This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
NPOV dispute - Return to Grace
The section on Trolley#Return_to_grace claims that there is a neutrality dispute but I can find no discussion on that here. The only non-neutral statement I can see is the comment about "loss in quality of life" since that is clearly a value judgement (some people could believe that the downsides were worth the upsides and thus there was no overall loss in quality of life). It seems to me that simply listing the problems created without the overall value judgement would return it to neutral status. Are there other objections that merit leaving the tag in place? Plymouths 08:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Pruned See Also List
That was me, sorry, forgot to log in. Anyway, I tried to be conservative in dropping things: everything that's gone was already mentioned in the article. Probably more things could go, but I don't know nearly enough about trams to do anything else. --Kaitwospirit
Budapest
The article asserts the following: "In many cases buses also provided a smoother ride and a faster journey than the older trams. For example, the tram network survived in Budapest but for a considerable period of time bus fares were higher to recognise the superior quality of the buses." I really don't believe that this is true for Budapest. I am almost certain that the reason that bus fares were higher than tram or metro fares was because buses required expensive imported diesel, while the trains were run off of energy generated by local coal or nuclear. And nobody would seriously claim that the Budapest buses are faster than its modern metro lines. Can anybdody back up that assertion?--Maxn 03:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Altough nobody claimed that buses were faster than the metro, I'm pretty sure that you are right about the higher bus fares. And by the way, a very good information source of hungarian trams can be found here: http://hampage.hu/kozlekedes/e_index.html --Syro
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)
I spotted the duplications and put up a merger suggestion without reading the discussion. This makes me an idiot. I can see it's being dealt with. Sorry A Geek Tragedy 10:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Once again: Images in the main article
Recently some of the pictures have been exchanged in quick succession. For example, there used to be an image of a new tram line in Athens, Greece at the top of the article.
I'd like to ask you to reconsider posting new images here. Quite a number of cities all over the world that happily got rid of their tram systems in the 1950s are now proudly re-introducing tram lines. But not each of these new tram lines is worth a picture. The Athens picture (with the Acropolis in the background) was quite impressive, so why change it? 21st century trams all look very much the same, don't they? <KF> 00:12, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
The only reaction to my plea was User:194.208.236.7 uploading yet another tram picture, this time from Vienna, Austria. Only an expert will be able to tell any difference (except the colour of course) from the Finnish tram immediately above. This is pointless. <KF> 22:05, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
I would object to the Greek photo being put back for the reasons I gave above. G-Man 19:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Does this image really need so many tram pictures?! They're all so similar! I think a bunch should be removed; we don't need pictures of every tram in existence, only a few representative ones! --mdd4696 01:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Reverting Alexandria
I've reverted (with change of heading) the deletion by User:Omar Filini of the "Alexandria" section of this article. This user has been deleting his own previous edits following disagreement with other users (not connected with the Trams article), but this contribution seemed to have some interest and be worth retrieving rossb 13:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've reworded this section in a more encyclopedic style (I hope) although I think it still needs work. Kept the photographs for now. -- Chris j wood 16:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've dropped this image for now, as no room on page, and it doesn't add much. Alexandrian blue tram -- Chris j wood 16:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Sounds like a translation from German. As this is a AE, CE divide "Primary Author" (which was not a stub) should be the guide. -- Philip Baird Shearer 22:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. 'Street railway' is geographically-specific, has largely fallen out of use in English, and usually refers to a company which runs trams/streetcars (or even, rather anachronistically, buses - see Hamilton Street Railway), not the vehicles or services themselves. If it is genuinely true that Americans won't know what a tram is in this context, the first sentence of the article as it stands now should be quite sufficient to explain it. David Arthur 19:56, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Same as above; more than that, while most tram railways reside on the street, some are not (there are even underground trams). DmitryKo 19:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved.violet/riga(t) 18:53, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Discussion
I'm suggesting a move of this to Street railway for several reasons:
Street railway is more precise - for instance the Midland Metro is both a tram and light rail.
Street railway may be used mainly in one region (the U.S.) but has no separate meaning elsewhere as tram does.
Any comments? I'm also open to other names for the merged article. --SPUI (talk) 20:33, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Actually, if we use the developing consensus on the Talk:Streetcar page, then Streetcar and Tram have precisely the same meaning. By that definition, Midland Metro is not a tram, because it does not predominantly run along streets; it is light rail. I take your second point, but on the whole I would prefer a name which reflects both; the name Streetcar/Tram would seem to serve. Obviously with redirects from both Streetcar and Tram. -- Chris j wood 20:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I dont agree that a system has to be predominantly street running to be described as a tram system. At the moment the Midland Metro is mostly off street. But it is going to be extended into Birmingham city centre in a few years time. The Midland Metro is usually called a tram system, as is the Manchester Metrolink and Tramlink etc. G-Man 22:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that's standard naming - it would be nice to have a combined name that is used, like rapid transit for subway/metro. --SPUI (talk) 21:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am from New Zealand and I know what a tram is but I have never heard the term streetcar--Clawed 21:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I would oppose this being merged with Streetcar as the word is not used outside America. Many people would object to Streetcar directing to Tram or visa versa. Whats wrong with my original idea of Trams and Streetcars or perhaps Tram-Streetcar. It may not be standard but it seems to be the best option. I'm not convinced that there is a combined name that we could use, other than perhaps Street running railway or something, but no-one uses that. G-Man 23:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
PS. I will be away until about mid-next week. G-Man 23:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Actually, that's not a bad suggestion - street railway anyone? At least in the U.S. that was used in many company names. --SPUI (talk) 00:34, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It even redirects here. As no one's come out in favor of streetcar, I'm changing the proposal to that. --SPUI (talk) 00:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I've heard about every term that's been mentioned, plus a few, except for "street railway". A street railway named desire? Clang, clang, clang went the street railway car? No. Whatever the most common term is, I don't believe that's it. Jonathunder 00:59, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
No offense, but that argument, like the one given for splitting off streetcar in the first place, is crap. The "most common term" is not always the best term, especially if it has different meanings in different places (like tram). I don't think streetcar has this problem, but street railway is more descriptive and is a real term. --SPUI (talk) 01:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think, if we must have a single article, "street railway" is probably the best term. It is an industry term, encompasses both trams and streetcars and, importantly, distinguishes street railways from light rail transit, which may encompass street railways, but has a separate meaning which Encyclopedia Brittanica recognizes and defines.
