Talk:Toronto subway/Archive 1

message: Wikipedia discourages excessive linking (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28links%29) -- we do not need six links to the same article in a list. Also, Niigata does not link to a rolling stock manufacturer, so the link is not appropriate. If you want to add this link, then you should create an article to link it to. Ground Zero 13:57, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: Couldn't the info on the trainyards simply be included in this article?  Cuz the individual ones are very tiny at best. --Madchester 16:06, 9 June 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Facilities

message: A rewrite of the history section was started on August 4th, and then left half-finished, with empty and missing sections.
I am not strongly attached to the attempt I made to complete this rewrite.  I cut out two section headings, figuring if whomever put the headings in there returns, they can add the text they felt belonged there, with the heading.  I added brief sections for each extension to the system.  I only pointed to the main article to each line once.  Maybe I should have pointed to those articles for each section I added.  I dunno.  --  Geo Swan 23:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: August rewrite of the history section

message: Hello!  Moreover, an extremely unwieldly table of stations (current/proposed) has been added and (other editions made) to the article by the same contributor as for 'formerly-planned lines'.  I'm not averse to a table, but I think it's redundant here (given other content in the article and links thereof); if it is somehow retained, it needs to be significantly massaged.  Thoughts? E Pluribus Anthony 23:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The table definitely is overkill; it's straight duplication of details which are already in the line articles. I'm taking it out myself. As for the 'former plans' business, I second trimming it down, or if it's copyvio, nixing it. Radagast 00:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed (thanks!); we should nix, move – and significantly edit – relevant text to the appropriate articles; e.g., details regarding former lines can be added to their respective articles.  It only needs brief mention in the overview. E Pluribus Anthony 01:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey there; whew!  Thanks for helping to consolidate and restore the prior 'virginal' state of the article. :)  I think the 'Track' section needs significant manipulation, but I cannot do this just yet.  Game?  In any event, please let me know if assistance is required.  Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 01:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stations table, et al. 

message: Seems a little dense here.  Shouldn't most of the track information and Vehicles stuff go to separate pages?  I expect most people don't need a list of turnouts, or 50+ service vehicles! Just a suggestion Nfitz 23:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi!  I think the track information is due for much pruning/editing, but the vehicle information as presented (although hefty) is informative.  There's always room for improvement, however. E Pluribus Anthony 01:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Informative yes!  Just wondering if it should have a separate page ...  Nfitz 01:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm: I think the information would be more useful as part of the current article ... if it was organised more effectively. E Pluribus Anthony 04:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Track Information and Vehicles Excessive 

message: When I went to Toronto, I remember this system as being called "The Rocket."  This article makes no refernece to it.  Did I just remember it wrong, or is it called the Rocket as well? - Hbdragon88 04:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While you raise an interesting point, this is addressed in the overview of the main/parent article: the term has been applied to any number of TTC vehicle types and the term "Ride the Rocket" is often used to promote the entire system. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Rocket? 

message: These reasons are given :
* Please cite your sources as the References section is not all related to the article or can only be used as a secondary source.
* The article has too many lists.
* The article has too many sections (the TOC is too crowded.
* Many sections have only 1-line paragraphs, far from nice prose.
* Lots of NPOVness in the article. See this section for example.
* Map duplicate : give only the map with the future expansion.
* Subway facts sounds like a trivia section so there is no need to have that section unless it is has a better prose.
* Too many tables, try to have 1 or 2.
:Lincher 00:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA failed

message: Hey guys! Just finished a run-through of each of the stations, and checking them against the TTC's own Route & Station list. Although there are a few odd choices in the TTC list (a streetcar running on Wellington apparently is a "connection" to Union Station), I made any corrections necessary. Should be all good from here. Suigi 03:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connecting Routes - All Checked! 

message: They recently annouced the results of the RT study. They're keeping it as is plus modiflying the track to have bigger trains. Then they're going to have the Malvern extension. The future expansino map should reflect this.
     
