Talk:Interurban

message: Stadtbahn Karlsruhe deserves a mention, because the rolling stock is designed to do all of the following:
     	Stadtbahn on a city square, acting as Straßenbahn.
100px	Stadtbahn in the central station, acting as S-Bahn.
     	Stadtbahn in the Schwarzwald, acting as Regionalbahn.
68.35.55.55 (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karlsruhe 

message: A bit shocked not to see these in the Canada section; on the other hand I'm getting use to seeing sites on "Canada" only talking about Ontario and Quebec, which is par for the course in this country (and they wonder why the so-called "regions" are "alienated").  The BC Electric Railway Company interurban and streetcar system was very important in the development of Vancouver and Victoria, and is the foundation of the current crown corp BC Hydro; think there may have also been an interurban line around Nelson-Trail in the West Kootenay, run by West Kootenay Power and Light but I'm not sure; both cities had electrified streetcar systems but most intercity rail lines around there were CPR/steam.  Anyway, no time right now but just notice of a pending section or article on the BC systems; if anyone from BC is reading this let me know if you want to help.Skookum1 19:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good; I personally know little about the Canadian lines overall so that section has been left as I found it.  Note that the individual lines should have articles (see List of interurbans) and that the section here should only be an overview.  It doesn't have to list every line, just give a good overview of the history. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  notice of pending section on British Columbia/Alberta lines 

message: Another glaringly-missing line; will do my best on this from available on-line resources but I'm not a Seattlite; I'll see who I can enlist.Skookum1 20:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, note that full histories should go in individual lines' articles, but please, feel free! Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everett-Seattle-Tacoma interurban line 

message: Is it original research to use the term for newer lines like Portland's MAX that undeniably meet the criteria? There is at least one source () that calls it one but it might not be a reliable source. There is a similar source ( - but possibly more reliable - is Railway Age reliable?) that calls the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail an interurban. --NE2 08:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, on at least one of the maps, the Environmental Impact Statement for the Portland line did refer to it "Electric Interurban Light Rail".  Really, modern light rail systems share a lot of features with Interurbans (i.e. on-street running but also at higher speeds elsewhere).  Jason McHuff 03:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the Westside extension (now a part of the MAX Blue Line) uses a portion of a former interurban line, including some old station sites--Orenco, Quatama and Elmonica I believe. Jason McHuff 05:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Modern light rail" lines are by no stretch of imagination "interurbans," and use of this term should be avoided. Ldemery 23:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd agree.  Interurbans are historical.  Today's railways that fulfill similar functions, such as light rail, are of a different period.  --RedJ 17 03:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd disagree - especially because modern light rail lines have similar, although updated, characteristics. See, it "walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and looks (mainly) like a duck", so I might as well call it a duck, even if it looks a little strange for a duck. 204.52.215.14 (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're suggesting we call swans, geese, and loons, ducks.  RedJ 17 (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Taken litterally, a light rail systems is an interurban if and only if it do connect two or more cities and towns, like e.g. some of the Tram-Train systems but not for instance Bergen's light rail (Bybanen i Bergen in Norwegian). This is true though the term interurban perhaps is a little bit untrendy. Pål Jensen (talk) 08:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern light rail as interurbans?

message: This "B-Class" article has some "A-Class" features, and I thought I'd throw in my two cent's worth about how the overall classification could be improved to "A-Class."
--OK, this is a "pet concern" of mine, but:
We who edit English Wikipedia articles should keep in mind that English pages are likely to be the "primary" reference for many, many people whose first language is something other than English. We should therefore work to make pages such as this (which at the moment is available "only" in German, Dutch, Japanese, Russian and Swedish in addition to English) as "reader-friendly" as possible. 
In other words, "pariochalism" on English-language pages should be avoided. We should avoid "Americanisms" and use terminology likely to be easily and widely understood. After all, U.S. and Canadian interurbans do command a "following" overseas - not a "large" readership, but a readership nonetheless.
--the "first graf"
"An interurban, also called a radial railway in parts of Canada, is a streetcar line running between urban areas or from urban to rural areas. The term was mostly used in North America. The lines were mainly electrified in an era when steam railroads had not yet adopted electricity to any large degree."
This needs work. How about:
"Interurban lines are a form of land transport that incorporate elements of railway and tramway practice. The "typical" U.S. interurban operated between urban areas, serving towns and rural areas in between. It used technology based on railway and urban tramway practice. The most notable tramway practice was large-scale use of electric traction in an era when few railways were electrified.
"In the U.S. and parts of Canada, the term "interurban" became the common one-word abbreviation for "interurban electric railway" or "electric interurban railway" at an early date. The term "radial railway" was also used in parts of Canada. The term "interurban," whether borrowed directly or translated, was seldom used in other countries.
"The various U.S. and Canadian lines described as interurbans had distinctive sets of characteristics. These were not typical of other electric railways or tramways. Interurbans were distinct from railways, metros, urban or suburban tramways, and from current applications of light rail transit. There were relatively few overseas examples of electric railways or tramways built after U.S. - Canadian "interurban" practice."
Just a suggestion, and a starting point.
--"This article deals mainly with the interurban in North America."
Um, why? Why not make an attempt to "compare and contrast" with "elsewhere?" I'd be willing at least to "start" to take this on. . .
(see also "first graf," above)
--"North America"
Um, why does this section "precede" rather than follow "Definition of 'Interurban'" and "Interurban technology"?
--Definition of "Interurban"
Kudos to the editor who wrote this. There are some things that "should" be added - some of which are in Hilton and Due - but the overall quality is very high.
--Passenger service
Hilton and Due would be a good source to start.
Enough for now. Ldemery 23:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions to improve from "B-Class"  

