@@AtomcsiKK local residents doesn't really call M1 as Metro cause of that, instead "Földalatti" which literral means Underground(y) edit: also cause it's more historical accurate-traditional to call it in its Hungarian word and not the multinational 'Metro' like as M2-3-4
Your channel has given me such an increased appreciation for transit systems across the world and all the little quirks I probably would have missed before. Now when I move around in my home cities of Budapest and Berlin or when I get to travel to a new city I can't help but notice all the patterns and structures I've heard you and other urbanist talk about regularly. It's such a pleasure, so thanks for all the content!
I wasn't expecting you to pronounce Budapest's name correctly, but you did. I appreciate it. The oldest, "Millenar Underground" line of Budapest, now rebranded as metro line M1, was originally planned as a regular tram line on street level, but it didn't get permission because it would have ruined the image of the avenue, especially the poles and the overhead power lines. So the railway company asked the authorities (massively paraphrasing): "What if we built the whole thing underground? That way no ugly stuff would be on street level." To which the authorities said: "Yeah, that could work." So they basically built an underground tram line, with cut-and-cover technology, which uses the same 600V DC power supply that trams do. The tunnel is so low because it crosses *over* the main canal located under a crossroad (the grand boulevard), while still fully underground. The space between the ceiling of the canal tunnel and the surface was all they could work with. Making old stations accessible is hard, but not impossible. The soviet-type line M3 was recently made fully accessible, the deep level stations having incline elevators installed in the escalator shafts. Ironically, making the subsurface line M1 accessible is harder, because it is now part of World Heritage.
Something else you don't really see anymore is when metro systems are designed not just as metro systems but also museums. The Moscow Metro is a big example of this. Under Stalin, stations were designed in the style of socialist classicism and were meant as underground "palaces of the people", with marble walls, high ceilings, stained glass, mosaics and chandeliers. It makes transit look more appealing and motivates even more people to give trains a chance. The Pyongyang Metro is also like this, with chandeliers and patriotic murals that inspire its users to keep moving forward and never give up. Something else the Moscow and Pyongyang Metros have in common is how deep they are, with the Pyongyang one doubling as a bomb shelter. Another example is the Tashkent Metro which first opened in 1977. It's not just transit, it's transit that tells a story. It took until 2018 for them to lift the photography ban and allow tourists to take as many pictures as their hearts desire. Sure, it was inspired by Moscow, but it's more than that. They all have their own unique architectural features and artistic elements. Some look like ballrooms with huge chandeliers hanging from the ceiling while others look like a film set from a science fiction movie. Walking through it is like walking through the city's history. Every station shows a part of Uzbek history, and they all tell a story from the Silk Road to the empires that once ruled over it.
During the construction of the second line of the Sofia metro, ruins were found of the ancient city of Serdica. Many of the artefacts were put in glass containers on the station platforms. They also intended to build an underground transfer parking nearby, but they found the ruins of an ancient church, (which after much political debate) was left alone, and the transfer parking idea was scrapped. This happened as recently as 2012
Berlin Metro features most of this. The new stations of the U5 opened as recent as December 2020 are all artisticly designed and unique. The station showed at 1:40 also shows archeological pieces simmilar to what @thromstyxd described. I think there's also a station that serves as bomb shelter.
Another point to note is that few early metros were purposely build that way and instead used existing infrastructures (this still is done so today but on a lesser scale). The London Underground, New York Subway (or rather, NY Elevated) and Chicago 'L' all started out as mainline extensions, hosted stuff like freight trains and had (or in case of Chicago, still has) grade crossings and London's, thanks to its branching nature of the individual lines and relatively high stop distances for a system its time, also has been compared to what would be an S-Bahn (originally 2nd generation like Munich, nowadays 1st gen like Berlin and Hamburg) or RER today. Other metros developed out of trams like Budapest M1 (at least it was heavily inspired by them even though it was grade separated from the start) and Boston has the Tremont Street subway i.e. the first subway on American ground... which hosted streetcars (making Boston the first city with a premetro) and similar tunnels were taken over by the Orange and Blue Lines (the Green Line too but its streetcar nature is very obvious there). Modern systems also take over existing infra but not to the extend as the aforementioned systems I feel like.
Yep, in London the Metropolitan Railway originally saw itself not as a purely metro system, but as a long-distance railway competing with the big boys like GWR/LNER/LNWR. Their competitive advantage was that their services would bring you right into the heart of the City rather than at the edges at Paddington/Euston/Kings Cross. They even partnered with the GWR at one point so they could through-run long distances from out west into the City. If you'd like to know more, Jago Hazzard has a great channel on the history of railways in London and the UK!
@@ricequackers And that is all down to a political decision to re-organise the Metropolitan Railway with London Transport rather than London & North Eastern Railway. Two of their lines, the Northern City Line, and the East London Line, were later reassigned as train services (with Great Northern, and Overground respectively). And if you wait at some of the Metropolitan platforms today, the trains that arrive will alternate between Metropolitan (Underground), and Chiltern (Train). South Western Railway was re-organised with the Southern Railway, and that included the Waterloo & City Line, which later got re-allocated as an Underground line, and the only Underground line that is actually completely underground.
You mentioned the Glasgow Subway and in fact it has a most unusual track gauge... 4ft. As a result (and because of the small loading gauge) the trains themselves cannot be an off-the-shelf design. Still waiting for the new Stadler trains to begin passenger-carrying service, even though the first units were delivered over a year ago.
@@jan-lukas True, but the first new trains arrived in late 2021 and it looks like they won't be in service until some time during 2024. You would hope for everything would be ready a bit sooner when it's just a 10.5 kilometre system.
I was pretty surprised how tight the space in the Glasgow trains is (I've been on the new trains at Innotrans Berlin and am 1.95 m tall) Nonetheless beautiful trains you will be getting! :)
One big thing I’ve noticed is cities settling for lesser systems. For example, Seattle’s Link system is substantially pared down from the original Forward Thrust plan, which would have certainly seen faster trains operating entirely on grade separated track, probably with third rail power.
Forward thrust and sound move are totally different - as a great society metro it would have been median running and with totally different rights of way, not all of which were better
So LRV capacity is like that of Glasgow subway, from how many years ago?There is still a lot to say for the NYC subway standards from 80-120 years ago!
Seattle’s link actually has the same average speed as the DC subway which forward thrust was modeled after. For a nearly grade separated system that already needs 4 car trains given its current demand it should do away with the idea of light rail rolling stock and eliminate the handful of grade crossings it does have for in the future when demand is even greater (after expansions)
All metro systems in Portugal meanwhile are standard gauge, despite the entirety of the heavy rail network being in 1668 mm gauge. One exception would be the currently inoperational Mirandela metro, a short section of the derelict narrow gauge Tua line.
The city I live in, Tampere in Finland built a new tram just a couple years ago and it has completely changed the city center for the better. Before the tram busses used to line the main street as far as eye could see but now the city center is the healthiest in the country. I think the city is too small for this channel as we just passed 250k residents but I just wanted to share this. The tram has been massively successful with over 80% approval rating and it has effected the public opinion for trams a lot for the whole country. Neighbouring towns are very interested in getting a tram connection of their own and a couple of lines/line extensions are being built and planned. In my opinion the most exiting part is that there is a regional train pilot program being tested and a plan for improving it massively. Tampere already is the fastest growing city in Finland and a good regional train service could supercharge the population growth. Thanks to this channel for making me see what might happen in the near future near me!
Your news from Tampere is absolutely wonderful. I contrast that with my home city of Nottingham (England) which brought back trams in 2004. Most people in Nottingham like them, but other English cities have not followed our example. One of the reasons is that the legal rules governing BUSES in Britain outside London are absurd. A tramway can be built, but bus operators can still operate routes paralleling the tram routes.
I'm familiar! If you want to send some clips of the trams I'd love to cover Tampere! Its a really exciting example of a growing smaller city with trams!
Reece,you constantly overlooked Boston,as it was the 3rd subway,built in 1894! Now,the Green Line,its still going strong! And yes,there are turning loops,at Park Street,and Haymarket,still in place! Plus they are putting in,a new[old] line to Medford! History repeats! Thank you for your attention ☺️! Thank you 😇 😊!