*It's a proposal by Scarborough Community Council. There's no money for it yet. Let's not jump the gun. Ground Zero | t 01:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That happened before Howard Moscoe was chair and only one part of the "pie-in-the-sky" expansion was actually implemented along Sheppard Avenue East between Yonge Street and Don Mills Road if I recall correctly.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 21:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Future expansion

message: The section on the new subway cars now being ordered is labelled "T35A08".  Does anyone know whether this name has any real status with the TTC?  From what I can see, it was a jokey reference used in the "name the subway train" contest, rather than serious code name.
Almost certainly these things will simply be internally referred to as T2, regardless of the contest outcome.  But since that isn't known yet, perhaps the section should just be "new car design" or something similar?
Thoughts? Daveharr 12:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The official name was released this past week - it's the Toronto Rocket. See here:  Suigi 03:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Internally they will be known as the "TR" - The opted for this as the trains will be very different than the T1's and they wanted distinction. --Eja2k (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: An article exists on this topic.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  T35A08 

message: Or we can change the logo to the original pic at St. Andrew station. Blackjays 14:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A candidate for a new table 

message: Significantly expanded this section and added an image of St. Clair West station. Johnny Au 19:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subway Art

message: Both of the links (Yonge-University-Bloor and Yonge-University-Danforth) refer to the page for Bay and the 1966 interlining trials. But why? Is this really necessary? Suigi 01:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just linked it to there because there really is no other refernce article, section and those ones best describe what they were. Unless someone could make a main article for them, its the closest thing to something relevant. --Yllianos 04:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling them defunct lines is a bit misleading, though — they’re really more former routes that were run (and for just six months) on the same lines as the current, simpler routes. Listing two ‘defunct lines’ suggests that huge amounts of infrastructure has been abandoned, which is not the case; even Lower Bay is still in use, if only by out-of-service trains. I’d say it’s debatable whether they’re even significant to merit a place in the infobox, but if they do, it would be just as one link to the interlining trials. David Arthur 16:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Said interlining information can be found further down on this same page, so to be honest I would prefer if we ditch the defunct lines portion. Suigi 20:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Defunct Subway Lines - What?!

message: Can someone verify that name? I've never heard that name used to describe the subway system. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.116.213.216 (talk) 05:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed — the previous name more closely reflects TTC usage, and the new one plays into the hands of the people who for some reason want to cover the Scarborough line separately. David Arthur 15:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  The new title also violates the Wikipedia naming convention: Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun (such as a name) or is otherwise almost always capitalized (for example: John Wayne and Art Nouveau, but not Computer And Video Games). "Toronto subway system" is not a proper noun -- this is not what the TTC calls it. Ground Zero | t 16:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Toronto Subway System

message: Because this article had been moved without any prior discussion, because the new article name violated Wikipedia naming conventions, and because three editors (me included) have objected to the move, I have moved it back to the original name.
If anyone wants to make the case here for renaming the article to "Toronto subway system" or something else, we can have that discussion prior to any future move. Ground Zero | t 15:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved back

message: I would like to eventually see a featured topic on Canadian rapid transit. However, since this article isn't up to snuff yet, such a topic would fail. Is there an expert who is willing to take this up to the featured standard? -- Selmo (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help from an expert 

message: I have now tagged the article for cleanup. The TOC is too crowded (does the history section really need that many headings?) The "subway facts" section needs to be ingergrated into the rest of the article. avoid trivia sections in articles. There are no inline citations. Footnotes are the most popular citation style. Finally, the text can use a copyedit. This has some good advice. After this is done, we can submit this to WP:GAN agian. — Selmo (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: No mention of the new plan yet? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.141.47.50 (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Toronto streetcar system, with which it has most similarity. Radagast 01:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, the SRT extension to Malvern should be mentioned, as should the Finch Line since it my understanding that it's going to have it's own dedicated right-of-way to the north of Finch along the hydro line.  This would make it an actual RT line rather than a streetcar line. Snickerdo 03:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Light rail expansion 