Of course, going the other way, using either "tram" or "streetcar" universally is going to anger substantial segments of the readership, and it is wrong, anyway, to push one or the other as the "right" term. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
BTW, the premier industry publication in the US (and the US was the leader in street railways) was "Street Railway Journal" until it merged with Electric Railway Review' (IIRC) to become Electric Railway Journal. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Street railway works for me better than tram. Vaoverland 03:34, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
This is not, at its heart, an AE-CE divide. SPUI insists that Tram and Streetcar must be in the same article. These were separate articles, one dealing mainly with North American experience, the other with Europe. I still think they should be separate articles, but if not, "tram" doesn't do it. The term is not used in a streetcar context in the U.S. at all, but has other meanings. Who wrote an article "firstest with the mostest" is irrelevant to an encyclopedia article where a reader is concerned with information, not Wikipedia social protocols. And, as I have pointed out: do a search in Encyclopedia Britannica on "Tram." What do you get "Streecar." -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 23:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There were too articles, one dealing with North America, and the other with EVERYTHING, not with Europe. And the histories didn't even match; tram said nothing about the Baltimore system. If we want something specific on North America, call it streetcar systems in North America or something. Not streetcar, which is a subset of tram. What the fuck do you not understand? That it's a BAD thing to have two pages on the same topic? Surely you've been around long enough to know that forks are a BAD THING? --SPUI (talk) 00:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why the fork do you not understand that streetcar and tram may or may not be equivalent, but streetcar is not a subset of tram. You are further elevating the concept that tram is the "right" term. Streetcars were used in the U.S. first. The trolley was invented in the U.S. PCC technology was invented in the U.S. The term tram in the U.S. is either a non-rail tourist vehicle or an aerial cabin; it is never a streetcar. And the term tram is nowhere universal outside the U.S. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 23:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Complete bullshit. I was the one who suggested street railway, and even if that doesn't work I think a move to streetcar would be best because light rail systems can be called trams. Either way, your conceptions about the article name are just crap. No other way of putting it. --SPUI (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
What complete bullshit? We seem to be saying the same thing (if the articles are merged) and I said I thought "light STREET railway" best. If we redirect "tram" to "streetcar" some people will have a cow. Just the politics of Wikipedia. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 12:57, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Light railway? I thought we agreed that light rail would get its own article. --SPUI (talk) 14:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to say "street railway." Light railway is now obsolescent Britishism. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 16:54, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Light railway strikes me as especially confusing, given that has so often been used for narrow gauge steam lines. It's not the same animal as light rail (without -way). --iMb~Meow 15:29, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Looking at all the above, I've come to the conclusion that the name for the article doesn't matter much. We have redirects, and the alternative names are listed in the first paragraph. "We don't call them trams in this country" is weak. Maybe the small city where I grew up was unusual, but in the local library many of the books were printed in far away lands, in a strange dialect of English containing funny words and spellings. They were still quite readable, even without the local nomenclature listed as Wikipedia now offers, thanks to remarkable references called "dictionaries" that we used to have back then. What is the worry here, that people might be exposed to new words and learn something? --iMb~Meow 06:57, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Cecropia I think you shot your self in the foot when you said Who wrote an article "firstest with the mostest" is irrelevant to an encyclopedia article where a reader is concerned with information, not Wikipedia social protocols. And, as I have pointed out: do a search in Encyclopedia Britannica on "Tram." What do you get "Streecar." . If they are about diffrent things why does Britannica link them? Primary Author is a guideline used by Wikipedia to stop edit wars between AE, CE life is short and we all have better things to do with our time (See the arguments on Talk:Theatre, Talk:Grey, Talk:Lump of labour fallacy. Given that Tram was first, just as Britannica redirects Tram to Streetcar, Wikipedia can redirect Streetcar to Tram. Philip Baird Shearer 10:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Gee, my foot seems to be intact. As I've pointed out, there is enough separate history to streetcar development in North America and elsewhere vs. tram (or strassebahn, which evaluates to "street road" or "street way"--i.e., "street railway" for separate articles, but if there has to be one article, which I deny, either "streetcar" or "tram" alone in the title implies that one or the other is the right term. As for EB, I suspect they chose "streetcar" as the term is more generic and more descriptive. There is no universal agreement on what "tram" even derives from. though it it seems to be from the German term for the beam of a wheelbarrow.
