a tramway, as the specific need arises. Most always though, you can tell the difference between an LRT or tramway and a metro by the boarding point. It's the underside of a vehicle which makes the difference between light and heavy rail.


(TTC's Wikipedia page)
This is rolling stock from a metro - the boarding point is high, the trains have multiple interchangeable carriages, and it's not safe to run at-grade.


(Confed. Line's Wikipedia page)

This is rolling stock from an LRT - the boarding point is low, they're less trains and more singular vehicles, and the hidden undercarriage makes it safe enough to run at-grade.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by ShavedParmesanCheese

Perhaps we could find help in the historical context.

When the Metropolitan railway opened in 1863, it was not meant to be a simple commuter short line, rather it's own impressive main line, just mostly underground. It's this mainline distinction which helps to better define the differences from an LRT or tram system. Mainline trains typically have:

- ROW when crossing roads, with no/minimal streetrunning because of the high traffic.

- High entry points, to accommodate platformed stations

- Separated, shuntable carriages

Compare this to a tramway's definable features:

- Priority (sometimes) when crossing intersections, typically running on the street for most of, if not all the time.

- Low entry points, to accommodate stations with minimal/no platforming

- Single, usually articulated, vehicles which cannot be divided like a train's carriages.

With LRT the differences become more ambiguous, and takes aspects from both a typical metro line and a tramway, as the specific need arises. Most always though, you can tell the difference between an LRT or tramway and a metro by the boarding point. It's the underside of a vehicle which makes the difference between light and heavy rail.


(TTC's Wikipedia page)
This is rolling stock from a metro - the boarding point is high, the trains have multiple interchangeable carriages, and it's not safe to run at-grade.


(Confed. Line's Wikipedia page)

This is rolling stock from an LRT - the boarding point is low, they're less trains and more singular vehicles, and the hidden undercarriage makes it safe enough to run at-grade.

So, is GO a metro then? If so, we need to update our maps for this.

[ShavedParmesanCheese]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, is GO a metro then? If so, we need to update our maps for this.

As urban transport's evolved, so too has the characteristics of the rolling stock, you'd be hard-pressed nowadays to find a metro system with separated engines. Aside from that, GO's scheduling is certainly not rapid, and as most stations outside of the GTA only see single-way services in the mornings and evenings, this firmly defines GO as an inter-city commuter railway.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by ShavedParmesanCheese

As urban transport's evolved, so too has the characteristics of the rolling stock, you'd be hard-pressed nowadays to find a metro system with separated engines. Aside from that, GO's scheduling is certainly not rapid, and as most stations outside of the GTA only see single-way services in the mornings and evenings, this firmly defines GO as an inter-city commuter railway.

What if the province decided to amalgamate the GTA? Remember, the TTC subway did go through other cities, and even today does.

[ShavedParmesanCheese]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

What if the province decided to amalgamate the GTA? Remember, the TTC subway did go through other cities, and even today does.

The urban agglomerations that any service goes through does not make the difference between intercity commuter service, and a metro. They could amalgamate the 9 counties that GO trains pass through, but that wouldn't stop it from being a commuter service. And as much as I'd like to say the opposite, GO is not anywhere close to rapid scheduling. Additionally, it's entirely diesel-run. How many agreed-upon metro systems can you think of that aren't electrified?

If nothing else, the rolling stock is just too big. The carriages have 3 floors after all. It's difficult enough to fit them into Union's trainshed, think about how big the tunnels would have to be to fit those?

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by ShavedParmesanCheese

The urban agglomerations that any service goes through does not make the difference between intercity commuter service, and a metro. They could amalgamate the 9 counties that GO trains pass through, but that wouldn't stop it from being a commuter service. And as much as I'd like to say the opposite, GO is not anywhere close to rapid scheduling. Additionally, it's entirely diesel-run. How many agreed-upon metro systems can you think of that aren't electrified?

If nothing else, the rolling stock is just too big. The carriages have 3 floors after all. It's difficult enough to fit them into Union's trainshed, think about how big the tunnels would have to be to fit those?