message: I suggest that the section dealing with Europe be moved to intercity rail or tram.  After all the author of the section on German "interurbans" claims that they weren't really interurbans at all.  It shouldn't be here.  --RedJ 17 00:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move Europe

message: Isn't the Isle of Man Electric system (consisting of 2 lines) an interurban?
Exile (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 21:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll think it's an interurban. The railway is served by trams (streetcars), and they run between several cities or towns.Pål Jensen (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Isle of Man

message: In the US, interurbans often supplied electricity in rural areas along their lines.  According to Electrifying America, by David E. Nye, in 1935, the federal government forced interurbans to give up their electric utility service.  This contributed to their decline.
The article omits these points.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.90.210 (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rural Electrification

message: Of course, not every sailship is a Viking longship. However, if I build a Viking longship, it is a Viking longship though it doesn’t play the same role as the Vikings’ longships did. By the same way, I think a railcar or train which runs both through the streets like a tram (streetcar) and between the cities or towns, is an interurban even if the word interurban is untrendy and never has been common in European English. Therefore, a light rail or a commuter railway may or may not be an interurban. But the modernized ones like the Tram-Trains differs from the old ones, e.g. by using AC and by some other technical improvements and a different design (by the same way, a T-Ford differs from today’s models, but they are all automobiles). The limit between interurban/light rail and heavy rail is blurring, but just this flexibility characterizes this transportation mode.
       It’s true the interurbans never became as extensive in Europe as in the U.S., and Europe’s interurban scene doesn’t know any high-speed interurbans before the Tram-Train renaissance. In Europe, most of the intercity rail network was built outside the streets. Pål Jensen (talk) 09:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: On interurbans and Viking longships

message: Local rail historians in the U.S. state of Minnesota claim that the Interurban (with a capital "I") service along University Avenue, also known as the St. Paul–Minneapolis Line, is where the term "interurban" originated.  That line started up in 1890 as an electrified streetcar, around the same time that the street railways of the two cities were merged under the umbrella of the Twin City Rapid Transit Company.  However, since many other claimed "firsts" in this region turn out to be false, I've been reluctant to add this statement to any articles.  Also, any rural areas that might have existed between the two downtowns when the line started probably became urbanized very quickly after it opened, so the line probably never fit the definition it (supposedly) helped spawn.  Of course, if anyone can find references to the term "interurban" dated to before 1890, this probably all works out to be false anyway. —Mulad (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of term 

message: SUNSET LINES, The Story of the Chicago Aurora & Elgin, Volume 1-Trackage by Larry Plachno, published in 1986 by Transportation Trails ISBN: 0-933449-02-X.
Page 3 has “The Chicago, Aurora, and Elgin is unique among electric interurban railways.” There are other “interurban”s on that page
Page 9 paragraph 3 ends with “These longer-distance lines soon became known as electric interurban railways.” The rest of this page, the Introduction, repeatedly mentions “interurban”, as does page 15, the first page in chapter 1, The Super Interurban.
SUNSET LINES, The Story of the Chicago Aurora & Elgin, Volume 2-History by Larry Plachno, published in 1989 by Transportation Trails ISBN: 0-933449-10-0.
Page 169 (page numbers are a continuation of volume 1) has “December 10, 1891, saw the incorporation of the Aurora & Chicago Interurban Railway...by electric railway”. This shows the word “interurban” used legally as early as 1891 for an electric railway.
Has anyone outside the United States used the word locally? Has anyone in the United States used the word for “Light Rail”? Isn’t "interurban" an historical American term, used for a class of electric railroads?A Source Monster (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use (and Origin) of term 