I won't bother to see whether your foot has a hole in it or not, but your comparisons are thin. Gray->Grey, Theater->Theatre, Labor->Labour are simple insubstantive spelling variations, and even an American as dumb as Europeans seems to think we are would figure out what a "theatre" is without looking in an encyclopedia. But in the U.S. a tram is not at all what is described in the article. Whatr would you say if I were to make a U.S.-centric redirect of "knocked up" to "pregnancy"? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
There are lots of tems which are differ depending on which side of the pond one is on. For example Windshield, Mobile phone, Utility knife, Trousers. But redirects take care of if and providing a "translation" is available near the start, it does not seem to be a problem. Philip Baird Shearer 11:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately the name does matter, largely because of our brain-dead category system. We can put redirects and header paragraphs in to handle most confusions, but the article will still show up in categories as street railway (which means little to anyone), streetcar (which means little to non-US-english-speakers) or tram (which means little to US-english-speakers). On the other hand, I do believe that it is *bad* for us to have two articles on the same subject. Which I think takes us back to the idea of the single article named tram or streetcar (or streetcar or tram) which is as ugly as sin, but will at least be meaningful to all readers.
Cleveland
I'm not an expert on public transportation, but I wouldn't say that Cleveland has maintained a traditional streetcar system. The only remaining lines are those of the Shaker Rapid, which has its own right-of-way for most of its path and runs in the median of the street in Shaker Heights. I believe it is usually referred to as a light-rail system. Mwalcoff 18:34, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Light rail" was a euphemism coined in the 1970s to counter PR and politics against streetcar/tram systems in the US. Elsewhere, "city rail" and similar terms were invented for like reasons. In real life, they're the same thing. There were tram/streetcar lines running off-street all along, though. --iMb~Meow 09:04, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Boston link
The Boston link could do with updating to point to the appropriate Boston article, but I'm not sure which it is. --John 23:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
That's the MBTA Green Line; link was added. Also, it might make sense to add links to articles on other cities' tram systems; the only other one I knew off the top of my head was Philadelphia's SEPTA Subway-Surface Trolley Lines, which I also added. Izzycat 16:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I've added some info/links to the North America section dealing with PCC cars - the Red line has them running on the ashmont-mattapan line.
Kether83 07:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Visual overkill
I would strongly urge you to stop uploading images to put them in this article. I've got an almost unlimited supply of tram photos myself, but I don't think this is the place to pass around your private photo albums. As of today (September 2, 2005), there are an unbelievable 25 images in this article. All those subtle differences between individual cars which are immediately recognized by the expert and the aficionado (in other words, the contributors to this article) are completely lost on the average person looking for basic information on the various aspects of trams. To the latter, each of the images, with the exception of one or two historic trams, looks very much the same.
So even if a new tram line has been recently opened in your lovely home town, do resist the temptation to add a photo of it. <KF> 13:41, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
I agree, the number of images is over the top. I've been bold and removed the three-image gallery from Asia (Which was fragmenting the Asia section terribly) and one of the North American images. I think it could still use some trimming, possibly one of the double-decker cars, or one of the five(!) at the very top of the article. While I can appreciate railfan tendancies, given how extensive the Wikimedia Commons gallery of streetcars is, this article really could do with half the images currently included. --Mattmcc 20:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, I have removed some of the worst excesses. G-Man 22:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
You removed my Memphis trolley photo :-( Actually I'm not bothered, but seeing as it is now an orphan (someone had put it in the tram-stub template but it got swapped out of there too) I will probably delete it. However, before I do so I thought I'd see if there was another good article for it to go in—I tried fitting it into Memphis, but the only sensible place to put it messed up the formatting. Any suggestions for a new home? JeremyA(talk) 03:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC) Forget it—this orphan has found a new home. JeremyA(talk) 03:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
There's a page for the Memphis Area Transit Authority where it may be appropriate. The article does mention the trolley line. --Mattmcc 03:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I've done another trimming pass of images, removing six. It seems that images find their way back into the document when people realize that a paragraph dicussing trams in a particular country doesn't have a corresponding image from that country. I'd like to stress that the Wikimedia Commons already has a category for tram images, and it's even subdivided by region and country! At present, the article still has 18 images, which I think is closer to reasonable, but still possibly a bit much (Four historic images, for example)
What's a good criteria for images regarding trams? I suggest they be restricted to only a few 'normal looking modern' images, and then any additional images should be distinctive for some reason. There's one cargo tram, for example. The generic-looking tram from Spain runs on grassed track, which seems interesting. Stuff like that.