There are also turning loops at Government Center, Kenmore, Riverside, and BC. Plus the Blue Line has a turning loop at Bowdoin as well as others on the Ashmont-Mattapan and *technically* Red Line since the Codman Yard loop is a direct track continuation from Ashmont
I just love how cute the Glasgow Subway is because of its track running gauge, on top of the fact the Glasgow Subway is the third-oldest underground rail transit system in Europe. It's definitely a unique system, not to mention the neat livery! The system even has a nominal tunnel diameter of 11 ft (3.4 m), which is even smaller than that of the deep-level lines of the London Underground which are 3.56 m at their smallest. It originally began as a cable railway, powered by a clutch-and-cable system, with one cable for each direction. However, most trains were electrified in 1935, and between from March of 1935 and December, it had an interesting operation where clockwise trains were cable-hauled while counterclockwise trains were electric! The subway's running lines are entirely underground, but the maintenance depot is above ground! Prior to it being modernized, trains used to be lifted by crane onto and off the tracks just like the Waterloo & City Line trains! Modernization brought the installation of points and an access ramp between Govan and Ibrox where trains can exit the tunnel system to terminate for maintenance and repairs, cleaning or storage. And if having a cute loop wasn't enough, there was once plans to add ANOTHER loop for the East End to aid regeneration as part of the city's 2014 Commonwealth Games bid.
Because it's the change between Thameslink and Crossrail? Until recently I was doing the Thameslink-Crossrail change as part of my commute, but I carry on to London Bridge now.
@@DT-hg7te Quite possibly. There's a semi-monthly Comic Mart I visit at Russell Square and I come into London from Aylesbury, but it doesn't open until 12pm so I tend to faff around on the way in by getting off at Harrow on the Hill, go back up to Rayners Lane, down to Ealing Common and back up to Ealing Broadway, just so I can ride in on the Elizabeth Line; which then I exit at Farringdon, tube it back to King's Cross then down to Russell Square - purely to waste a bit of time :D
Generally: when you operate in snow get an overhead line, when you operate fast get an overhead line. The Berlin U-Bahn is limited to 60km/h I think...
The Lausanne metro line M2, opened in 2008, is a rare case IN EUROPE of a NEW rubber-tyred metro. But remember that Lausanne is French-speaking, and the M2 incorporates a section of line with a 10% gradient which used to be rack-and-pinion and before that a funicular!
@@RMTransit then you will like Stuttgart. The trains of their light rail system are specially build for the steep gradients over 10% of the city and they even include a funicular railway with 27% gradient and a rack railway with over 17% gradient into their system which are usable with a normal local transport ticket.
Also Turin metro line 1 opened in 2006 is a modern rubber-tyred metro in Europe (Italy), It is similar to the lausanne metro because it uses VAL rapid transit system technology and is the first of is kind in the country.
Not all modern changes have been good! Many modern train stations aren't very walkable. An old NY City station might take 30 seconds to go from surface to train...but many new stations can take 5-10 minutes...sometimes more of just walking through the stations (not counting round trips or transfers). You can sometimes get pretty far in an Uber for 10 minutes, so metro stations to be competitive should be more compact and walkable. Very sad that modern transit planners (especially in China) don't factor walk times into their designs.
I don't know how you could get around this; the old stations are probably shallow due to their cut-and-cover construction. This type of construction would be unfeasible, costly, and disruptive in a modern city for an entire length of a modern subway, especially in the US.
@@panzer_TZ There are tricks...eg don't bury your station so deep, allow pedestrians to cross non-express tracks (like in parts of Chicago), allow German style proof of payment systems so you don't have to create huge cattle corridors for paid/unpaid, and omit handicap accessibility. The cost for an elevator can add crazy costs to a station (especially underground). It would be more efficient to just pay truly handicapped taxi/uber costs. In reality extremely few truly handicapped use metro stations, yet metro stations go crazy over designing their stations for them. Also many stations themselves are simply too big. Unless it is a busy downtown station or a transfer station, chances are most modern stations can be SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER.
@@AaronSmith-sx4ez I don't know that I agree on the elevator point and if you have some hard numbers that would be useful. For one, whether someone is "truly handicapped" to the point of "needing" the elevator is not really a binary but more a spectrum. The elevators at MARTA stops in Atlanta (where I live and am familiar with) are very well used and while there are people who definitely don't meet a handicapped definition of need, there's lots of ambiguous cases and lots of folks who use it for reasons other than being handicapped that are still legitimate. For instance, people with luggage are frequently on the elevators and those elevators enhance the viability of using the trains to take flights or use the inter-city bus terminals. Also people with bikes use them since bikes are allowed on MARTA trains and that helps solve a last mile challenge for people. Finally, yeah some folks just use them when they're tired after work and it is worth asking if there would be an effect on the margin of reducing ridership if everyone had to walk up stairs (since escalators are NOT at all stations). So the elevator is expensive but if we're honest, people who literally cannot use stairs are only part of the crowd using them and it's then worth asking the question of how many of those people would choose other forms of transportation besides transit if elevator options weren't available?
@@AaronSmith-sx4ez You still have to take into account what's underground and if a city has particularly many tunnels, the only options is to either go up (not always viable for a variety of reasons) or go even deeper. For example, the reason why Elizabeth Line stations are so deep is in part because the underground of London is already used up quite a bit. Likewise, some cities have fairly soft soil like St. Petersburg so viable ground for tunnel is only found in deep layers (though it also has the excuse that the underground lines doubled as shelters in case of a war). As an aside, grade crossings are not a feature of metros and Chicago's more the exception than the rule (notice that London Underground and New York Subway both had grade crossings on their system but these were removed at some point in time). That being said, I do agree that unnecessarily deep stations are an actual hinderance and going down two, at most three storeys (depending on station spacing) has a much better user experience than going down something like 15 storeys.
The train shown at 2:32 is in the CPTM system, which is more like commuter rail. It's a bit of a misnomer to call it a subway since none of its tracks are underground (mostly at-grade with some elevated sections)
…and I thought you were going to mention the old Paris metro cars whose doors had to be manually unlatched! I saw them in 2000 when travelling across Europe. It took a little getting used to, but by watching other people I figured out what to do. As the train was coming to a stop, someone would trip the latch and the door would spring open. Afterwards, when people had exited and entered the car, there would be a chime and the door would slowly and automatically close. Never knew the reasoning behind this, but it was quirky and cool.
Always funny seeing people commenting on something that feel so natural to you ! I live in Paris and it just feel like... everyday. Some line also have a button to push 👀
I saw an old 1950's Hitchcock movie with a scene in the Paris Metro where gates where the stairs met the platform came down when a train rolled in, keeping people on the stairs from getting onto the platform, and then the gates went up as the train was leaving. I guess it was some form of crowd control or to keep people from rushing to the trains or holding the doors open.
The oldest section of the NYC subway Lexington Ave uses loops at Chambers Street (where you can glism at the beautiful, retired station) and Bowling Green on the weekends
In Philadelphia, all three of our subway lines have turning loops at one end. The Market-Frankford line has a loop at 69th Street, the Broad Street Line uses a loop at Fern Rock, and the Subway-Surface Lines loop at Juniper St, all three loops are used to control traffic at their particular ends, though the loop at Juniper St is there because the trolley fleet is single-ended.
I always argue that Los Angeles losing its original street car system isn't 100% bad. LA does have a much more modern and higher-capacity system now. Some complain about the system being Light Rail heavy, but the system would've been some form of street car/light rail if the original system wasn't ripped out. It also gave LA a reason to build the Red Line subway, which is unanimously considered the backbone of the system.
Conversely, I think one of the main reasons why Australia is a tier above NA in general, especially the US, is because we didn't rip out all of our suburban train lines. (Mostly speaking. My city, Perth, closed the Fremantle line for a few years but it got brought back after the following election) Melbourne didn't even rip out their tram lines. (The other big reason being the fact that planning for transport is done at the state level not the municpal/city level)
Yeah I think people overestimate how well a street car system would scale, but that's not to say it wouldn't have been upgraded or streamlined in the coming decades instead of having to start from nearly scratch. Also, it would have affected the development of the city's layout so that there wouldn't have been so much sprawl. LA would still have been very spread out but it would have been more like dense villages scattered about instead of a sprawling metropolis that's basically laid out as if it were its own region instead of a large city.
There may be some truth to what you say, but remember the decades of extremely bad air, traffic congestion, traffic deaths, etc. It is a bit like saying WW2 gave us all sorts of technological innovation.
I think LA is probably better off not being reliant on streetcars, but it really needs faster, higher capacity, region spanning lines. Metrolink needs to be 10x'd
Hey Reece. Great video as usual. I’m pretty sure the clip at 2:38 tagged as the Glasgow Subway in actually a deep level London Underground carriage. It’s slightly too wide and high, and the door signage is not right, for Glasgow.
Boston’s Blue line subway is third rail in the tunnel and overhead wires for most of the overground route. There is a short section with both for the transfer. Also, you spoke about Budapest but not North America’s oldest subway, the current Green Line in Boston.
I think one rarely seen feature ive only heard about in toronto is naming tunneling machines, from line 4's Rock & Roll to line 2's Diggy Scardust (David Bowie's TBM)
On the gauge thing, MRT Jakarta adopted 1067mm/ cape gauge as the existing mainline network used that gauge (and the original plans allow sharing of rail facilities with the state railway). While the new “LRT” systems use Standard gauge (except Palembang LRT which used cape gauge with 3rd rail electrification)
Here, in Romania, we have on all the lines a side third rail, but on many main lines we have an overhead cable line too. Our metros, many of them beside the most newest have the both types of connections and if sometimes the metro can't work, the trams can belowere in the tunels to be temporarily used as metros.