message: Section was updated on April 1st after provincial announcement. However was worded very poorly. Indicated the "TTC learnt there would be an expansion" (does not reflect the fact they received funding for the project - they planed the expansion as part of the Transit City plan)
Also new edits went on about the line being built for people who don't want to pay "too much" for parking at the airport. - seems like someones opinion rather than fact.
--Eja2k (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eglinton-Crosstown LRT 

message: There is presently no mention of today's accident that killed a subway worker and injuered two others . I would add it myself, but the article layout is confusing and there is nowhere immediately obvious to place it. Thryduulf 17:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the general feeling about the tendency to include mention of every violent crime or tragic event in the vicinity (with the exception of suicides) in the station articles? While they are arguably relevant, I don't observe the same attention given to comparable articles (eg expressways or traffic intersections).  --207.245.10.213 (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Subway worker death

message: Image:Toronto Subway Sheppard-Yonge.jpg|Candidate #1: Lovely picture of a T1 in Sheppard-Yonge station on the Sheppard line.
Image:TorontoSubway-real.png|Candidate #2: A lovely route map of the system, in similar style to the map currently on the Moscow Metro article.
Image:T1 StGeorge.jpg|Candidate #3: My photo of a T1 in St. George station with the TTC logo visable.
File:Toronto Subway Train.jpg|Candidate #4: The current box picture.
Image:BloorTTCstation.JPG|Candidate #5: Previous box pic, deemed ugly by Selmo.
====Candidate #1====
I like this photo because everything is included in it. First of all, the train in the picture is the most current model in use, the T1. Secondly, it's at Sheppard-Yonge, a relatively new and clean station. Thirdly, a big plus is all the (modern and still fresh) TTC signage in the picture. Overall I find it aesthetically pleasing, and does a nice job of covering all the bases (with the exception of representing the RT).
* This one looks the most aesthetic and shows the most aspects of a subway. –Pomte 07:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Box Photo Candidates

message: I like this photo because everything is included in it. First of all, the train in the picture is the most current model in use, the T1. Secondly, it's at Sheppard-Yonge, a relatively new and clean station. Thirdly, a big plus is all the (modern and still fresh) TTC signage in the picture. Overall I find it aesthetically pleasing, and does a nice job of covering all the bases (with the exception of representing the RT).
* This one looks the most aesthetic and shows the most aspects of a subway. –Pomte 07:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Candidate #1

message: What do people think about consolidating the station pages (e.g. Finch (TTC) ) into pages such as "Stations on the Bloor-Danforth line"? A lot of the pages are one paragraph or less, and don't seem like there is much more that can be added.
Jack1254 18:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would definitely make them easier to maintain, especially when some upgrade info is copy pasted across several articles. Obviously the long articles would remain with a summary in the "Stations on the..." article. –Pomte 18:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree.  Many stations have multiple paragraphs, like the  Bay (TTC) station page, for instance.  There are too many stations to put on just one page, even if they have only a paragraph or two to describe them.  So I'm inclined to keep individual pages for each station, and expand them (yes it takes work, but a better product will be the benefit).--Abebenjoe 20:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Try taking this up with WP:TWP and possibly WP:RTPJ. Station notability has been disputed for a while. — Selmo (talk) 02:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree they should be separate, as per longstanding convention. Cleduc 03:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Station pages 

