Talk:Streetcar (disambiguation)

message: Nowhere in this article does it mention that streetcar systems have been making a significant comeback in recent years (2001+).  Portland, Oregon was the first US city to build a new streetcar line in the post-war era, but many other cities are folling suit.  Anyone want to tackle this, or shall I? Skybum 02:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the Streetcar Resurgence? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Bordeaux

message: 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)
thread_title:  Translation from french 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Appropriate header image 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Duplication

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  older Talk items 

message: User:SPUI has merged this article with tram into light rail.  Should streetcar, tram and light rail be kept as discrete articles or be merged into the single light rail article? I have protected this page during the poll as SPUI was persisting in making this article a redirect without consensus. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll on merging 

message: I've moved urban heavy rail to rapid transit, which no one has objected to (and the poll on talk:metro was in favor of the merge). There may be some cleanup needed.
I'm starting Passenger rail terminology, meant to describe the differences between names for systems, and to a lesser extent vehicles. We're going to need a better name for the "light rail" article if it's going to describe anything meaningful, rather than just describing that people call anything light rail if they want it to sell. --SPUI (talk) 16:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I have most of the terms on passenger rail terminology; now it needs cleanup and expansion. No major reorganizations are planned, so others can help without likely edit conflicts. --SPUI (talk) 17:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done some work on the rapid transit and [whatever we decide to call stuff below rapid transit] sections. The light rail subsection is from the old version of the light rail article, and seems to agree with my assessment, that pretty much anything can be called light rail if it's built anew. --SPUI (talk) 17:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree; light rail should talk about the usage of the term. But it doesn't make sense to say that a system is light rail (at least not without qualifying it with another term), since "light rail" has been used to label systems from simple street-running streetcars (or if not that,  systems very close to that) to heavy rail. --SPUI (talk) 00:49, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Docklands Light Railway and AirTrain JFK are both heavy rail, but typically called light rail. The former is simply to distinguish it from the "heavier" London Underground; the latter may have been for marketing purposes. --SPUI (talk) 01:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I still dont know what your talking about, neither of those systems are "heavy rail" as they are not part of the regular rail system. What exactly do you mean when you say "heavy rail" cause it clearly isn't the way I understand the term?. G-Man 20:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Hmmm, another example - PUTRA Light Rail Transit is ALRT. That system just comes out and says it - the term "light rail" is applied to all sorts of lines, including rapid transit. --SPUI (talk) 03:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Where now?

message: I can find no reference to "sleekcar" in the industry. The only references that Google refer to a domain name that is for sale and someone's user name on chats. "Modern streetcar" is not a generic term, not descriptive. -- Cecropia 17:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sleekcar"