As an innocent passer-by, I actually disagree with this. One image per paragraph can be quite nice and illustrate what the paragraph is talking about. There is currently no photo next to the section on cable-pulled trams. As long as there is a reason for each photo being there, there shouldn't be any arbitrary limits on the total number. Stevage 11:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Whenever I have a look at this article old images have been removed and new ones added. This is absolutely pointless and a bit childish as well, but I can see that it will go on that way. By the way, the Vienna car interior (see preceding paragraph) is not of a "heritage tram". Those cars are in regular use. <KF> 00:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Well I am sorry for terming it as "heritage". But you should agree both images of Vienna tram were identical potraying the same type of trams.--Victor DPARLE 17:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Gallery of trams' images
There has been some discomfort on the part of Wikipedians whose trams' images have been removed. Its justified. I suggest there can be a gallery of trams.The main article should contain utmost 5-6 images.--Victor DPARLE 17:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The article pretty much already is a gallery--I count 26 photos at the moment. The wikimedia commons has six galleries of tram pictures already. I would suggest that prominent links to each of these galleries be places in the relevant sections of this article, and the number of images in the article cut by about half. JeremyA 19:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
If you haven't already then you probably ought to list it on the Scots Wikipedia equivalent of Wikipedia:Requested articles. Thryduulf 21:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
to advantages
I have added some advantages in comparision to underground metro. --138.89.56.7 21:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC) Dieter
Links & References
I notice that the Featured Article nomination failed becuase of insufficient references. Some of the links and references on this page are superfluous and should be removed. I will try when I have time but in the meantime if anyone else could help that would be good Lewispb 21:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Question: The Polish 105Na Tram Simulator link seems interesting, but most is in Polish. Has anybody tried running it? Keotaman 10:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Sarajevo - apparent vandalism?
Someone repeatedly inserts a sentence about Sarajevo trams, "the first in Europe in 1885". All the tram system lists I've checked state that Sarajevo's electric tram opened in 1895, and thus it is far from being the first not only in Europe as whole, but even in Central Europe. A link is also added to an odd page. I believe this to be vandalism.--Achp ru 21:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
sarajevo and first european trams
"Most people don't know that the first tram in Europe was built in Sarajevo by the Austrians in 1865, and it circles the city, making it quite easy to get around..."
Removed the reference to the Gothenburg Tram system that was present in the paragraph about trams in German-speaking countries. It didn't belong in that paragraph in any case, and there is a section devoted to it only a few paragraphs later.
--Lapunkd 15:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Lamm Fireless Engine
I made a starter stub on inventor Emile Lamm, who apparently invented the "fireless engine" used in the late 19th century to propell trams in New Orleans and Paris (and possibly elsewhere). At present I havn't found a detailed description of this technology. I suspect the tram engines were filled with highly heated water from a central station, which allowed them to propell by steam power without the smoke, soot, and noise typical of 19th century steam locomotives; however the sources I've found thus far have been unclear on details. This sounds like a point that needs expanding on some time (and perhaps an article on "fireless engine", or whatever the best term for this technology is). -- Infrogmation 15:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Title
It doesn't seem like the title issue was resolved very well. I'm not suggesting opening up the issue again, but it does seem like Wikipedia should come up with a better solution for these issues. At the end of the day, one term ends up elevated over the others. It seems to me that the UK term seems to win out more often (maybe it's because the British are more used to the idea of an "official" language, whereas Americans' approach is more "open source" shall we say) but I could be wrong. For lack of a better place to propose it, I'll throw in my two cents (that's American for two pense, or rather 1 pense with exchange rates as they are) that a better long term solution would be for the article to have multiple titles which change depending on what term was originally entered. Thus if I searched for Trolley, I'd get this article titled "Trolley" but otherwise exactly the same. That seems to avoid the zero-sum game of fighting over the article title.
Please sign your posts. What you suggest is not currently technically feasible and would be unlikely to resolve the situation. As for your theory on "official" languages, you might consider that the varieties of English spoken and written in the United Kingdom are more diverse than those of the United States. As an alternate theory, I might suggest that in fact the American term tends to be used in favour of the Commonwealth term, and that you are failing to notice this due to American parochialism. (I might also back this up by noting that you don't know how to spell pence, but that would be inviting Skitt's Law to bite me in the arse.) I would be inclined to support a move to a descriptive name such as street railway, to make it clear how the subject of article differs from light rail (i.e. in running at least partially on shared right-of-way) and to avoid the naming conflict (as with fixed-wing aircraft). Remember that an encyclopedia is about concepts, not words. EdC 23:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I was just thinking that "street railway" might be a better name. --NE2 04:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Streetcars in North America
There is currently two sections on North American streetcars(trams) i would suggest the second section be moved to its own page and to be the main article for the first section to start of with. Failing this it is necessary for the two current sections to be merged but i believe there is a wealth of information out there about streetcars in North America including here for a new page to start up. Also an example of what could be done with the Streetcars in North America page can be found here. L blue l 22:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
i have moved the second section to Streetcars in North America and moved the the first section to the discussion page in there and made a small intro to get it start but the intro is only that "stating" stage so please give it time to improve. If you feel i have done something wrong please try to discusses it with me as its the last thing i am trying to do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by L blue l (talk • contribs) 04:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC).
Europe Cleanup
This sections needs to be Synchronized with the main section Trams in Europe and need to be made into a summary not just a duplicated section. L blue l 00:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Pros and cons
Citing the reason as being that "most modern city buses have three entrances", 137.222.240.66 removed the following paragraph from the "advantages" list in the Pros and cons section: "Multiple entrances means trams are faster to load than buses, which tend to have a single entrance. This, combined with swifter acceleration and braking, means that trams can maintain higher overall speeds than buses (assuming there is no traffic congestion.)" I reverted the edit. It is certainly not true of the United States that modern buses have three entrances. Most have a single entrance at the front, and an exit near the center. I have placed a "globalise" tag on this section of the article, as I'm not familiar with the buses in other countries. If they do usually have three entrances (or even two), then the paragraph needs some clarification to account for national differences. If 137.222.240.66 was just blowing smoke, then somebody please remove the banner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Whyaduck (talk • contribs) 02:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
Rats! Forgot to sign again. Whyaduck 02:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
There are cases of cities using articulated buses which offer more doors "(usually three dual-lane and one single-lane door or four duals) " which could be what 137.222.240.66 is referring to so i have changed the paragraph to "Multiple entrances means trams are faster to load than standard buses, which tend to have a single entrance." To my knowledge modern buses being build in Australia have two door with one at the front and one in the middle with a low floor design. The front doors are normally the only entrance point.
I do believe there should be some comparisons to articulated buses as they could be considered an equal to Trams as they can have similar capacity and could be an advantage over Tram networks due to less infrastructure cost. Articulated buses are being looked at in this way on the Gold Coast, Australia for there Gold Coast Rapid Transit System as a cheaper option to Light Rail. L blue l 01:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Articulated buses are in use in some North American cities as well, but in fairly small numbers. Most of the time, even with the articulated buses, only the front door is used as an entrance and the rear doors are exclusively exits. I have seen busy downtown bus stops attended during evening rush hours by a fare collector who will stand by the back door of a bus and collect fares from boarding passengers, but those are the only instances I know of in which back doors are used as entrances. It does seem possible to me that there are some countries in which buses with conductors on board are still the norm, which would allow back doors to be used as entrances all the time, but it's been ages since I've seen a conductor on a North American bus.
In any case, since this is an article about trams, and the section is about the pros and cons of trams vs. purely local buses, we don't want it to lose focus by including a comparison of trams vs. the sort of buses designed for rapid transit use. Maybe what's needed is an article specifically about local buses around the world, since the existing Bus article is fairly general, telling a little bit about many different sorts of buses and bus services, and the short article Transit bus is focused almost entirely on the U.S., and is mostly about suburban commuter bus lines rather than local urban service anyway. What I'm wondering is if there are places where they have buses designed specifically to operate on routes where trams would otherwise be used. In the U.S., such local bus service (where it exists) is usually operated using the same sort of buses used on suburban commuter runs- and those are almost invariably two door, single-entrance buses. Whyaduck 04:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Isn't the door number issue not a bus vs. tram issue but an matter of fare collection methods? --NE2 04:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
No, the door number issue for buses is a bus vs coach issue. Someone is apparently mistaking a three axle, single entrance, all-seat coach, for a two axle, front entrance, back exit, plenty of standing room, urban bus. The latter is a principle completitor against trams, while coaches usually run routes and neighborhoods for which trams are less often used. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jim.henderson (talk • contribs) 04:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC).
These are pictures removed from the Trams page as this page is not a Gallery. Some of these picture are of good quality which could be included on some wiki pages here or elsewhere. If you believe they have a nice home somewhere please strike them off this list. L blue l 12:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Image:Bordeaux-tram-aps-near-Roustaing.jpg|Bordeaux tram using APS power collection on route B near the Roustaing tramstop.L blue l 12:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Image:combinobp.jpg|Combino Supra Budapest NF12B and UV trams in BudapestL blue l 12:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Image:SD Trolley@America Plaza.jpg|San Diego Trolley at America PlazaL blue l 12:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Citations
IMHO, the single reason why this page fails to improve its rating is due to the lack of citations, and references. As a newbie to WP, I see a lot of pages like this. Also, some of the text is rather poorly worded, and the grammar is rather dubious.
If the project is serious about this "high priority" page, then it needs to spend some serious effort on improving it. Job #1 - More citations!!
--ALECTRIC451 23:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Attention please: " 8 = Notes & 11 = References " are equal/double or redundant!
To fulfill above citations I quote reference to my (Dutch) book of designing
The Hague articulated trams / D.A. Borgdorff - HTM Light Rail Vehicle GTL8 /
2000 / ISBN90-9013935-4 | Ing. D.A. Borgdorff, retired C.E.Eng HTM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.83.155.44 (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
REDIRECT HTM→HTM Personenvervoer NV - D.A. Borgdorff, C.E.E (retired). 86.83.155.44 11:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we may need professional help – Moebiusuibeom 16:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC) (ex Ciudad jardín / user info coming soon)
Please discuss this on Talk:Tram system. --NE2 16:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Redundant sections
"History of the different types of trams" and "Technical developments" go over largely the same material. They also introduce a chronical discrepancy in the article which is jarring and confusing for the reader ("wait, they started building cable cars systems again?"). They should be reconsiled into a single section. Pimlottc 12:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Tram or streetcar
I am on the US side of the pond, and here's my take on the Tram/Streetcar blab:
First off, I recognize both words in US vernacular as legitimate terms for a means of public conveyance. The debate should be over the semantic difference. A streetcar is a public means of transportation along the automotive roadways. Where horses and buggies once abounded, they ended up sharing the road with (usually) railed means of mass transportation first drawn by horse then soon locomotive. In German the word "Strassenbahn" most translates as "streetcar." Though the "bahn" part really refers to the roadway, the inference is the car itself. Usually the word streetcar refers to railed automotive cart in the middle of the street. The trolley car is a streetcar and the words are used independently according to the neighborhood.