Forgive me if I've missed a video, but have you read about the Chicago Yellow Line (Skokie Swift) and its mid journey, in motion change from 3rd rail to catenary? It got switched to all 3rd rail in the early 2000s, but I believe there are still a few train cars where you can see where pantographs used to he mounted.
You missed that part of what became the London Underground started out as a wide gauge line as that bit of railway was built by the Great Eastern Railway and they used wide gauge.
So the U4 and U6 lines of the Vienna U-Bahn and the S-Bahn line S45 first opened in 1898 (as the Stadtbahn). Many of the stations (designed by Otto Wagner, some of the most beautiful stations I've ever seen) are subject to historical preservation laws. But despite that every station has been made fully accessible, with the elevators being well integrated into the architecture. The point is, accessibility - and modernization in general - can absolutely happen on vintage systems if it's enough of a priority and if there's enough funding
At 2:31 the MTR East Rail Line is a commuter rail metro but not rapid transit even though it's network is operated with subway lines together. I am a Cantonese so i've learnt it. By the way this "as metro as commuter rail" (also a word "heavy rail" is used to include both rapid transit and commuter rail) train mode is more popular day by day, and more and more operaters wanna make one metropolitan area's commuter rail and rapid transit as one network. That's great👍
1600mm is called Irish Gauge in São Paulo, and was the gauge used for the railroads built in the late 1800s that would later become the cptm lines. When the first metro lines were being designed and constructed in the 60s and 70s, it wasn’t just a matter of matching nearby rail gauge; they understood that the system would gradually become more connected to the surface trains of what would become the CPTM network. Often times the CPTM lines will be ignored as not being proper metro lines despite their headway, ridership, and scheduling suggesting otherwise, but the Metro map doesn’t make any sense without them. The wider gauge probably helped São Paulo have wide modern trains. The two recent lines are only on standard gauge instead of Irish gauge because they are operated by different companies, with no expectation of interoperability. But I guess line six is gonna be interoperable with them 😂.
Irish gauge is a curse, but definitely leads to nice wide trains. The modern tram network in Dublin Ireland was built with standard gauge, and with wider loading gauge on segregated sections to facilitate future metro operability.
I mean not a lot of french rubber tyre métros are being built mostly because not a lot of lines are being built but the last line to open line 2 of the Rennes Metro is a rubber tyre VAL system
As you mention loops, fun fact: Trams/Streetcars had their own amplitudes of technologies and design features goin in and out of fashion. In my city for example, they started out horse-drawn, and turned around by attatching the horse to the other end of the coach. Later, around 1900 that is, they electrified, and adopted that design with a driver's stand at either end. Another generation forward, from the 30s on roughly, they came up with the idea of adding loops to the end of the lines, among other reasons so they'd need doors on one side only, much like the buses that had been invented in the meantime, and could use the entirety of the other side for seats and raise the capacity this way. Then came the 60's and 70's, and the tram network began being converted into lightrail, reverting back to double ended trains. Which more and more often consist of two single-ended EMUs coupled back to back though.
In Philly SEPTA"S two main subway lines have return loops at their western and northern terminals. At the 69th Street Transportation Center westbound Market-Frankford Line passengers must get off. The train loops around for its eastbound return to Frankford. On the Broad Street Line the Fern Rock station has one platform. The train loops thru the yard and passengers can stay onboard.
1:21 actually, in Barcelona, line 3 (and maybe line 1) used third rail at some point. But I can't find information about when they started using it (wether it was from the beginning or from later) and when they changed to overhead power. Edit: the proves I've got about it is that the old 3rd rail in L3 is still visible at some points, and when L3 was extended with an overhead power extension, they had to create a separate L3b untill they changed the rest of L3 to overhead too (the change from one train to another was made at Paral·lel station). As for L1, I've heard some people say it was like L3, but I've found no proves other than that...
L1, apart from being the only Barcelona Metro line in 1668mm Iberian gauge, its third rail was a true rail, with contact with shoe in the top, and put at minus 1200VDC, so there was a special smell in that line caused by the negative ions.
@Reece Have you considered doing (or have you done?) a video on choices different systems have made for their in-station signage, and are some better than others? (I include platform level "station identification" as well as way-finding.)
1:01 a significant portion of athens' metro line 1 (pireaus to thissio) could be considered the oldest metro in continental europe as it opened in 1869 and the budapest metro opened in 1896, though not as special as the budapest metro and it being almost completely overground, it could simply be the oldest metro in continental europe
To use overhead wire power supply rather than third rail means that bored tunnels require larger TBMs and the amount of spoil removed is greatly increased- for example, if a tunnel capable of handling 3rd rail trains has a diameter of 5 metres, boring a tunnel of 6 metre diameter for the overhead supply means an extra 44% spoil and also requires more tunnel lining. This makes the infrastructure for a metro more expensive. Although not a metro, the High Speed 2 tunnels in Britain are 8.8 meter diameter- no wonder the costs have spiralled.
I like tram-metro system in Alicante (Spain) Narrow gauge trams, with one line goes to Benidorm. There You can change to diesel railbus (same gauge) and follow to Denia. Nice network, beutfull scenery and affordable price.
Since you mention concrete vs. steel, a hypothetical: what if the IRT Third Avenue Elevated structure was replaced with a Skytrain-like structure rather than completely ripped down. Would it have delivered the desired improvement without having cost accessibility to Harlem and the Bronx, and also avoided the Second Avenue debacle? Matter of fact, I don't think there's been much analysis of the tragedy of the Third Avenue El teardown at all.
Another feature you don’t see on modern metro systems but is quite common in London, and somewhat common in Paris, is a lack of level boarding. Having to step up into the trains to board is both a problem for accessibility and slows down dwell times considerably which is why it’s shocking to see how prevalent it is on the London Underground even in stations built as recently as the 1980s.
Cities be arguing if cut-and-cover or drilling is better, meanwhile my hometown (Hamburg) in Germany just put the "subway" mostly above ground and called it a day.
Being from Hong Kong, the London Underground is definitely quite frustrating to use for me. The deep tube trains are so small, the gangways are so narrow, and the doors are so poorly laid out that people don’t want to move in during the rush hour. As a result, the deep tube trains can only carry few people. While one can always blame the age of LU, I cannot see the logic behind Victoria Line (1967) and Jubilee Line (1979) stations and trains being so small and restrictive. Just because something is already there doesn’t mean you should use it if it leads to many other problems… Another thing you can add to a future version of this video is the lack of cellular network in tunnels. Modern metros are now built with cellular network from day one, enabling efficient communication in the city. Oh wait, there’s Elizabeth Line 🤦🏽♂️
In larger German-speaking cities the suburban S-Bahn systems are usually in tunnels in the city centres, and are therefore rather like metros/subways. With the exceptions of Hamburg and Berlin, they all use overhead wire electrification. And in Zurich all the important S-Bahn lines use double-deck trains. In Vienna, the S-Bahn is mainly single-deck, but double-deck trains on outer suburban lines do also use the S-Bahn tunnels. I suspect that this use of double decks will increase, as Austrian Federal Railways have just placed a very large order (86 trains) for Stadler 'Kiss' double-decks.
No. Having a central city tunnel doesn't make it a metro system. Almost all German S-Bahn systems are just relatively frequent mainline rail services, with the exceptions of Hamburg and Berlin, which actually fulfill the requirements of a metro system.
@@MTobias I did not say that S-Bahn are Metros. I said that they are rather like metros/subways. Zurich, a city I have visited many times, is particularly noteworthy. Many people living in Zurich use the S-Bahn for journeys entirely within the city, eg Oerlikon or Altstetten to the city centre.
@@Fan652w Zürich's S-Bahn is perhaps one of the best examples of a 'not at all like a metro' S-Bahn there is. In that case it really just is a frequent regional rail service using regional rail rolling stock on mainline tracks using a different name. Not that that is a bad thing, but it isn't at all like a metro.
@@MTobias I entirely I agree with you that technically and operationally the Zurich S-Bahn is 'not at all like a metro'. And I would add that the new underground platforms 31-34 at Zurich Hauptbahnhof (opened 2016) are shared between S-Bahn and Intercity trains, including those on SBB's flagship IC1 Geneva-Lausanne-Bern-Zurich-Winterthur-St Gallen. But my point is that within the densely populated city area of Zurich the S-Bahn PERFORMS THE FUNCTiON OF A METRO. Innumerable Zurich residents use the S-Bahn for short journeys such as Oerlikon to city centre, which is about 5 kms., 3 miles. At 6-7 minutes it is much quicker than the tram (17 minutes).