What about GO RER?

[ShavedParmesanCheese]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

What about GO RER?

At it's peak, trains will run at 15 minutes or better. While this is more than welcome news for somebody living in Hamilton, it isn't yet rapid - you'd be hard-pressed to wait at a subway platform in Toronto for more than 5 minutes.

Even then, the RER plan doesn't ensure 15 minutes or better across the region. Depending on when, and who, and where you ask, Hamilton's GO stations will have service on the hourly, or half hourly. That is not rapid.

Frequency in scheduling is not the defining characteristic of a metro or LRT, but it is a very important component.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by ShavedParmesanCheese

Perhaps we could find help in the historical context.

When the Metropolitan railway opened in 1863, it was not meant to be a simple commuter short line, rather it's own impressive main line, just mostly underground. It's this mainline distinction which helps to better define the differences from an LRT or tram system. Mainline trains typically have:

- ROW when crossing roads, with no/minimal streetrunning because of the high traffic.

- High entry points, to accommodate platformed stations

- Separated, shuntable carriages

Compare this to a tramway's definable features:

- Priority (sometimes) when crossing intersections, typically running on the street for most of, if not all the time.

- Low entry points, to accommodate stations with minimal/no platforming

- Single, usually articulated, vehicles which cannot be divided like a train's carriages.

With LRT the differences become more ambiguous, and takes aspects from both a typical metro line and a tramway, as the specific need arises. Most always though, you can tell the difference between an LRT or tramway and a metro by the boarding point. It's the underside of a vehicle which makes the difference between light and heavy rail.

(TTC's Wikipedia page)
This is rolling stock from a metro - the boarding point is high, the trains have multiple interchangeable carriages, and it's not safe to run at-grade.

(Confed. Line's Wikipedia page)

This is rolling stock from an LRT - the boarding point is low, they're less trains and more singular vehicles, and the hidden undercarriage makes it safe enough to run at-grade.

But then how would you clasify the Calgary and Edmonton Siemens rolling stock? Based on your definition, they are more in line with the old TTC rolling stock than LRT, but they are LRT, and with street running sections to boot, unlike Confed.

[J.OT13]

In Ottawa, they made a really dumb decision to go with low-floor LRT rolling stock for the off chance it would run surface in the burbs. Edmonton and Calgary prove that low-floor is not necessary for surface running. High floor, be it LRT like Alberta or light-metro, like Skytrain or the REM, would have been far better for the high volume of passengers.

[ShavedParmesanCheese]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

But then how would you classify the Calgary and Edmonton Siemens rolling stock? Based on your definition, they are more in line with the old TTC rolling stock than LRT, but they are LRT, and with street running sections to boot, unlike Confed.

I didn't mean for what I said to be a rigid definition, just something to help give context of what usually constitutes a metro. Maybe I sounded too snarky, I do apologise if I did, tone is so difficult to convey over text.

LRT systems really are an ambiguous mix of aspects from both existing forms of urban railways, and some systems are closer related to subways like Edmonton & Calgary. It's more than just rolling stock though, there's differences between the stations on the ION, Confed. Line, and the TTC.

I'm sure there's an official definition of the difference between heavy rail and light rail, but I'm not an engineer.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by ShavedParmesanCheese

I didn't mean for what I said to be a rigid definition, just something to help give context of what usually constitutes a metro. Maybe I sounded too snarky, I do apologise if I did, tone is so difficult to convey over text.

LRT systems really are an ambiguous mix of aspects from both existing forms of urban railways, and some systems are closer related to subways like Edmonton & Calgary. It's more than just rolling stock though, there's differences between the stations on the ION, Confed. Line, and the TTC.

I'm sure there's an official definition of the difference between heavy rail and light rail, but I'm not an engineer.

There is no ridged definition. That is part of the problem. Take BRT. At what point does it switch to just an express bus?

[MalcolmTucker]

So, if I ran old TTC rolling stock with third rail power but had level crossings (which is totally possible), what would it be ������