The new LA light lines are like trolleys insomuch as they draw power from an overhead and run on rails in small units. But since they occupy a right-of-way to themselves, they are called trains.
Disneyland employs a means of public conveyance from the parking lot to the front gate by what they call a tram. It has a locomotive tractor which pulls a string of cars more like a train and longer than a streetcar. They are also free travel on rubber wheels (no rails) which just doesn't fit the general depiction of a streetcar. Generally trams in the US might be featured more an express cart or carriage and are free travel. However, there was an 1889 hotel conveyance in a Pasadena hotel where the people were carted from on side of a street to the other across a bridge in a small railed cart they called a tram. The term may have been more derived from the European usage. But in 1886 when the first horse-drawn public conveyance was installed in Pasadena, it was a railed, single-coach, open-air cart called a streetcar that ran down the middle of the road.
Therefore, I would conclude that either TRAM or STREETCAR be used as the name of this article based on whoever got here first.--Magi Media 14:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm also in the U.S., and I think it should remain at tram. This is somewhat of a nitpick, but not all trams run on streets, and thus "streetcar" may be misleading. It's also been at tram for a long time with little confusion.
Now a separate issue has come up: should light rail vehicle be listed as a synonym? ProhibitOnions claims that there are differences, and thus it should not be. However, why then is trolley listed, since not all trams are trolleys? Just as trolleys are a type of tram, so are light rail vehicles. The line is also blurred in the other direction; the American Public Transportation Associationdefines light rail to be "also known as streetcar, trolley car and tramway." There is a large amount of overlap and no clear line. It probably makes sense to keep light rail separate from tram system, while concentrating the former on its use as a "marketing term", but the separation doesn't make too much sence with light rail vehicle and tram. --NE2 09:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree there's a lot of overlap, and quite frequently the terms are mixed together; however, quite a lot of attention has been paid to terminology already in this article. It's true that "tram" isn't generally used in this sense in the U.S., and there are at least historical differences between streetcar and trolley, but today they all mean pretty much the same thing. There is, indeed, a certain amount of confusion about trams vs. light rail, particularly in the many places (like the U.S.) where trams practically disappeared for many years and are associated with rattling, antique vehicles; here, light rail has sometimes, imprecisely, been used to avoid this association. However, there are many examples of the difference: Portland, Oregon has a both a light-rail system (higher speed, mostly segregated route, except for some street running in the city center, and a trolley/streetcar system, which runs entirely on public roads in the downtown area.
Look at it this way: Light rail is generally a way of providing near-subway-like speed and capacity at lower cost. This means it uses segregated routing wherever possible, especially disused railway lines; but it avoids the costs related to total segregation (it will have a few grade crossings rather than building expensive bridges and flyovers) or tunneling (which is why it usually runs on streets in built-up areas; while this is much slower, it can cost one-tenth the price of an equivalent tunnel, and makes up for some of the lost speed by increasing accessibility (there are no long escalators to descend). However, in contrast to tramways, on-street running is generally avoided wherever possible; it's just something light rail can do. (As this is usually where light rail is most prominent, it's not hard to see where the confusion with trams comes from). Light rail can, of course, also use tunnels: The LR system in Strasbourg passes under the main railway station this way. Seattle will finally run its LR system through a multi-modal tunnel along with its special buses, something a conventional subway could not do.
Contrast Edmonton and Calgary. Both Alberta cities have excellent, popular light-rail systems. You'd never confuse the Edmonton LRT, opened 1978, with a trolley, because it runs in a tunnel through downtown. But this was its Achilles' heel: the tunnel was far more expensive than the rest of the system (which is mostly along a CN rail line), and to extend out the other side took more tunneling. Now that the LRT is being extended south, the full segregation is being dropped, and there will be road crossings at grade, passengers will be able to walk across the tracks, etc. Why? Cost. Calgary's system,which opened a few years later, is very similar in many ways, including the vehicles, but it has no tunnels, and was cheaper and is more extensive, with further extensions planned. It's one of the most popular rail systems anywhere in terms of ridership per km.