The London Underground has straight platforms? News to me! I mean, even your opening shot shows a London Underground train on curved platforms; the shot at 0:35 shows curved platforms. And some stations (Bank?) are even more curved than that, with enough room for somebody to fall between the train and the platform on the inside of the curve.
Reece even pronounced Budapest in the Hungarian way! (We pronounce our capital's name "Boo-dah-pesht".) Many Hungarians are very thankful for this... They are the ones (along with all others) who pronounce Vienna like "Beitsh" (Bécs), St. Petersburg like "saint-pieter-vaar" (Szentpétervár) and Bratislava as Pozsony :D [Pozsony was the historical & traditional Hungarian name of that city that was even capital of Hungary for a very short time. But now it belongs to Slovakia and it's current name is Bratislava. Still we use its Hungarian name, as for Wien and Paris (Párizs). So I don't really understand all the fuzz about that s/sh difference, but I am still happy too, to hear a foreign speaker saying it right, with the "sh".)
I mean yeah but also.... If you want you can order bog standard Equipment at any of the big three manufactures. Which the big three right now is Alstrom, Siemens, and JPRail. Granted the train sets are going to cost a few million but you could order one right now.
are the special, I thing synchronous, motors still in use in budapests U1? they only know to modes of operation: full throttle and stop, making it a quite interesting ride, and one I'd like to experience.
There's this joke in The Hague that the public transport co build a half kilometre stretch for the tramway underground so they would be recognised as a "metropole"
Walking, bicycles, electric buses and electric trains all need to be connected and part of a good transportation system. Cycling needs safe protected bike lanes and protected places to lock and store bicycles at train stations.
The most striking place to see the difference is, you guessed it, London. I believe the Elizabeth Line is the newest underground urban transit (not a metro) line in the world, and it interfaces with the Metropolitan Line, the oldest in the world, as well as the Central Line, the oldest tube line in the world. The difference in scale is the most striking thing, these aren't cramped tunnels, or short trains. These are 200m long commuter trains designed to work out to Reading and Chelmsford, using overhead power (a first for TFL) and in stations that are cavernous.
Great video as always, Reece! I would really appreciate an explainer video on the Budapest metro. It's one of those systems with a huge contrast between the old and new.
The M1 is the original metro, so it has some historic significance. However, it is used by both locals and tourists. We also have the M2, M3, and M4 which are much more modern. The M4 is a fully automated driverless line.
I think saying all of Germany's metros use third rail is a bit misleading. All proper U-Bahn systems do, correct, but all of those except Nuremberg are legacy systems and their expansions. All the Stadtbahn Tunnel systems use OHP, and many sections of those are quite long too
Never heard of "Indian gauge" before. In India, it's always been called broad gauge because it's wider than meter gauge. Quick look at Wikipedia says that "Indian gauge" is a terminology used in the west. I find such differences in technical terminology Intriquing. The railways is even more, since the British basically set the standard of the "indian" or broad gauge.
It's because in the UK "Broad gauge" would generally be taken to refer to the old 2140mm Brunel broad gauge originally used on the Great Western Railway.
Well I think it helps differentiate between the Russians broad gauge (basically just broad enough that trains don't fit unless they are built for multi track gauge) And the Indian broad gauge which is 1676mm more than 20cm wider than Standard gauge so they can run double stack Container trains on normal flat cars without having to worry that they fall over which I find Amazing
Thank you Reece for a superb and very thought provoking video. I am planning a trip to Vienna in October, with a one day excursion to Budapest. In Budapest I will head first for the 'Foldalatti' (now line 1) and then ride on the modern lines to get the contrast! Back in Vienna I will no doubt use lines U4 and U6, which (like the London subsurface lines) were originally steam-worked! But note that all the old Vienna stations are now 'accessible'. And this has been achieved without spoiling the magnificent 1890s architecture.
winter issue? or just colonial legacy... ( I don't think they have truely build new lines, most is simply just extension of existing system and therefore designs and rolling stocks)
I think the differentiation between cut and cover and bored tunnel isn't really great in this video. Both are used where they fit. In many parts you may be able to bore a tunnel in other areas you may not be able. They are different techniques in tunnel construction that need to be chosen and applied case by case. You wouldn't build a suspension bridge across every valley / river / road just because it is a more modern way to build a bridge. You chose your type of bridge according to the demands of your project.
What is the difference between a rail line, an underground rail line, a subway, an underground and a metro. Are they all the same thing with different names ?
I recently learnt that the Glasgow metro initially used trains that were pulled by a steel cable powered by a steam engine plant on the outskirts of the city. A bit strange to me that it basically was an underground cable car. Electrification happened imo rather soon after opening. The track layout does feel a bit like a model railway starter kit and could really use some extensions (and cross-ticketing with busses)
The City and South London Railway, now part of the Northern Line, opened in 1980, and was electric from the start. The Glasgow Subway opened in 1896. Volks Elecrtric Railway, which is more of a tourist ride than a real transport system opened in 1883, and was electric from the start.
one think ive learned from this channel's videos is just how common 1.5kv DC OLE is. While it existed historically in some parts of the British mainline network until the 80s, the global railway industry seemed to converge on the use of 25kv AC systems by the 1960s for all highspeed and mainline applications. But around this time, 1.5kv DC re-invented itself as the standard design for newbuild metro systems (since nobody wants to build third rail for new networks) which explains why the only remaining use of the system in the UK is the Tyne & Wear metro which originates from the 1970s and is the only "middle-aged", as it were, metro system in the UK - apart from maybe the DLR which unusually went for third rail bottom contact, i'd guess this might be to do with the geography of the lines they were taking over (overbridges etc) and trying to avoid nimbies hating wires. But globally speaking it seems to be the standard for rapid transit systems that dont have to intergrate with mainline routes. Similarly, anything newbuild with on street running seems to use 750v DC OLE
![ILLSLICK - WINTER IS COMING [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dwTMeM1zIhQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I visited Budapest many years ago and the friend I was with told me, "You'll love the Budapest subway, it's like toy trains."
The actual metro lines - M2, M3 and M4 - are proper lines, I think. Line M1 is small, I give you that. Maybe even cute.
@@AtomcsiKK local residents doesn't really call M1 as Metro cause of that, instead "Földalatti" which literral means Underground(y)
edit: also cause it's more historical accurate-traditional to call it in its Hungarian word and not the multinational 'Metro' like as M2-3-4
@@minidreschi2 I just say M1 because it's shorter. Through I do the same with all the other lines.
Your channel has given me such an increased appreciation for transit systems across the world and all the little quirks I probably would have missed before. Now when I move around in my home cities of Budapest and Berlin or when I get to travel to a new city I can't help but notice all the patterns and structures I've heard you and other urbanist talk about regularly. It's such a pleasure, so thanks for all the content!
And thank you for the great tech videos! So much thought goes into both topics behind the scenes!
Worlds collide, I love your videos
I wasn't expecting you to pronounce Budapest's name correctly, but you did. I appreciate it.
The oldest, "Millenar Underground" line of Budapest, now rebranded as metro line M1, was originally planned as a regular tram line on street level, but it didn't get permission because it would have ruined the image of the avenue, especially the poles and the overhead power lines. So the railway company asked the authorities (massively paraphrasing): "What if we built the whole thing underground? That way no ugly stuff would be on street level." To which the authorities said: "Yeah, that could work." So they basically built an underground tram line, with cut-and-cover technology, which uses the same 600V DC power supply that trams do.
The tunnel is so low because it crosses *over* the main canal located under a crossroad (the grand boulevard), while still fully underground. The space between the ceiling of the canal tunnel and the surface was all they could work with.
Making old stations accessible is hard, but not impossible. The soviet-type line M3 was recently made fully accessible, the deep level stations having incline elevators installed in the escalator shafts. Ironically, making the subsurface line M1 accessible is harder, because it is now part of World Heritage.
London is trying, and slowly getting better and better from an accessibility perspective, Paris isn't even trying
Something else you don't really see anymore is when metro systems are designed not just as metro systems but also museums. The Moscow Metro is a big example of this. Under Stalin, stations were designed in the style of socialist classicism and were meant as underground "palaces of the people", with marble walls, high ceilings, stained glass, mosaics and chandeliers. It makes transit look more appealing and motivates even more people to give trains a chance. The Pyongyang Metro is also like this, with chandeliers and patriotic murals that inspire its users to keep moving forward and never give up. Something else the Moscow and Pyongyang Metros have in common is how deep they are, with the Pyongyang one doubling as a bomb shelter.
Another example is the Tashkent Metro which first opened in 1977. It's not just transit, it's transit that tells a story. It took until 2018 for them to lift the photography ban and allow tourists to take as many pictures as their hearts desire. Sure, it was inspired by Moscow, but it's more than that. They all have their own unique architectural features and artistic elements. Some look like ballrooms with huge chandeliers hanging from the ceiling while others look like a film set from a science fiction movie. Walking through it is like walking through the city's history. Every station shows a part of Uzbek history, and they all tell a story from the Silk Road to the empires that once ruled over it.