message: Well, I tried removing non-notable, trivial details from the article yesterday, but it was reverted because it does not violate the letter of the rules. I say it is irrelevant to the article, major news articles are only notable for a certain period of time. The chime information is more suitable for a travel guide, not an encyclopedia. The sign information in that depth of detail is not suited for Wikipedia. See WP:NOT#INFO. — Selmo (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally find Selmo tries to quote rules and regulations without reading them fully, and therefore attempts to sound authoritative, when the rule in question is not appropriate for the use that they ascribe to it. I probably wouldn't mind changes to some of the items Selmo  mentioned, but it is their rationale that I find very problematic. Keep in mind, these aren't additions I contributed to this article, so I actually do not have a stake in them.  I suggest that maybe the chime information is too detailed, but a mention of them should be in the article, because they are part of the subway's signaling system, which falls under its operations and procedures. However, only a brief mention is needed. I agree with Selmo that as it is currently written in the article, the paragraph is too long, hence too detailed.  As well, mentioning the only child-birth to occur on a subway car, which paralysed the system for a significant period, does merit a line or two because it was a major news story for multiple days, hence that confers its notability. Maybe someone can rewrite it more concisely.--Abebenjoe 19:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks better, haven't given it a full read yet though. — Selmo (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive information 

message: The image that accompanies the following text is from the NYC subway(see the map on the picture and read the sign on the floor at the lower left):
Toronto Transit Commission's Bay Lower Station, during the 2007 Doors Open Toronto festival. The station has been closed to the public since 1966. This view is looking westward from the Bay St. entrance.Notice the big 'Y' floor tile for Yorkville Station/Y junction.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.175.236.10 (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The closed lower level of Bay station is frequently used in films set in New York, and so parts of the set stay up (notice, though, that one of the signs is just sitting on the floor). In the same photograph, you can see part of a TTC logo on the stopped train. Look at Image:Bay_Lower_Station_stairwell-Panorama.jpg for another view of the same scene. David Arthur 18:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Image 

message: May be there is a standard gauge CP or CN track close enough so that the Scarborough RT cars could be pulled to the Greenwood subway yards by a loco with an RT coupler??? Peter Horn 23:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Toronto subway and RT#Track gauge]] 

message: It seems  like a 6-station extension north from Finch to Richmond Hill is solidly into the planning phase. How heavily should we get into this? There are articles for all the proposed Spadina extension stations; do these deserve such coverage yet? Radagast (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yonge extension 

message: The Skytrain has a line listed as planned, why can't we have it here99.247.60.143 (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the Downtown Relief Line is currently under consideration, it has neither the government approval nor the specific plans that Vancouver's Evergreen Line has. No one has yet committed to building it, nor is it clear what route it would follow and how many stations it would have if they did. As for Transit City, it's a streetcar project. David Arthur (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Lines/Stations 

message: In editing individual station articles and adding details, I propose that a unified scheme of subsections be used with the following titles:
*Entrances
*History
*Architecture and art (or "Public Art" if no architectural info is available or necessary)
*Subway infrastructure in the vicinity
*Nearby landmarks
*Surface connections
*Gallery
*References
*External links
Note that these subsections aren't necessary in every article and can be omitted as an editor sees fit. Unique sections can be used on a case by case basis. It's just a way of organizing article info in a unified way.
See Museum (TTC) for example.
A.Roz (talk) 02:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What about most of the Bloor–Danforth line stations that have very much the same utilitarian architecture and design and vary only by the colour of the main and trim tiles, as well as the station name colour? Otherwise, this scheme is useful.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sections like "Architecture and art" can be omitted if there's no need for them, as I mentioned above. A.Roz (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Individual Station articles - a standard scheme for subsections 

message: Does anyone know what the deck on the south side of the upper level of Kipling station is for? The construction suggests it is for either a streetcar connection, or more likely given the timing, a LRT extension. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently that's where the 'Etobicoke RT' would have connected. Scroll to the bottom of this page for more. David Arthur (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Very cool, thanks for the link! Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oddity at Kipling 

message: On my screen, using Safari 4/Win (try it some time) the map is very large and covers part of the infobox. Is this just me? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On mine (firefox) it's a big map but it doesn't cover any of the infobox.  TastyCakes (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with TastyCakes.  I also have Firefox.  My recommendation is to use Firefox instead.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Route map 