As to the overlap, it can get a bit confusing, but the distinction should become clear. There are some instances where trolley lines are turned into LRT systems; for example, some lines in Berlin were rebuilt along medians with few crossings to run at higher speed with proper stops with platforms, and can be described as being built "to light-rail standards" although they are still part of a tram system. The Luas in Dublin consists of two lines, with the same vehicles, but one is built as a light-rail line, largely segregated, with the intention of turning it into a full metro at some time in the future, while the other line is a modern tramway, running along streets. ProhibitOnions(T) 10:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Boston's Green Line has run in a tunnel under downtown since 1897. Would it be "confused with a trolley" in those days? Certainly; it was and is one. The vehicles have been updated from PCC cars to more modern light rail vehicles, but the operations are identical to the old days. I think we also have to remember that this article is about a concept, not a term - the concept of rail vehicles lighter than normal trains. --NE2 11:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
There are two concepts. Of course there are tram tunnels -- the one in Berlin under the Spree between Treptow and Stralau was the first. As I wrote above, none of these things is the definition of light rail by itself; and if you look at either Calgary or Edmonton you will see that it's not just the tunnel that sets Edmonton apart from a tramway, as Calgary doesn't have one and it's quite different as well. Despite the APTA's lumping all these modes together, which is unfortunate but not altogether surprising in a country where there were only a couple of tram systems in operation and were thus not a major factor in the thinking, light rail is generally considered a different mode of transit from a streetcar, for the reasons explained above. Light rail adopts features of trams and subways to provide a kind of subway-light service. There are many tram systems in the world (such as in the former communist countries, where they were generally not dismantled), and very few of them would ever be mistaken for a light-rail service, despite a certain amount of blurring of the definition between high-end trams and low-end light-rail systems, such as in Volgograd or Cologne. You might want to take a look at the Light Rail Transit Organization for more details about definions and systems -- they advocate both light rail and tramways. ProhibitOnions(T) 12:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
From that site: "The modern term Light Rail embraces tramways but goes further - and faster - than traditional tramways - and so much more smoothly and even with style and pizazz." And note their answer to what the difference is - "A lot of this is to do with planning jargon; streetcars are seen to be old fashioned whereas light rail is trendy!" It's essentially a combination of "I know it when I see it" and marketing - not a good thing for NPOV. --NE2 12:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
You're also confusing the vehicles with the systems. Tram system is the article that talks about systems; this article is about vehicles. --NE2 12:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
No, the vehicles are often quite different, due to capacity, speed, turning radius, length, articulation, etc. Again, while I have agreed all along, if you read my comments, there is some overlap with trams and some amount of marketing to the term (because it generates far more positive response among focus groups than "bus" or "tram", which is why Bus rapid transit also likes to market itself as a form of light-light rail), the LRTA has just explained it to you: light rail goes further and faster than traditional tramways. ProhibitOnions(T) 12:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
No; the LRTA is calling tramways light rail and saying that light rail "goes further" (which is wrong, since many light rail systems existed in their present form before the term "light rail" existed). A light rail vehicle is a type of rail car that is lighter than the norm, which is what this article is about. If your definition of tram excludes those, then it's a bad definition; the article is about a concept, not a term. --NE2 12:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
(Left again) That's your opinion, and while it may be right, please seek consensus on the talk page for major edits, such as redefining an article and omitting what had previously emerged from a long-standing consensus. This has already been a contentious issue, and many voices have been heard. Please also pay attention to WP:CIVIL in writing edit summaries: You may not agree with what I wrote, although it was an attempt to find a middle ground that you might agree to, but calling it "incorrect" is not acceptable. I thought we had been having a respectful discussion here. ProhibitOnions(T) 14:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
It is incorrect, and I cited sources. I also find your reversion of all my edits to be in very poor form; you should probably read what you're restoring. --NE2 16:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Obviously light rail is called that because it uses a lighter gage rail to support the cars. In other words you couldn't use the LRT for freight hauling. I would like to hold up LA as a historical and present-day example of tramming, streetcars, light rail. Henry Huntington arguably developed the largest passenger railway system ever developed in the world near the turn of 1900. The Pacific Electric Railway was able to take anyone anywhere in So Cal, by all accounts. The system was technically a trolley car system: overhead power conducted through a bronze wheel and pole, grounded to the rails. It was a streetcar system because it traveled along regular vehicular routes. They were generally one car units although they could hook together like a train for rush hour or hauling light freight and mail. The system was pretty much gone by 1957, but the rights-of-way lingered. Today some of those corridors are being used in the new light rail system. The newer system uses the overhead power grid, all new, state of the art and grounds through the rail. The first section called the Blue Line runs from downtown LA to Long Beach. It starts at an underground station and surfaces to follow the surface street system through South Central, just like the old streetcars. In many sections it was provided with its own right-of-way which makes it like any other train, with several station stops. It ends up in Long Beach following surface streets, looping around downtown and heading back to LA. The cars are double-ended so they drive in either direction. The Red Line section from Union Station (LA) to Hollywood is all subway. It is powered through a side rail that is protected from human contact for safety and grounds through the rail. It's technically a subway. It has long trains and never sees daylight. The Green Line follows the newer 105 Freeway system from the lower San Gabriel Valley area toward the airport. It is almost all built on a dedicated ROW in the middle of the freeway and almost qualifies as an EL (elevated train) since it never really ever touches ground. The latest Gold Line from Pasadena to Union Station has assumed the old Santa Fe Railroad ROW installing all new state/art rails and overheads. For the most part its ROW is dedicated, but it does cause several street crossings, like the old train did, and for only one small section in Highland Park does it travel more like a streetcar. Of course there are transfer stations to get from one train to the other. So in this system we see them all.--Magi Media 14:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
American Public Transportation Association: "a rail vehicle similar to a streetcar. It may be larger, however, and is often articulated. A light rail car is capable of boarding and discharging passengers at either track or car-floor level."
Oahu Trans 2K: "Lightweight passenger rail cars operating singly (or in short, usually two-car trains) on fixed rails in right-of-way that is not separated from other traffic for much of the way. Light rail vehicles are driven electrically with power being drawn from an overhead electric line via a trolley or pantograph"
St. Clair County MetroLink Extension: "An electrified railway car characterized by its ability to operate on exclusive right-of-way, in bridges, tunnels or at street level. LRVs are able to board and discharge large numbers of passengers in short periods of time."