Thank you a lot, glorious supreme leader
daddy Kim your metro is the best
During the construction of the second line of the Sofia metro, ruins were found of the ancient city of Serdica. Many of the artefacts were put in glass containers on the station platforms. They also intended to build an underground transfer parking nearby, but they found the ruins of an ancient church, (which after much political debate) was left alone, and the transfer parking idea was scrapped. This happened as recently as 2012
Berlin Metro features most of this. The new stations of the U5 opened as recent as December 2020 are all artisticly designed and unique. The station showed at 1:40 also shows archeological pieces simmilar to what @thromstyxd described. I think there's also a station that serves as bomb shelter.
Another point to note is that few early metros were purposely build that way and instead used existing infrastructures (this still is done so today but on a lesser scale).
The London Underground, New York Subway (or rather, NY Elevated) and Chicago 'L' all started out as mainline extensions, hosted stuff like freight trains and had (or in case of Chicago, still has) grade crossings and London's, thanks to its branching nature of the individual lines and relatively high stop distances for a system its time, also has been compared to what would be an S-Bahn (originally 2nd generation like Munich, nowadays 1st gen like Berlin and Hamburg) or RER today.
Other metros developed out of trams like Budapest M1 (at least it was heavily inspired by them even though it was grade separated from the start) and Boston has the Tremont Street subway i.e. the first subway on American ground... which hosted streetcars (making Boston the first city with a premetro) and similar tunnels were taken over by the Orange and Blue Lines (the Green Line too but its streetcar nature is very obvious there).
Modern systems also take over existing infra but not to the extend as the aforementioned systems I feel like.
I think thats a really interesting thing to note, multiple paths took us to rapid transit and they have sort of coverged together!
Yep, in London the Metropolitan Railway originally saw itself not as a purely metro system, but as a long-distance railway competing with the big boys like GWR/LNER/LNWR. Their competitive advantage was that their services would bring you right into the heart of the City rather than at the edges at Paddington/Euston/Kings Cross. They even partnered with the GWR at one point so they could through-run long distances from out west into the City.
If you'd like to know more, Jago Hazzard has a great channel on the history of railways in London and the UK!
@@ricequackers And that is all down to a political decision to re-organise the Metropolitan Railway with London Transport rather than London & North Eastern Railway.
Two of their lines, the Northern City Line, and the East London Line, were later reassigned as train services (with Great Northern, and Overground respectively). And if you wait at some of the Metropolitan platforms today, the trains that arrive will alternate between Metropolitan (Underground), and Chiltern (Train).
South Western Railway was re-organised with the Southern Railway, and that included the Waterloo & City Line, which later got re-allocated as an Underground line, and the only Underground line that is actually completely underground.
You mentioned the Glasgow Subway and in fact it has a most unusual track gauge... 4ft. As a result (and because of the small loading gauge) the trains themselves cannot be an off-the-shelf design. Still waiting for the new Stadler trains to begin passenger-carrying service, even though the first units were delivered over a year ago.
That's the challenge with something so unique fortunately, Stadler is modernizing things which should make the next order down the road easier.
It's just the cutest subway ...
A year between first delivery and first passenger-service is quite normal I think
@@jan-lukas True, but the first new trains arrived in late 2021 and it looks like they won't be in service until some time during 2024. You would hope for everything would be ready a bit sooner when it's just a 10.5 kilometre system.
I was pretty surprised how tight the space in the Glasgow trains is (I've been on the new trains at Innotrans Berlin and am 1.95 m tall)
Nonetheless beautiful trains you will be getting! :)
One big thing I’ve noticed is cities settling for lesser systems. For example, Seattle’s Link system is substantially pared down from the original Forward Thrust plan, which would have certainly seen faster trains operating entirely on grade separated track, probably with third rail power.
Forward thrust and sound move are totally different - as a great society metro it would have been median running and with totally different rights of way, not all of which were better
I think increasing costs are something I probably should have mentioned!
So LRV capacity is like that of Glasgow subway, from how many years ago?There is still a lot to say for the NYC subway standards from 80-120 years ago!
Seattle’s link actually has the same average speed as the DC subway which forward thrust was modeled after. For a nearly grade separated system that already needs 4 car trains given its current demand it should do away with the idea of light rail rolling stock and eliminate the handful of grade crossings it does have for in the future when demand is even greater (after expansions)
Sadly, in the United States we don't think big about transit, except for money.
All metro systems in Portugal meanwhile are standard gauge, despite the entirety of the heavy rail network being in 1668 mm gauge. One exception would be the currently inoperational Mirandela metro, a short section of the derelict narrow gauge Tua line.
Always exceptions!
The city I live in, Tampere in Finland built a new tram just a couple years ago and it has completely changed the city center for the better. Before the tram busses used to line the main street as far as eye could see but now the city center is the healthiest in the country. I think the city is too small for this channel as we just passed 250k residents but I just wanted to share this. The tram has been massively successful with over 80% approval rating and it has effected the public opinion for trams a lot for the whole country. Neighbouring towns are very interested in getting a tram connection of their own and a couple of lines/line extensions are being built and planned. In my opinion the most exiting part is that there is a regional train pilot program being tested and a plan for improving it massively. Tampere already is the fastest growing city in Finland and a good regional train service could supercharge the population growth. Thanks to this channel for making me see what might happen in the near future near me!
Suomi!
Your news from Tampere is absolutely wonderful. I contrast that with my home city of Nottingham (England) which brought back trams in 2004. Most people in Nottingham like them, but other English cities have not followed our example. One of the reasons is that the legal rules governing BUSES in Britain outside London are absurd. A tramway can be built, but bus operators can still operate routes paralleling the tram routes.
thats pretty similar to dublin, the luas systems only joined each other.
I'm familiar! If you want to send some clips of the trams I'd love to cover Tampere! Its a really exciting example of a growing smaller city with trams!
@@RMTransit Hi, I have many clips of Tampere tram system (which my good friend sent to me), I can send them😄
Reece,you constantly overlooked Boston,as it was the 3rd subway,built in 1894! Now,the Green Line,its still going strong! And yes,there are turning loops,at Park Street,and Haymarket,still in place! Plus they are putting in,a new[old] line to Medford! History repeats! Thank you for your attention ☺️! Thank you 😇 😊!
There are also turning loops at Government Center, Kenmore, Riverside, and BC. Plus the Blue Line has a turning loop at Bowdoin as well as others on the Ashmont-Mattapan and *technically* Red Line since the Codman Yard loop is a direct track continuation from Ashmont
I am really sad about the situation in Boston, things need to get back in order!
I just love how cute the Glasgow Subway is because of its track running gauge, on top of the fact the Glasgow Subway is the third-oldest underground rail transit system in Europe. It's definitely a unique system, not to mention the neat livery! The system even has a nominal tunnel diameter of 11 ft (3.4 m), which is even smaller than that of the deep-level lines of the London Underground which are 3.56 m at their smallest. It originally began as a cable railway, powered by a clutch-and-cable system, with one cable for each direction. However, most trains were electrified in 1935, and between from March of 1935 and December, it had an interesting operation where clockwise trains were cable-hauled while counterclockwise trains were electric!
The subway's running lines are entirely underground, but the maintenance depot is above ground! Prior to it being modernized, trains used to be lifted by crane onto and off the tracks just like the Waterloo & City Line trains! Modernization brought the installation of points and an access ramp between Govan and Ibrox where trains can exit the tunnel system to terminate for maintenance and repairs, cleaning or storage. And if having a cute loop wasn't enough, there was once plans to add ANOTHER loop for the East End to aid regeneration as part of the city's 2014 Commonwealth Games bid.
It's also the only metro system built before 1990 that was never expanded since it's original construction.
That opening shot of Farringdon...
Next to Baker Street, it's probably one of my most visited Tube stations in London...and I have no idea why!
Its lovely! And a good connection!
Because it's the change between Thameslink and Crossrail? Until recently I was doing the Thameslink-Crossrail change as part of my commute, but I carry on to London Bridge now.
@@DT-hg7te Quite possibly. There's a semi-monthly Comic Mart I visit at Russell Square and I come into London from Aylesbury, but it doesn't open until 12pm so I tend to faff around on the way in by getting off at Harrow on the Hill, go back up to Rayners Lane, down to Ealing Common and back up to Ealing Broadway, just so I can ride in on the Elizabeth Line; which then I exit at Farringdon, tube it back to King's Cross then down to Russell Square - purely to waste a bit of time :D
1:32 What is your opinion on 3rd rail vs overhead for powering metros? Great video as always!
Yes, I had the same question. A video about different electrification would be awsome
He actually made a video about it (more general but still applicable to metros).
