Whoaccio
Senior Member
Is there a reason why North American & European metros often run via third rail while Asian systems often operate via pantograph?
Just when we were starting to get our hopes up about more subway lines in Scarborough, Transit City comes along and crushes those dreams.
The inanity of this post blows my mind. If you think a system like the MTR (which is 90% underground and 10% elevated, operates 8-car HRT trains at up to 80 kph with 2 min headways, has stations 750 m apart, carries 3 million passengers a day fully within the urban core of the city, and whose name is "underground railway") cannot be called a "subway" because you don't like it to, then something is seriously wrong with your mind. And in case you are too lazy to look up pictures of the rest of the MTR, the only reason I chose a picture of the elevated portion is because elevated stations are only just in the process of installing PSD (something our TTC probably won't even dream of installing in our lifetimes) so you can clearly see the overhead wires. Here's a picture of an underground station (the other 90% of the stations), by our very own wyliepoon:Well like it or not that's what the word subway tends to mean in this country. None of the pantograph or linear induction powered systems in Canada are usually called a subway.
Of course, if you can call the pictures you posted subways then you can call the Eglinton line a subway too. Nobody's calling it that so far though. Common uses of the words can change.
It's not really an Asian vs North American/European thing. Spanish systems like Madrid and Barcelona's overwhelmingly use overhead wires, and so does Milan, Naples, Budapest, Cleveland, etc. In Asia, while most of Japan's lines, Seoul, HK, and some Chinese cities like Guangzhou and Shanghai use overhead, others like Beijing, Singapore, Taipei and a good number of the lines in Tokyo use third rail, so the choice does seem rather arbitrary. One reason that some systems may choose overhead wires is probably for safety, because it's less likely for passengers to get electrocuted. I think it also has to do with the fact that third rail can only use DC and can only carry lower voltage than wires, and are thus less efficient, but I am not sure of the EE details. Third rail is also a generally older technology and requires less space, so it's common in older systems with smaller tunnels, like London, Berlin and New York. Many newer systems or newer lines of existing systems opt for overhead wires because of the advantages, and some are even phasing out old third rails where possible.Is there a reason why North American & European metros often run via third rail while Asian systems often operate via pantograph?
Oh yeah I forgot. I guess we should tell the Spanish and Italians and Koreans and Japanese that their underground railways are not good enough to be considered subways by Canadians.
Not even...
All Montreal has that is better is art, its cleaner...
Toronto subway has a better coverage of the city.
The green line does not include Pointe-Au-Trembles in the far east and stop at Lasalle in the west ignoring Lachine and the rest of the West Island who have very poor service where Bus have to the highway to go to the subway.
Bloor-Danforth and RT goes from Scarborough to Etobicoke.
The only thing Montreal has is a true North crosstown (the Blue line)
The subway trains in Toronto runs more frequently than in Montreal and the bus Service is superior in every way here and we have streetcars with future LRT.
I said Montreal would have the largest SUBWAY network, not better but bigger.
Amphibius, that is a dated map you posted there. It shows the eastern arm of the Orange Line terminating at Henri-Bourassa. Montreal already has penetrated the region of Laval and the Orange Line now has 3 stations in that area terminating at Montmorency. Also, that map only shows 2 of the commuter rail lines as well, Deux-Montagnes and Dorian-Rigaud lines, is their a reason that 3 commuter rail lines are ignored on that map?
lol...is smoke coming out of your ears? Look, this thread is about Toronto and Montreal. In that context, for the time being, third rail means subway. That's all I'm saying. No need to start throwing out insults because you don't like it.The inanity of this post blows my mind. If you think a system like the MTR (which is 90% underground and 10% elevated, operates 8-car HRT trains at up to 80 kph with 2 min headways, has stations 750 m apart, carries 3 million passengers a day fully within the urban core of the city, and whose name is "underground railway") cannot be called a "subway" because you don't like it to, then something is seriously wrong with your mind. And in case you are too lazy to look up pictures of the rest of the MTR, the only reason I chose a picture of the elevated portion is because elevated stations are only just in the process of installing PSD (something our TTC probably won't even dream of installing in our lifetimes) so you can clearly see the overhead wires. Here's a picture of an underground station (the other 90% of the stations), by our very own wyliepoon:
If your's is the way "subway" is defined in Canada, then perhaps it will do you good to look outside of that bubble occasionally.
(The second picture was of Tokyo Metro's fully underground 13-Fukutoshin Line, which runs 10-car trains at an average tunnel depth of 27 m. If that's not a subway, I don't know what else would be.)
Oh yeah I forgot. I guess we should tell the Spanish and Italians and Koreans and Japanese that their underground railways are not good enough to be considered subways by Canadians.
First of all, that's something called hyperbole Surely, there is at least one exception to this "generalization" (me) so I couldn't possibly think it applies to "all" Canadians now can I?First thing, you shouldn't judge all Canadians on what one person says.
Second, are you seriously getting that upset about this? It's just a discusion about public transit, no need to get your knickers in a twist.
Of course I agree with that, I pointed it out 30 posts before yours.Surely you'd agree with my second point that if you don't go by third rail definition that the Eglinton line could be considered a subway, at least in the tunnel portion. Your posts have proven my earlier point: the lines are blurred between technologies and terminologies.
lol...is smoke coming out of your ears? Look, this thread is about Toronto and Montreal. In that context, for the time being, third rail means subway.
An electric railway with the capacity for a "heavy volume" of traffic and characterized by exclusive rights-of-way, multi-car trains, high speed and rapid acceleration, sophisticated signaling and high platform loading. Also known as "rapid rail," "subway," "elevated (railway)" or "metropolitan railway (metro)."
An electric railway with a "light volume" traffic capacity compared to heavy rail. Light rail may use shared or exclusive rights-of-way, high or low platform loading and multi-car trains or single cars. Also known as "streetcar," "trolley car" and "tramway."