ProhibitOnions, or anyone else who believes that a light rail vehicle is not a tram, can you please give a definition of "tram" that does not cover this? --NE2 16:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
At base, I need to know why it is so important to you to distill every urban light railway vehicle down to the definition of "tram"? Tram, like trolley is a term derivative from a particular feature of the vehicle; in the case of a trolley, from the current collection method that set it apart from its cable and animal railway predecessors; in the case of the tram, from the rail on which the vehicle ran. Earlier tramway rails were usually iron straps attached to the kind of wooden beam similar to a wheelbarrow beam. So these terms could be likened to an industrial fetish, the minor part standing for the whole.
We then move on to the difficulty of using tram as a universal term. Light railways are not universally known as trams or tramways. Further, like trolleys, "tram" has come to mean something quite different than a street railway vehicle in some venues and contexts. A trolley in the U.S. can be a streetcar (as in "San Diego Trolley") or a small bus in imitation of an old-fashioned streetcar. In Britain it is what you put your shopping goods in. A tram in the U.S. is generally either one of the aforementioned small buses, or an overhead cable car. I cannot think of a single railway usage in English-speaking America, either on an old system (e.g., Philadelphia), a heritage system or a modern system (e.g., HBLR) in which the rail vehicles are called "trams" or identified as a type of tram.
Attempting to narrow an encyclopedia entry down to "tram" also ignores the evolving industry. In current U.S. usage, not only isn't light rail considered a tram, it is not considered a streetcar either. This is most impressively illustrated by the fact that the industry is now considering light rail and streetcar as separate entities; light rail having one variant of vehicle, right-of-way and service, and streetcar having another. Consider Portland, OR, which has both streetcars and light rail, and where the streetcars are not heritage vehicles.
If we must have a base term from which others are derived, the most appropriate, both historically and in genericness, would probably be "light railway," the term predating light rail. -- Cecropia 03:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Introduction?
What's up with the introduction to this article? It jumps right into a passage "Quoted from my book". I deleted it, but the page was reverted. Wouldn't this quote be better off in one of the subsections, not simply pasted at the beginning? --Thebends 01:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree i dont think there is a need for that Quoted in the intro. Please lets get it removed L blue l 14:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject UK Trams
This page has been viewed as a candidate for either expansion, seperation, or integration within the new WikiProject UK Trams. Please discuss either below or on the Project's Talk Page. Bluegoblin7 18:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Attention please: Double quotation
Nrs. 8 = Notes and 11 = References in the "main text" are equal or so to speak: REDUNDANT. I noticed this remark four days ago here (too), under § Citations above with my reference, Ing. D.A. Borgdorff, C.E.E. (rtd. HTM) Netherlands, where I remarked that in my opinion LRV-systems {called from Germany: StadtBahn = CityRail ~ LightRail} are as 1970 -born modernised Tramway-systems operation. In other words: All modern trams from 1970 on areLRV; older trams, like PCC-cars, trolleys, streetcars etc. mostly are called "vintage", a.w.a. "classical" too because of museal aspects. Therefore I mentioned "nowaday Hague trams" in my book as LRV-trams; to repeat cf: - HTM Light Rail Vehicle nl:GTL8 / D.A. Borgdorff / 2000 - ISBN9090139354 - 86.83.155.44 11:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC). REDIRECT HTM → HTM Personenvervoer NV - Retired Ing. D.A. Borgdorff, C.E.Eng.| See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Streetcars § History of Trams >86.83.155.44 18:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)| Section §.>86.83.155.44 07:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, mr. Slambo, for the fast removal of Ref./Notes duplication as stated above. Truly, t.à.t. D.A. Borgdorff, C.E.E. >86.83.155.44 19:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I noticed the exceptionally long section title when I was looking at a different update and fixed it (and I also noticed the problem on this talk page with the project banner calls, so I fixed that too). If there are any further problems like this and you're unsure how to resolve it, please feel free to ask. Slambo(Speak) 21:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Regional variations
i believe that the Regional variations section should be moved to its own page and was wondering if that was alright with everyone. Also i was wondering on what the title of the article should be? I was thinking the title for the new page could be Tram systems. L blue l 23:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC).
I have to say I don't see the point - it would appear to complicate things without bringing any advantages. And the the distinction between 'tram' and 'tram system' is a bit notional, If one were to split the article, maybe one should think in terms of sub-articles on the tram vehicle / track / route design / ticketing / operating methods / etc. - and then include or link to whichever regional examples fitted best. TobyJ 20:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Well the main idea behind moveing it would be to reduce the page and Table of contents lenght while still retaining the focus on Tram and Tramways. It would also be more usefull for the Light Rail page if the Regional variations was moved so it would have a more formal to the new page instead of linking to the Trams page. L blue l 01:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your idea on those sub-articles and hope to implerment some of those over the next week. L blue l 01:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
A Hanover tram in an underground station
Ultra low floor tram in Vienna
Interior of a 1960s tram in Vienna
Interior of a fully operating tram in Porto
Sarajevo first tramway in Europe in 1885
.JPG)
.png)