I have the video here! th-cam.com/video/VdeQba4a2bg/w-d-xo.html
@RMTransit Ah I must have missed that when it came out, thanks 👍👌
Generally: when you operate in snow get an overhead line, when you operate fast get an overhead line. The Berlin U-Bahn is limited to 60km/h I think...
The Lausanne metro line M2, opened in 2008, is a rare case IN EUROPE of a NEW rubber-tyred metro. But remember that Lausanne is French-speaking, and the M2 incorporates a section of line with a 10% gradient which used to be rack-and-pinion and before that a funicular!
It's a super interesting example, more systems in hilly areas would be great!
@@RMTransit then you will like Stuttgart. The trains of their light rail system are specially build for the steep gradients over 10% of the city and they even include a funicular railway with 27% gradient and a rack railway with over 17% gradient into their system which are usable with a normal local transport ticket.
How I loved "Le Ficelle" and how sad I was when I've read it's bitter end...
Lausanne is also the only city in Switzerland to have a metro.
Also Turin metro line 1 opened in 2006 is a modern rubber-tyred metro in Europe (Italy), It is similar to the lausanne metro because it uses VAL rapid transit system technology and is the first of is kind in the country.
The bit about turning loops reminded me of Cities in Motion 2.
It asks you to do one lol. Even though on the way back it can be terminated without one🙃
Here in the Netherlands we also apply standard gauge to both trains, trams and metro lines, allowing interfacing between all 3 systems if needed.
Not all modern changes have been good! Many modern train stations aren't very walkable. An old NY City station might take 30 seconds to go from surface to train...but many new stations can take 5-10 minutes...sometimes more of just walking through the stations (not counting round trips or transfers). You can sometimes get pretty far in an Uber for 10 minutes, so metro stations to be competitive should be more compact and walkable. Very sad that modern transit planners (especially in China) don't factor walk times into their designs.
I don't know how you could get around this; the old stations are probably shallow due to their cut-and-cover construction. This type of construction would be unfeasible, costly, and disruptive in a modern city for an entire length of a modern subway, especially in the US.
@@panzer_TZ There are tricks...eg don't bury your station so deep, allow pedestrians to cross non-express tracks (like in parts of Chicago), allow German style proof of payment systems so you don't have to create huge cattle corridors for paid/unpaid, and omit handicap accessibility. The cost for an elevator can add crazy costs to a station (especially underground). It would be more efficient to just pay truly handicapped taxi/uber costs. In reality extremely few truly handicapped use metro stations, yet metro stations go crazy over designing their stations for them. Also many stations themselves are simply too big. Unless it is a busy downtown station or a transfer station, chances are most modern stations can be SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER.
@@AaronSmith-sx4ez I don't know that I agree on the elevator point and if you have some hard numbers that would be useful. For one, whether someone is "truly handicapped" to the point of "needing" the elevator is not really a binary but more a spectrum. The elevators at MARTA stops in Atlanta (where I live and am familiar with) are very well used and while there are people who definitely don't meet a handicapped definition of need, there's lots of ambiguous cases and lots of folks who use it for reasons other than being handicapped that are still legitimate. For instance, people with luggage are frequently on the elevators and those elevators enhance the viability of using the trains to take flights or use the inter-city bus terminals. Also people with bikes use them since bikes are allowed on MARTA trains and that helps solve a last mile challenge for people. Finally, yeah some folks just use them when they're tired after work and it is worth asking if there would be an effect on the margin of reducing ridership if everyone had to walk up stairs (since escalators are NOT at all stations). So the elevator is expensive but if we're honest, people who literally cannot use stairs are only part of the crowd using them and it's then worth asking the question of how many of those people would choose other forms of transportation besides transit if elevator options weren't available?
@@AaronSmith-sx4ez You still have to take into account what's underground and if a city has particularly many tunnels, the only options is to either go up (not always viable for a variety of reasons) or go even deeper. For example, the reason why Elizabeth Line stations are so deep is in part because the underground of London is already used up quite a bit.
Likewise, some cities have fairly soft soil like St. Petersburg so viable ground for tunnel is only found in deep layers (though it also has the excuse that the underground lines doubled as shelters in case of a war).
As an aside, grade crossings are not a feature of metros and Chicago's more the exception than the rule (notice that London Underground and New York Subway both had grade crossings on their system but these were removed at some point in time).
That being said, I do agree that unnecessarily deep stations are an actual hinderance and going down two, at most three storeys (depending on station spacing) has a much better user experience than going down something like 15 storeys.
The shallow stations are less of an intentional design choice, but I agree re the convenience!
The train shown at 2:32 is in the CPTM system, which is more like commuter rail. It's a bit of a misnomer to call it a subway since none of its tracks are underground (mostly at-grade with some elevated sections)
…and I thought you were going to mention the old Paris metro cars whose doors had to be manually unlatched! I saw them in 2000 when travelling across Europe.
It took a little getting used to, but by watching other people I figured out what to do. As the train was coming to a stop, someone would trip the latch and the door would spring open. Afterwards, when people had exited and entered the car, there would be a chime and the door would slowly and automatically close.
Never knew the reasoning behind this, but it was quirky and cool.
Always funny seeing people commenting on something that feel so natural to you ! I live in Paris and it just feel like... everyday. Some line also have a button to push 👀
And in melbourne, the older trains had handles where you would have to manually pull the door open.
See also: Vienna U6(? I think)
@@execthtsActually all lines BUT U6
When is the Glasgow subway (clockwork orange) going to have its own video. I been waiting for it since you said in another video about it.
I saw an old 1950's Hitchcock movie with a scene in the Paris Metro where gates where the stairs met the platform came down when a train rolled in, keeping people on the stairs from getting onto the platform, and then the gates went up as the train was leaving. I guess it was some form of crowd control or to keep people from rushing to the trains or holding the doors open.
Safety! That's a feature at least in the US we don't really see anymore.
2:10 weird seeing an ad for Chicago on the London Underground
Even though it's a pizza and.
Quite funny indeed!
@@edwardmiessner6502 it’s for pizza? Now that’s hilarious!
The oldest section of the NYC subway Lexington Ave uses loops at Chambers Street (where you can glism at the beautiful, retired station) and Bowling Green on the weekends
In Philadelphia, all three of our subway lines have turning loops at one end. The Market-Frankford line has a loop at 69th Street, the Broad Street Line uses a loop at Fern Rock, and the Subway-Surface Lines loop at Juniper St, all three loops are used to control traffic at their particular ends, though the loop at Juniper St is there because the trolley fleet is single-ended.
You are a very good TH-camr.❤
Ha még nem láttad, akkor nézd meg a videóját a budapesti villamoshálozatról! Az is nagyon jó!
I always argue that Los Angeles losing its original street car system isn't 100% bad. LA does have a much more modern and higher-capacity system now. Some complain about the system being Light Rail heavy, but the system would've been some form of street car/light rail if the original system wasn't ripped out. It also gave LA a reason to build the Red Line subway, which is unanimously considered the backbone of the system.
Conversely, I think one of the main reasons why Australia is a tier above NA in general, especially the US, is because we didn't rip out all of our suburban train lines. (Mostly speaking. My city, Perth, closed the Fremantle line for a few years but it got brought back after the following election) Melbourne didn't even rip out their tram lines.
(The other big reason being the fact that planning for transport is done at the state level not the municpal/city level)
Yeah I think people overestimate how well a street car system would scale, but that's not to say it wouldn't have been upgraded or streamlined in the coming decades instead of having to start from nearly scratch. Also, it would have affected the development of the city's layout so that there wouldn't have been so much sprawl. LA would still have been very spread out but it would have been more like dense villages scattered about instead of a sprawling metropolis that's basically laid out as if it were its own region instead of a large city.
Suburban train lines would serve most cities (including LA and Melbourne) way better than streetcars or even metro
There may be some truth to what you say, but remember the decades of extremely bad air, traffic congestion, traffic deaths, etc. It is a bit like saying WW2 gave us all sorts of technological innovation.
I think LA is probably better off not being reliant on streetcars, but it really needs faster, higher capacity, region spanning lines. Metrolink needs to be 10x'd
Some part of metro line in the world is a modify part of the national railway, such as Tamsui to TaiPei of Tamsui-Xinyi line in Tai Pei Metro.
Hey Reece. Great video as usual. I’m pretty sure the clip at 2:38 tagged as the Glasgow Subway in actually a deep level London Underground carriage. It’s slightly too wide and high, and the door signage is not right, for Glasgow.
Yeah, it looks too tall for glasgow subway
Boston’s Blue line subway is third rail in the tunnel and overhead wires for most of the overground route. There is a short section with both for the transfer.
Also, you spoke about Budapest but not North America’s oldest subway, the current Green Line in Boston.
Still hoping Reece does a video on the twins cities transit expansion efforts!
I think one rarely seen feature ive only heard about in toronto is naming tunneling machines, from line 4's Rock & Roll to line 2's Diggy Scardust (David Bowie's TBM)
On the gauge thing, MRT Jakarta adopted 1067mm/ cape gauge as the existing mainline network used that gauge (and the original plans allow sharing of rail facilities with the state railway). While the new “LRT” systems use Standard gauge (except Palembang LRT which used cape gauge with 3rd rail electrification)
Here, in Romania, we have on all the lines a side third rail, but on many main lines we have an overhead cable line too. Our metros, many of them beside the most newest have the both types of connections and if sometimes the metro can't work, the trams can belowere in the tunels to be temporarily used as metros.
Forgive me if I've missed a video, but have you read about the Chicago Yellow Line (Skokie Swift) and its mid journey, in motion change from 3rd rail to catenary? It got switched to all 3rd rail in the early 2000s, but I believe there are still a few train cars where you can see where pantographs used to he mounted.
You missed that part of what became the London Underground started out as a wide gauge line as that bit of railway was built by the Great Eastern Railway and they used wide gauge.
I love how Glasgow's metro loooks, small and cute ngl.
So the U4 and U6 lines of the Vienna U-Bahn and the S-Bahn line S45 first opened in 1898 (as the Stadtbahn). Many of the stations (designed by Otto Wagner, some of the most beautiful stations I've ever seen) are subject to historical preservation laws. But despite that every station has been made fully accessible, with the elevators being well integrated into the architecture. The point is, accessibility - and modernization in general - can absolutely happen on vintage systems if it's enough of a priority and if there's enough funding
Thanks for this great video.
Nice to see Jago Hazzard getting a mention.
At 2:31 the MTR East Rail Line is a commuter rail metro but not rapid transit even though it's network is operated with subway lines together. I am a Cantonese so i've learnt it.
By the way this "as metro as commuter rail" (also a word "heavy rail" is used to include both rapid transit and commuter rail) train mode is more popular day by day, and more and more operaters wanna make one metropolitan area's commuter rail and rapid transit as one network. That's great👍
1600mm is called Irish Gauge in São Paulo, and was the gauge used for the railroads built in the late 1800s that would later become the cptm lines. When the first metro lines were being designed and constructed in the 60s and 70s, it wasn’t just a matter of matching nearby rail gauge; they understood that the system would gradually become more connected to the surface trains of what would become the CPTM network. Often times the CPTM lines will be ignored as not being proper metro lines despite their headway, ridership, and scheduling suggesting otherwise, but the Metro map doesn’t make any sense without them. The wider gauge probably helped São Paulo have wide modern trains. The two recent lines are only on standard gauge instead of Irish gauge because they are operated by different companies, with no expectation of interoperability. But I guess line six is gonna be interoperable with them 😂.
Oh yeah the 1600mm gauge originates from Ireland and makes up their national rail network
Irish gauge is a curse, but definitely leads to nice wide trains. The modern tram network in Dublin Ireland was built with standard gauge, and with wider loading gauge on segregated sections to facilitate future metro operability.
Hi, love your videos! Would love a video about the São Paulo metro.
I mean not a lot of french rubber tyre métros are being built mostly because not a lot of lines are being built but the last line to open line 2 of the Rennes Metro is a rubber tyre VAL system
As you mention loops, fun fact: Trams/Streetcars had their own amplitudes of technologies and design features goin in and out of fashion. In my city for example, they started out horse-drawn, and turned around by attatching the horse to the other end of the coach. Later, around 1900 that is, they electrified, and adopted that design with a driver's stand at either end. Another generation forward, from the 30s on roughly, they came up with the idea of adding loops to the end of the lines, among other reasons so they'd need doors on one side only, much like the buses that had been invented in the meantime, and could use the entirety of the other side for seats and raise the capacity this way. Then came the 60's and 70's, and the tram network began being converted into lightrail, reverting back to double ended trains. Which more and more often consist of two single-ended EMUs coupled back to back though.
Thanks for the well bronounced Budapest!
Haha thank you
@@RMTransit ...p-b typo, but makes it funnier!
indeed, @@ledgeri :D
In Philly SEPTA"S two main subway lines have return loops at their western and northern terminals. At the 69th Street Transportation Center westbound Market-Frankford Line passengers must get off. The train loops around for its eastbound return to Frankford. On the Broad Street Line the Fern Rock station has one platform. The train loops thru the yard and passengers can stay onboard.
1:21 actually, in Barcelona, line 3 (and maybe line 1) used third rail at some point. But I can't find information about when they started using it (wether it was from the beginning or from later) and when they changed to overhead power.
Edit: the proves I've got about it is that the old 3rd rail in L3 is still visible at some points, and when L3 was extended with an overhead power extension, they had to create a separate L3b untill they changed the rest of L3 to overhead too (the change from one train to another was made at Paral·lel station). As for L1, I've heard some people say it was like L3, but I've found no proves other than that...
Indeed there was some experimentation within cities back in the day!
L1, apart from being the only Barcelona Metro line in 1668mm Iberian gauge, its third rail was a true rail, with contact with shoe in the top, and put at minus 1200VDC, so there was a special smell in that line caused by the negative ions.
@Reece Have you considered doing (or have you done?) a video on choices different systems have made for their in-station signage, and are some better than others? (I include platform level "station identification" as well as way-finding.)
1:01 a significant portion of athens' metro line 1 (pireaus to thissio) could be considered the oldest metro in continental europe as it opened in 1869 and the budapest metro opened in 1896, though not as special as the budapest metro and it being almost completely overground, it could simply be the oldest metro in continental europe
I recognize that map behind you. Seen it many times.
To use overhead wire power supply rather than third rail means that bored tunnels require larger TBMs and the amount of spoil removed is greatly increased- for example, if a tunnel capable of handling 3rd rail trains has a diameter of 5 metres, boring a tunnel of 6 metre diameter for the overhead supply means an extra 44% spoil and also requires more tunnel lining. This makes the infrastructure for a metro more expensive.
Although not a metro, the High Speed 2 tunnels in Britain are 8.8 meter diameter- no wonder the costs have spiralled.
I like tram-metro system in Alicante (Spain)
Narrow gauge trams, with one line goes to Benidorm.
There You can change to diesel railbus (same gauge) and follow to Denia.
Nice network, beutfull scenery and affordable price.
Since you mention concrete vs. steel, a hypothetical: what if the IRT Third Avenue Elevated structure was replaced with a Skytrain-like structure rather than completely ripped down. Would it have delivered the desired improvement without having cost accessibility to Harlem and the Bronx, and also avoided the Second Avenue debacle? Matter of fact, I don't think there's been much analysis of the tragedy of the Third Avenue El teardown at all.
Another feature you don’t see on modern metro systems but is quite common in London, and somewhat common in Paris, is a lack of level boarding. Having to step up into the trains to board is both a problem for accessibility and slows down dwell times considerably which is why it’s shocking to see how prevalent it is on the London Underground even in stations built as recently as the 1980s.
I'd like to hear a lot more about that line Abuja built. I can't get a straight answer when I search TH-cam.
Cities be arguing if cut-and-cover or drilling is better, meanwhile my hometown (Hamburg) in Germany just put the "subway" mostly above ground and called it a day.
Being from Hong Kong, the London Underground is definitely quite frustrating to use for me. The deep tube trains are so small, the gangways are so narrow, and the doors are so poorly laid out that people don’t want to move in during the rush hour. As a result, the deep tube trains can only carry few people. While one can always blame the age of LU, I cannot see the logic behind Victoria Line (1967) and Jubilee Line (1979) stations and trains being so small and restrictive. Just because something is already there doesn’t mean you should use it if it leads to many other problems…
Another thing you can add to a future version of this video is the lack of cellular network in tunnels. Modern metros are now built with cellular network from day one, enabling efficient communication in the city. Oh wait, there’s Elizabeth Line 🤦🏽♂️
Great stuff 👍
In larger German-speaking cities the suburban S-Bahn systems are usually in tunnels in the city centres, and are therefore rather like metros/subways. With the exceptions of Hamburg and Berlin, they all use overhead wire electrification. And in Zurich all the important S-Bahn lines use double-deck trains. In Vienna, the S-Bahn is mainly single-deck, but double-deck trains on outer suburban lines do also use the S-Bahn tunnels. I suspect that this use of double decks will increase, as Austrian Federal Railways have just placed a very large order (86 trains) for Stadler 'Kiss' double-decks.
No. Having a central city tunnel doesn't make it a metro system. Almost all German S-Bahn systems are just relatively frequent mainline rail services, with the exceptions of Hamburg and Berlin, which actually fulfill the requirements of a metro system.
@@MTobiasBerlin is the goat
@@MTobias I did not say that S-Bahn are Metros. I said that they are rather like metros/subways. Zurich, a city I have visited many times, is particularly noteworthy. Many people living in Zurich use the S-Bahn for journeys entirely within the city, eg Oerlikon or Altstetten to the city centre.
@@Fan652w Zürich's S-Bahn is perhaps one of the best examples of a 'not at all like a metro' S-Bahn there is. In that case it really just is a frequent regional rail service using regional rail rolling stock on mainline tracks using a different name. Not that that is a bad thing, but it isn't at all like a metro.
@@MTobias I entirely I agree with you that technically and operationally the Zurich S-Bahn is 'not at all like a metro'. And I would add that the new underground platforms 31-34 at Zurich Hauptbahnhof (opened 2016) are shared between S-Bahn and Intercity trains, including those on SBB's flagship IC1 Geneva-Lausanne-Bern-Zurich-Winterthur-St Gallen. But my point is that within the densely populated city area of Zurich the S-Bahn PERFORMS THE FUNCTiON OF A METRO. Innumerable Zurich residents use the S-Bahn for short journeys such as Oerlikon to city centre, which is about 5 kms., 3 miles. At 6-7 minutes it is much quicker than the tram (17 minutes).
With the size of Alstom now, I thought there would be some global platform now. The REM has rames with a different face glued on??
You should make a video about the dutch NS system.
The London Underground has straight platforms? News to me! I mean, even your opening shot shows a London Underground train on curved platforms; the shot at 0:35 shows curved platforms. And some stations (Bank?) are even more curved than that, with enough room for somebody to fall between the train and the platform on the inside of the curve.
HE PRONOUNCED GLASGOW CORRECTLY LET'S GOO
Reece even pronounced Budapest in the Hungarian way! (We pronounce our capital's name "Boo-dah-pesht".) Many Hungarians are very thankful for this... They are the ones (along with all others) who pronounce Vienna like "Beitsh" (Bécs), St. Petersburg like "saint-pieter-vaar" (Szentpétervár) and Bratislava as Pozsony :D [Pozsony was the historical & traditional Hungarian name of that city that was even capital of Hungary for a very short time. But now it belongs to Slovakia and it's current name is Bratislava. Still we use its Hungarian name, as for Wien and Paris (Párizs). So I don't really understand all the fuzz about that s/sh difference, but I am still happy too, to hear a foreign speaker saying it right, with the "sh".)
Have you thought about doing a video on Phillys Roosevelt Subway?
I mean yeah but also.... If you want you can order bog standard Equipment at any of the big three manufactures. Which the big three right now is Alstrom, Siemens, and JPRail. Granted the train sets are going to cost a few million but you could order one right now.
When are you gonna make a video about the grand Paris express?
You should talk about Calgary's lrt
are the special, I thing synchronous, motors still in use in budapests U1? they only know to modes of operation: full throttle and stop, making it a quite interesting ride, and one I'd like to experience.
A video on Australian Railway Guages could be interesting
Thats true, it would be interesting!
There's this joke in The Hague that the public transport co build a half kilometre stretch for the tramway underground so they would be recognised as a "metropole"
Walking, bicycles, electric buses and electric trains all need to be connected and part of a good transportation system.
Cycling needs safe protected bike lanes and protected places to lock and store bicycles at train stations.
I agree, but would at after 'train stations' 'and bus stations, tram stations and other important public transport stops such as ferry terminals.'
The most striking place to see the difference is, you guessed it, London.
I believe the Elizabeth Line is the newest underground urban transit (not a metro) line in the world, and it interfaces with the Metropolitan Line, the oldest in the world, as well as the Central Line, the oldest tube line in the world. The difference in scale is the most striking thing, these aren't cramped tunnels, or short trains. These are 200m long commuter trains designed to work out to Reading and Chelmsford, using overhead power (a first for TFL) and in stations that are cavernous.
Great video as always, Reece! I would really appreciate an explainer video on the Budapest metro. It's one of those systems with a huge contrast between the old and new.
An explainer will probably come eventually!
The M1 is the original metro, so it has some historic significance. However, it is used by both locals and tourists. We also have the M2, M3, and M4 which are much more modern. The M4 is a fully automated driverless line.
I think saying all of Germany's metros use third rail is a bit misleading. All proper U-Bahn systems do, correct, but all of those except Nuremberg are legacy systems and their expansions.
All the Stadtbahn Tunnel systems use OHP, and many sections of those are quite long too
Is there a chance of you making a video about warsaw, poland?
A funny video you could do could be the Pyongyang metro as it is in North Korea or the Caracas metro as it is basically almost defunct!!!!!
it's kind of overt done... there's 101 videos on it... and it's history...
You forgot to mention artwork and styles that have changed and evolved!
What is standard gauge?
Also I presume that it is measured between the rails and not center to center, right?
Finally Budapest! I Love M1!
Don't count the Bangkok Golden Line as rapid transit.
It is more like marketing tool for the Icon Siam shopping mal.
Never heard of "Indian gauge" before. In India, it's always been called broad gauge because it's wider than meter gauge. Quick look at Wikipedia says that "Indian gauge" is a terminology used in the west. I find such differences in technical terminology Intriquing. The railways is even more, since the British basically set the standard of the "indian" or broad gauge.
It's because in the UK "Broad gauge" would generally be taken to refer to the old 2140mm Brunel broad gauge originally used on the Great Western Railway.
Well I think it helps differentiate between the Russians broad gauge (basically just broad enough that trains don't fit unless they are built for multi track gauge)
And the Indian broad gauge which is 1676mm more than 20cm wider than Standard gauge so they can run double stack Container trains on normal flat cars without having to worry that they fall over which I find Amazing
I think you should cover the dubai metros
guangzhou metro line 18 and 22 uses overhead lines and they are completely new
1:35 Hungarian ingenuity proves itself again. :D
Thank you Reece for a superb and very thought provoking video. I am planning a trip to Vienna in October, with a one day excursion to Budapest. In Budapest I will head first for the 'Foldalatti' (now line 1) and then ride on the modern lines to get the contrast! Back in Vienna I will no doubt use lines U4 and U6, which (like the London subsurface lines) were originally steam-worked! But note that all the old Vienna stations are now 'accessible'. And this has been achieved without spoiling the magnificent 1890s architecture.
Vienna is a great transit city! Its a great example of many things, including accessibility retrofit as you mentioned!
I hope you make a video about São Paulo metro system one day
Hong Kong doesn't have any third rail outside the airport people mover.
winter issue? or just colonial legacy... ( I don't think they have truely build new lines, most is simply just extension of existing system and therefore designs and rolling stocks)
@@PrograErrorwinter issue? It doesn’t snow in Hong Kong
I think the differentiation between cut and cover and bored tunnel isn't really great in this video. Both are used where they fit. In many parts you may be able to bore a tunnel in other areas you may not be able. They are different techniques in tunnel construction that need to be chosen and applied case by case. You wouldn't build a suspension bridge across every valley / river / road just because it is a more modern way to build a bridge. You chose your type of bridge according to the demands of your project.
What is the difference between a rail line, an underground rail line, a subway, an underground and a metro. Are they all the same thing with different names ?
Or if you live in rural Canada like me, you just don't see them in any form.
Why is the guy at 0:19 covering his face with a clipboard?
I recently learnt that the Glasgow metro initially used trains that were pulled by a steel cable powered by a steam engine plant on the outskirts of the city. A bit strange to me that it basically was an underground cable car. Electrification happened imo rather soon after opening. The track layout does feel a bit like a model railway starter kit and could really use some extensions (and cross-ticketing with busses)
The City and South London Railway, now part of the Northern Line, opened in 1980, and was electric from the start. The Glasgow Subway opened in 1896.
Volks Elecrtric Railway, which is more of a tourist ride than a real transport system opened in 1883, and was electric from the start.
I don't search for this. Different tunnels profiles, out of it different coaches shapes.
No Warsaw in Video
I feel like no one is talking about the Singapore MRT.
Love u reece
Can you do MARC (Day XIII)
one think ive learned from this channel's videos is just how common 1.5kv DC OLE is. While it existed historically in some parts of the British mainline network until the 80s, the global railway industry seemed to converge on the use of 25kv AC systems by the 1960s for all highspeed and mainline applications. But around this time, 1.5kv DC re-invented itself as the standard design for newbuild metro systems (since nobody wants to build third rail for new networks) which explains why the only remaining use of the system in the UK is the Tyne & Wear metro which originates from the 1970s and is the only "middle-aged", as it were, metro system in the UK - apart from maybe the DLR which unusually went for third rail bottom contact, i'd guess this might be to do with the geography of the lines they were taking over (overbridges etc) and trying to avoid nimbies hating wires. But globally speaking it seems to be the standard for rapid transit systems that dont have to intergrate with mainline routes. Similarly, anything newbuild with on street running seems to use 750v DC OLE
Yep there has been a ton of convergence on 1500 V DC for Metro and 750 V DC for tram, but as always there are exceptions!
We all know SP1900 was wayyyyy better than the new ones