message: I tried to reorganize the article to have a more logical flow. Starting with history, then operations, then vehicles, track and signal info, and finally expansion. I feel its more relevant to a reader to know about the system the way it is now then possible future expansions that may or may not ever happen. I also placed the subway art section into the stations section as the art is a feature of the stations themselves. I did not cut any info so the over all length is the same, I'm not sure if the article needs any cuts or how we feel about the length and content. Previous to the reorganization I added a few lines into the fleet section as previously it was just a link to the article with the fleet roster. Eja2k (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganization

message: 24.84.212.226 changed text in the article to indicate the ttc was the second largest system in Canada on the opening day of the new Canada Line on the Vancouver SkyTrain System. The SkyTrain now is the longest system (beating the TTC by a whopping .4 km of track). However ... the TTC subway system is still by no contest the largest system in Canada by number of stations, number of passengers carried, size of fleet (I could go on). For that reason the edit has been reversed. Eja2k (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It's impressive that Vancouver has built such a large system (though part of the reason is that it serves functions that in Toronto are covered by the main-line railways), but Toronto is far larger by every other measure, including capacity. David Arthur (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I consider ridership and capacity as a much more important measure of the size of a rapid transit system than length. For example, the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority may have a longer subway system than Toronto's, but Toronto's is much busier and has more stations, and thus, a higher capacity. Vancouver and Atlanta are both not as densely populated as Toronto, which would justify for their longer rapid transit systems.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 22:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Come to think of it, the Canada Line is single-track for the last kilometre or so in Richmond, and on the approach to the airport as well. So, with the line lengths so close together, the TTC probably still has slightly more track. David Arthur (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the TTC's pocket tracks?  There are a few, which would mean that the TTC has a longer total track length than the SkyTrain in Vancouver.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 18:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel like track kilometer-age is best reserved for running rail used for revenue service, the single direction stuff has merit and raises some questions. But counting pocket tracks, tail tracks, crossovers, and yard track is not really relevant as it doesn't really get the paying customer anywhere beyond where they could already go with in the system. How does the New York subway classify portions of track that are 4 tracks side by side (2 express 2 local) is that counted once or twice? Eja2k (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are counted once.  Using that measure, Vancouver's SkyTrain is longer than the Toronto subway and RT by four hundred metres. Using total trackage, the TTC is longer.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 20:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Largest System" vers. "longest system" Re: edits by [[User talk:24.84.212.226|24.84.212.226]]

message: All subways have their issues and the TTC's is no exception, however the problems of this subway system, physical ones not administrative, have not been documented anywhere on this page and I thought it a good idea to do.  For example, documenting how some trains literally fly and even leave the tracks vertically between some stations, while at others they squeek and squeel and lightning bolts fly out.  It's ridiculous and perhaps dangerous.  This could be expanded with names of stations and better descriptions of phenomena.
:The items you list as "problems" are more operational issues - if a train is going from a station slowly, perhaps there is a slow order/restricted speed zone or a work zone up ahead. 
:Arching (what you referred to as "lightning bolts" occurs regularly when the power rail ends - the collector shoes on the moving train loose contact with the end of the 3rd rail and an arch of power attempts to continue the circuit - this is normal - and not dangerous unless you are standing at track level directly beside the area.
:Trains bunching is poor route management by the TTC - The TTC can try to turn back trains, hold trains etc to try to put the line back on time or "un-bunch it" so to speak. The problem is often that the TTC does not know how long a problem ie medical emergency or PAA will last, so they don't turn trains soon enough and bunching occurs. These issues occur on many systems not just the TTC. None of the issues you highlighted seem necessary enough to add into a Wikipedia article 
:eja2k 02:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Known Problems 

message: I have configured some related templates so that we can use a standard Infobox station for TTC subway stations. Below is a blank template which should have extra lines removed and existing data from the current infobox copied to the comparable parameter. Note that if anything is entered in ADA it displays a wheelchair icon. Stations should be entered in the succession templates without the (TTC) suffix. See Sheppard–Yonge station for an example with multple lines. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks much better than the old TTC infobox.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 15:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Standard infobox