message: I think this article is much, much too long as currently written. Consider that rail transport, in some ways a peer article, has 41K of prose. This article has 92KB. Besides being prosy throughout, there's a lot of duplicated content. The discussion (more than a summary) of interurbans should probably be removed altogether as the material duplicates content in articles about the individual systems. Per WP:SUMMARY, this article simply goes into too much detail. I've scaffolded a possible new article structure at User:Mackensen/Interurban and I'd appreciate comments. Relatedly, there's a question of scope. I think the article should be clear at the outset that the article is discussing the "interurban" as a distinctly North American, early 20th century phenomenon, unless there are reliable sources which discuss non-North American interurbans as interurbans. Mackensen (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed refactoring 

message: There may be several reasons why this article is longer than the rail transport article, e.g. that the latter theme is split into a lot of articles: High-speed trains, high-speed rail, Land speed record for rail vehicles, Rainhill Trials, LGV Atlantique, North-East Corridor, etc., etc.
Interurbans, i.e. railcars or trains which run as streetcars (trams) in the cities and from city to city, is not only as a distinctly North American, early 20th century phenomenon:
*There are still a few interurbans in the U.S.
*Interurbans existed and do still exist in Europe and Asia.
But perhaps the high-speed, long-distance interurbans like Red Devils were unique for the U.S. However, I'll think some of the Tram-Trains seem to be very similar. Of course the technology has developed a lot, the safety requirements are stricter, etc. – but perhaps the biggest difference is that they are rarely named the untrendy word "interurban".
There are several reliable sources which discuss non-North American interurbans as interurbans, e.g. William Middleton's The Interurban Era, Swedish Wikipedia, and several articles in the Norwegian railway publication For Jernbane. But of course the word "interurban" is not used overall.
I think the article does not contain too much information, though it may be too long because of repetitions and verbosity. 
But if it is correct to reduce "interurban" into a distinctly North American, early 20th century phenomenon, I think the article should start like e.g.:
"Interurban" denotes a sort of North American streetcars (trams) which, like e.g. some of the modern Tram-trains, also ran between cities. They were invented about 1890, and the systems expanded very fast till about 1920. Thereafter, most of them afterwards were dismantled or reduced to goods railways, but a couple of interurbans do still exist...
Pål Jensen (talk) 08:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Too long?

message: In the U.S., an interurban was just that, an electrified rail line that ran between “urban” centers.  If they made stops within a city to get to their stations, their stops were within the municipal boundaries would have been very limited, as the interurban’s attraction was its speed and limited number of stations (most with platforms) served.  
The term Interurban Car, or “car” is more accurate when discussing the actual vehicles in the U.S. Also, Interurban cars were larger and more robust than a streetcars, and in scale could be as large as a traditional train’s passenger car by itself.  The term tram was not used in the era of the interurban in the U.S.  Again, Interurban cars could be as large as a passenger train car, far larger than a traditional “tram” implied in the U.S. during that era.  In U.S. rail museums, “interurban cars” are a common term, agin, tram being used for a conveyance slower and smaller.
And in common parlance, the term “Interurban” suffices by itself after it is established that these networks were Interurban Electric Railroads.
Like privately held streetcar lines, the owners of these lines generated their own power, the excess of which was often sold back to communities as an additional source of revenue.  Also like privately held street car lines, some interurban lines opened amusement parks to increase ridership during off hours.  Interurbans also ran freight cars either by themselves, or in tandem with passenger cars.
Finally, many of these systems chained together to provide additional range, through shared systems.  So a person could travel from say, Columbus, Ohio on the CDM line to the end of the line in Marion, Ohio, change networks to the CMB line, travel to Bucyrus, Ohio, change lines, etc. and arrive in Cleveland, Ohio.  Whether or not this was as efficient, or economical or as fast as traditional railway travel is up for debate, but the interurban systems never supplanted traditional rail. ClevelandExPat (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. Terms 

message: The term "interurban" is mainly considered US/Canada-specific. Would it be worth clearly separating the US/Canada interurbans from the tramways etc. in other countries that had similar characteristics? Eldomtom2 (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential division of article? 

message: Just a question: Why is USA first in the history section, when the Kusttram in Belgium clearly is the oldest "interurban" in the article? Shouldn't the Belgium go first? I also worry about the sole focus on Sprague's electrical systems, and nothing on Siemens and Ganz, who were more influential in Europe.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.194.47.42 (talk) 10:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure