The Most Versatile Transit for Your City | "CityTrains"
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 06. 2024
- Use code RMTRANSIT at the link below to get an exclusive 60% off an annual Incogni plan: incogni.com/rmtransit
Watch this video ad-free on Nebula: nebula.tv/videos/rmtransit-th...
From buses to high speed rail to trams, different transit modes tend to have their niches. But in today's video we talk about one that seems to supersede them and has massive potential for the future: High-floor trams.
As always, leave a comment down below if you have ideas for our future videos. Like, subscribe, and hit the bell icon so you won't miss my next video!
=PATREON=
If you'd like to help me make more videos & get exclusive behind the scenes access and early video releases, consider supporting my Patreon! Every dollar goes towards helping my channel grow & reach more people.
Patreon: / rmtransit
=ATTRIBUTION=
Epidemic Sound (Affiliate Link): share.epidemicsound.com/nptgfg
Nexa from Fontfabric.com
Map Data © OpenStreetMap contributors: www.openstreetmap.org/copyright
=COMMUNITY DISCORD SERVER=
Discord Server: / discord
(Not officially affiliated with the channel)
=MY SOCIAL MEDIA=
Twitter: / rm_transit
Instagram: / rm_transit
Website: rmtransit.com
Substack: reecemartin.substack.com
=ABOUT ME=
Ever wondered why your city's transit just doesn't seem quite up to snuff? RMTransit is here to answer that, and help you open your eyes to all of the different public transportation systems around the world!
Reece (the RM in RMTransit) is an urbanist and public transport critic residing in Toronto, Canada, with the goal of helping the world become more connected through metros, trams, buses, high-speed trains, and all other transport modes.
This is essentially what the specific german term "Stadtbahn" describes: Trams as a base and then upgrade them to high floor and multiple unit small subways. Frankfurt had major influence on Hannover, Cologne/Bonn (some parts), Stuttgart and many more
Edit: I just realized that stadtbahn is a literal translation of city train.
Reece just took the concept of Stadtbahn and translated it, without referring to the original term
So according to Wikipedia Frankfurt and Cologne opened their city-center tunnels in the same year, 1968. How is Frankfurt supposed to influence cologne then?
@jan-lukas Cologne only started using the "Stadtbahnwagen B" in the late 70's and was up to the 80's very "trammy", whereas Frankfurt's U-Bahn was made to be rather "U-Bahn-y" right from the get-go
Hannover also started with city trains with fold down steps for on street boarding. Now they upgraded all stations to high floor level and their latest trains don't need fold down stairs anymore.
Stuttgart as well. Some of the oldest trains still have the stairs
Hannover still has many Stations with street-level boarding. Lines 1 and 9 come to my mind.
Hannover is very interesting, especially the weird loading gauge!
Cologne still has the fold-down steps
@@RMTransit I really hope that one day a transit explainer episode about Hannover will be uploaded on this channel. At first, I thought that Hannover had a pretty standard transit system for a German city, until I found the CZcams channel "Irvine Citaro" that explained pretty much every small detail about its operations and special features.
I like how "city-train" is the literal translation of Stadtbahn, the German name for this concept outside of Frankfurt :D
Hamburg, Berlin, Nuremberg, Munich and frankfurt have the traditinal type of u-bahn (subway) and other cities like Cologne, Dortmund, Hannover, Stuttgart and more have the stadtbahn
ehhh no not really. S-bahn refers typically to regional rail systems in my experience. These have much further station spacing, and typically run double-decker heavy rail with mostly front/rear facing seating (not optimized for standing), more akin to the common “commuter rail” in the United States.
@@arjunyg4655 I have used S-Bahns in over half a dozen cities and none of them used double-decker rail. I'll admit some of them are more akin to commuter rail, with little optimization for standing, but the type of system you describe is at the extreme non-metro end of what S-Bahns can be.
Besides, this comment was about Stadtbahnen, NOT S-Bahnen, which are completely different things. (Except in Berlin, where one of the S-Bahn corridors is _called_ the Stadtbahn, but that predates the modern usage of the term. And Berlin's S-Bahn is definitely a second metro that happens to stretch out a little further than the U-Bahn, NOT American-style commuter rail.)
Hello Reese, I live in Watertown, MA, a suburb of Boston. I wanted to tell you about the abhorrent transit situation that the nearby city of Lynn has found itself in. The city has been building more densely around its commuter rail station, however, the MBTA has closed the station due to the disrepair of the building, even though it was built in 1991. A new station will not be done until 2030, which is absolutely ridiculous. The city has urged the MBTA to build a temporary platform, which will take 12-18 months. Otherwise, they have to take a shuttle bus to Swampscot for the commuter rail or a shuttle to Revere for the Blue Line, which will take a long amount of time during rush hour. It's ridiculous that Lynn, which is the same distance to Boston and Brooklyn is to Manhattan, has no accessible transit to get to Boston. This is compounded by the fact of the large Latino and Black population in Lynn. This has also caused economic problems as building contractors to have densified around the station will suffer since young commuters will not move in without transit. This has led to a grocery store cancelling its plan to move into one of the buildings. I wanted to spread the news about this. If you want to see the full article, it's in the June 25th Boston Globe written by Joan Vennochi.
Terrible. When there is a will, there is a way. In LA , when an earthquake shut down the Interstate, Rail was up and running within days, with the help of Seabees, who laid asphalt for primative platforms at new stations. Or consider I95 in Philadelphia, repaired within 2 weeks. Or consider the explosion years ago at 34th street in NYC; fixed within days.
The MBTA is such a shambles right now :(
Which they probably wouldn’t be if they hadn’t been forced to take on Big Dig debt…
@@kaitlyn__L I'm looking at the MBTA's troubles from afar and I won't be surprised if the whole T system including bus and commuter rail networks will be shut down completely shortly after it meets the fiscal cliff. 😞
Maybe the Big Dig never should have been built. 🤔
@@edwardmiessner6502 I’m looking at it from a distance too, but via partners in and around Mass. who relied on the MBTA their whole life. So I’m hearing about all the day to day struggles as the system seemingly limps-on as a half-dead corpse.
Some of them think the Big Dig was a mistake period, others just think the state DOT should’ve taken on the debt directly like with any other freeway project rather than assigning it to MBTA to pay back from fares.
@@kaitlyn__L If they hadn't taken on the Big Dig debt this would be happening maybe 5 years later. The debt just accelerated the process. It wasn't one decision that messed things up, it was decades of semi-deliberate neglect, mismanagement, poor design, and under-funding.
San Francisco's Muni is interesting because it evolved from a traditional tram to more of a "city train" as described in the video. Although their right of ways and transit priority leaves much to be desired
This is even more interesting when you consider that (until the disasterous LRV3 from Breda), Muni also used coupling to increase capacity exactly as implied here: K, L, and M trains would meet at West Portal (the southern end of Muni’s main Subway tunnel), quickly couple together, then operate as a single “KLM” or similar train to Embarcadero. N and J trains would do the same at the Duboce portal, operating as “NNJ” trains. Outbound, the train would split apart at its respective portal and the operators would then continue to their outbound terminal.
The subways’s passenger information system (which existed from its opening in the 70s, extremely unique for the time) was designed to accommodate this and still can: platform signs were mounted so they would line up with each car. Each would show the destination for the car that was boarding directly next to it, NOT the consist as a whole, while the audio announcement would be something like “Approaching Outbound Three-Car N N J”. This is also why the Market St Subway announces the destination station for inbound/eastbound trains, but the line for outbound/westbound trains: Inbound, all the trains would be going to the same place (generally Embarcadero) and different lines didn’t matter. Outbound, though, all the cars could go somewhere quite different, so each car’s line very much did matter.
Of course, as mentioned, the LRV3 killed this unique operating pattern as its couplers proved extremely unreliable and prone to wearing out when used so often. Plus, the cars were so overweight that the current they needed to accelerate in a 3 or 4 car consist damaged the OCS and power supply. The need to make up for lost capacity from not being able to couple trains lead Muni to have to install ATCS in the late 90s, along with the Muni Metro Turnback.
Thankfully, the LRV4s seem to have addressed the weight and power issue, and it’s possible that once Muni has enough they could bring back multi-line consists - but that remains to be seen.
@@kilodeltaeight Interestingly, the Market Street Subway upper level was built for BART but did not so the platforms are absurdly long, but at least Muni found this solution
I feel like City Train-type models could be the new interurban - fast, cheap & flexible. Similar to the Tokyo interurbans, they're easily adaptable: they could be evolve to be more tram like, more metro like or into a full fledged commuter rail system like what happened in Tokyo.
They already are. Behind Reece's "city trains" you'll find the German "Stadtbahnen", which he almost literally translated to get his term. Stadtbahnen in the Rhine/Ruhr area in western Germany already run interurban, as well as on the street, in highway medians, in subway tunnels or even elevated. They really do it all.
Bergen has a new (and growing) low-floor tram network that while good, would be better with city-trains or tram-trains. Bergen is mostly a long thin city, squashed between the mountains and a fjord, and outside the city and other local centres, there are longer distances between places, simply because of the geography. The trams even have a substantial (around 3km, and double track) tunnel under a mountain to serve a satellite town on the other side. The inherent limitations of the stock really show up in the longer sections where there'll never be a need for an intermediate stop. The system is crying out for something that can mix with traffic if needed, and sprint up to 100km/h plus, preferably 120 or more, on the interurban links.
[Edit : found a reference for the tunnel length]
2 things stopping that the SZEA of 1916 and the Esch-Cummins act of 1920
Yep! Thats exactly the idea!
The LA Metro's A and E lines both largely follow former Pacific Electric interurban routes. It's like seeing a revival of a long since extinct form of transit in the US.
Always appreciate when Edmonton gets a mention. Hello from Edmonton!
Thanks for watching!
Thanks for all your hard work and dedication. Love the channel!
Everything you described has happened or is happening to Dallas' DART. We started with a city train network that had a mall through the middle of downtown with branches to Oak Cliff, then we expanded north and west to the suburbs on elevated lines, or surface lines with grade crossings, and now we're trying to build a subway tunnel below downtown. Annoyingly we aren't building off the city train concept, instead we're switching to low-floor vehicles. DART should have been built with high platforms for high floor vehicles, because DART ended up spending a ton of money raising platforms to the height of the middle C car, and now they're gonna have to do it again once the new trains come into service around 2026.
If only that subway tunnel was actually happening. It’s been shelved and pushed off into the far future, if it happens at all, and DART seems more interested in building a downtown tram network now.
Well, to be fair Dallas already had low platforms which made it inevitable!
I cannot wait for D2 and the line realignment. Frequency is hampered by the downtown transit mall.
Umm, DART isn't going to be increasing frequency once D2 opens.
Speaking as a former Calgarian who used the CTrain for decades: The vehicles really make sense for a city of its size and are undeniably flexible as hell. Inconvenience, unreliability, or capacity issues I experienced had nothing to do with the vehicles, and everything to do with their surrounding infrastructure. Namely, Calgary would really, really benefit from running its trains underground downtown. 7th avenue has ended up being, at best, a fairly dead street apart from the stations that trains run on, cars periodically accidentally turn onto or crash into trains on, and trains get delayed on because the two lines that use it keep missing the lights they have to wait at. Calgary has used the flexibility of these vehicles to great effect elsewhere in the city, as the trains transition from a sort of commuter rail to a light metro system towards the city centre. It also allowed the city to build longer lines to begin with, and has made it pretty easy to tack another station on at each terminus every few years.
But, that flexibility is also only a pro if there's any will to use it - I will be extremely surprised if the blue and red lines ever run underground or even fully separated from traffic through downtown in my lifetime. (Hell, I'll only believe the Green Line will ever get built once it's done, but that's another story). No one wants to pay for it, and the only reason the suburbanites who basically run the city take the train in the first place, is because parking costs a lot downtown. There's a bit of a "kicking the can" mentality - everyone knows such upgrades are needed and would massively improve the speed and reliability of the entire system, but no one wants to pay for it.
Calgary didn't have the trains underground downtown because of two problems. One is the very high water table, buildings used to flood regularly because downtown is right in between the two rivers.
Second is flash flooding because of thunderstorms. Tunnels would be very prone to flooding.
The Green line is going to be partially underground, but I don't know what kind of flood proofing they're going to have
@@LoneHowler Mostly just cost... Yes they have a high water table but that didn't stop chunks of the 8th avenue tunnel from actually being built... The bill last time I checked to finish it though would be $1B+ which even I think would be better spent on the Green Line, flawed as it is...
I truly believe that the Calgary green line will get built.... more or less as soon as the valley line opens here in Edmonton! Because Calgary can't *not* have something that Edmonton has, . Our intercity rivalry has its benefits, from time to time. The Ctrain was originally built, at least in part, out of a desire not to be "left behind" Edmonton in regard to transit. Ultimately the Ctrain built out much more quickly and cheaply than the LRT, largely because Calgary opted not to build a downtown tunnel. It's a trade off. Obviously, I'm grateful for the underground stations every day when I ride the train, but tunnels and stations that can give full-sized metro systems a run for their money.... come with a price tag to match. Edmonton only finished the south leg of the first LRT line in 2010; that's a full 32 years after opening. I would argue that the tunnel was, in the end, worth it. But, if we had elected to do street-running downtown like Calgary did, I think that might have been a better strategy just to get the system up and running sooner. Calgary unfortunately did kind of loose steam on building LRT after they finished the first line and a half, but remember, it only took Calgary only 6 years (1981-1987) to build the bulk of what Ctrain is today. By 87' Calgary had almost 50km of track. It took Edmonton till 2010 to reach 21km. If Calgary had kept up the momentum and finished both lines in the 80s, or even better, started a third line, then I think the system would be doing really staggering numbers today. But, there's no use dwelling on what could have been. The 90s were hard times in this province, and Edmonton wasn't exactly showing Calgary up with a world-class rail network, either, so I suppose we do share some of the blame. Our tunnel finally started paying off only in the mid 2000s. Meanwhile, the Ctrain was moving hundreds of thousands of people every day, providing a huge amount of value to the city of Calgary. Ctrain runs, even today, at a net profit, before you even consider all of the external benefits, like reduced congestion and emissions.... but, Calgary has been slow to reinvest that dividend.
At the very least, I'm cheering for the Ctrain. I think it's **the** single premier example of how to make rail transit work in an otherwise sprawling, ugly, car-centric, low-density environment, and I think it deserves a lot more praise than it gets. I think it's a huge credit to the city of Calgary that it works so well and was built so quickly (and relatively cheaply). I'm of the opinion that Calgary would probably get huge value out of grade-separating the existing lines in the downtown, but I reckon that doesn't have to mean elevating or tunnelling the entire line. Instead, my first instinct would be to overpass the line on about half of the downtown streets that cross it, and simply cut off through traffic (create a little cul-de-sac out of bollards) on the other half. That might not be politically tenable in Calgary, but, even if an overpass had to be built for every single street, it would probably cost less than tunnelling the line. Of course, a bunch of road overpasses would be ugly. A viaduct down 7th Ave could be substantially more attractive, and again, the cost would almost certainly be less than tunnelling. Regardless of the approach, though, I think the Ctrain more than merits the investment. So, I'll be here, advocating for transit expansion in Edmonton, and hopefully that will help create at least a small bit of political will in Calgary, too. You know. out of spite and petty jealousy
I think a big problem with the planning is the people that are looking to implement rail are only familiar with busses, and think that “low floor” is an accessibility feature. Ottawa listed the Citadis being low floor as one of the accessibility features of the system before the launch of the Confed line. I can only assume that’s from years of thinking low floor bus = accessible, and not bothering to do the research or taking the time to think about how a level platform works…
Yup, that's also what I thought. Had I had a Substack account, I would have added my comment on the high-floor LRT post and how the percieved accessibility only has the assumption that the platforms have to be low floor for whatever reason.
That being said, I remember the Confederation Line being planned as a high-floor system but there also was the idea for using them like a tram outside the trunk à la MBTA Green Line and SEPTA Subway-Surface Trolleys so low-floor vehicles were ordered but then the idea of at-grade branches got dropped and the Confederation Line was then stuck in this weird situation.
The advantage I can see of low-floor trams is that people aren't going to get injured falling off the platforms. But the disadvantage is that people will be more likely to dash across from one platform to the other.
San Diego started with high floor trains with low platforms, then converted entirely to low floor trains. The Trolley even has a level crossing with a fast food drive thru, complete with a boom gate!
What is now the busiest line originally was single tracked and cost around $300 million USD in today's money for 15.4 miles.
Now they're proposing new underground higher speed commuter rail lines and a streetcar loop line.
@@MetroChamp Those underground commuter rail better have 15-minute 20 hour service and 5-10 min peak service and 80 mph speeds
Fun fact: you can largely avoid the need to iron your tshirts by hanging them out soon after the laundry cycle ends and taking them off the line and laying them flat until you fold or wear them 😜😘
Laundry tips, amazing
@@RMTransit You have the most helpful fans :)
NEW CHANNEL IDEA????
I pull mine out the second it buzzes because they're still hot and are basically are steaming themselves. No need to iron anything
Black shirts hide the wrinkles better
I’m personally not a fan of Calgary’s decision to have low floor LRV on the Green line, simply because high floor LRVs’ more flexible sitting layout make them feel more like subway than trams.
Likewise here in Edmonton.
Thank you Reece from Roger Sexton for an excellent video. However, here in Europe people like the one you quote at 7mins 20secs have won the argument. High Floor Light(ish) rail systems like your 'City-Trains' are in Europe largely confined to WESTERN Germany plus a few outliers such as Manchester Rotterdam and Lausanne. All new light rail lines in (eg) France, Spain and Italy are low-floor. There is a particular problem where there is on-street running. The high platforms are opposed because they are intrusive into the street environment. Note too that low-floor trams can take over rail branch lines. This has happened in eg Karlsruhe, St Gallen(Switzerland) and Innsbruck and Gmunden (Austria).
Yeah. Aarhus in Denmark is another, albeit very new example. Their network consists of a 12km long newly built section of light rail between its central station, university, hospital, and greenfield development, connecting back to a former regional railway, one of 2 in the region converted to tram service.
Now Aarhus didnt get off to a great start. It has had issues with reliability and mismanagement and poor handling of basic neccesities like ice proofing, but its still evolving. When each of the sections opened, the Grenå line only operated trams once every hour to Grenå at the end, and the Odder line only ran every 30 minutes. Now, ridership is growing as one of the few places in Denmark, they've invested in additional passing loops at stations. The Grenå line now sees service every 30 minutes to Grenå and every 15 during rush hour to Hornslet. And the Odder line now also sees service every 15 minutes as far as Hornslet. And they have concrete plans to expand that 15 minute frequency all the way to Odder and building a new passing loop. And thats on top of plans to order 8-10 new trams to facilitate this growth in frequency, and make the system more resilient to disruptions.
And while politically it hasn't been great, with 2 of the 3 proposed phase 2 extensions being cancelled, one of them being solely for fears that more trams would cause more car congestion at a single intersection, we can only hope the last proposal gets greenlit and the network can grow further to serve more dense parts of the city!
Its certainly happened which is why I mentioned it was probably a good solution mostly for mid sized cities
@@drdewott9154 Thanks for the news from Aarhus. I visited the new system back in January 2019. It is certainly another very good example of LOW-FLOOR trams taking over (two) rural branch lines.
@@Fan652w Yeah. Its not perfect, but it has some solid bones to grow off of. Which the agency clearly wants to. hence the want to get 8-10 new trams and new junctions built so there can be 15 minute service to Odder and Hornslet all day (as well as likely more frequent service on the greenfield parts of the new LRT to hopefully finally spur urban development along the line).
And cologne's Stadtbahn system is actually split into low- and High-Floor sections, where High-Floor trains can use low-floor lines but not the other way
weird example, but I think Dallas's DART fits under this umbrella. The system is definitively light rail, but can kind of act as regional metro, and has a wide variety of elevated, at-grade, and tunnel segments (with a city center tunnel in the works in the coming years). The system is an awesome first, second, and third step for a city and a state known for their car dependence, and I think it's going to get even better when the Silver Line is finished and they're running the FLIRTS along the route.
In the ICE explained video you said you'd cover Stuttgarts rail system but did you know Stuttgart also has a Stadtbahn like in Frankfurt, in fact it was the first system to replace the entire tram system with high platforms at all stations. Fun fact: They have the steepest "normal" rail line in Europe and also a rack railway and a cable car.
The Zacke (rack railway) recently got new trains from Stadler with improved capacity and modern design.
@@gtctv7000 I know I recently visited these the day they were introduced. :)
Actually thats like half a year back.
@@carljo002oh you were there too??? We might've met
@@gtctv7000 yeah
Edmonton's subway system is underrated. The problem is that there's no great connection to the system from the East/West area, and the west side of downtown Edmonton. The low floor Valley Line Tram will greatly fix this problem. Once The Valley Line is complete, owning a car in Edmonton will be mostly a lifestyle choice. And I think that going car-free will have a positive impact on someone's wealth, currently I think the opposite is true because of limited work opportunities.
I'll be moving near a tram or Metro/Capital line station next.
Don't hold your breath for the Valley Line ever being complete. The City should have stuck with high floor trains.
@@JonMartinYXD 100% agreed but it wasn't trendy at the time... Just like why the downtown airport redevelopment became a Titanic-level economic disaster for the city so far...
The MUNI in San Francisco has high floor trams for use in the underground sections, but with drop down steps for street running (so there’s no need to put in platforms all over the city.)
To be fair, this isn't very ideal either as the inclusion of steps make them badly usable in a wheelchair and your destination has a low-floor platform. In fact, here in Germany, many Stadtbahn systems (with their high floor trains) used to have folding stairs as well but only as a transitional solution as the low platforms were intended to be fully converted into high-floor ones.
@@MarioFanGamer659 San Francisco has a raised portion at every station allowing level boarding, it actually works very well! Basically just a ramp up to a single door of the train, it'll stop with steps down for anyone boarding normally, then raise the stairs and pull up to the accessible mini platform.
@@MarioFanGamer659 The steps are still here and needed every day. Cities like Cologne or Düsseldorf are still many years away from eliminating low platforms from high-floor lines, if it will ever happen at all.
@@MarioFanGamer659 there are certain stops on some lines with a high platform extension for wheelchairs (best example is right next to the baseball stadium). You might be better off on a bus though.
Cleveland's ordering a replacement of its entire fleet in this style, and it runs in exactly the sort of set up you describe - grade crossing streetcars that become fully grade separated (in ditches) and then enter tunnels at the city center.
Frankfurt is an interesting mix of trams, trams that are now U-Bahns, U-Bahns, and S-Bahns. The main U-Bahn trunk that runs north out of the city center is a classic cut-and-cover build from the ‘60s - but only for seven stops before it goes street level to the suburbs. And the tram lines that became U-Bahns are now running as longer walk-through trains. It’s definitely worth an explainer video. Thanks for the great content!
However there's no actual U-Bahn, as every line does have grade crossings or even on-street running
@@jan-lukas correct, but the cars used for U1-U2-U3 service have always been purpose built and not converted trams. - like the U5.
I feel like the Tyne & Wear metro fits in this category too. Not a tram, train or light rail, but something in-between.
If they used vehicles like the ones on the Manchester metrolink, it could be expanded into the less busy parts of town at Street level. Then it would be a typical stadtbahn.
This reminds me of the Manchester Metrolink, with the high-floor trams that run mostly on former rail corridors and either alongside or on city streets. Granted it doesn't have a city centre tunnel (that would've been the Pic-Vic subway plan, RIP) But it certainly works as the best of both worlds.
They're planning to build a tunnel in 2040 between cornbrook and picadilly
Fittingly, Metrolink uses the same trains as in Cologne, another such example.
@@user-ln8fy4vo4p Why Cornbook? There's already an elevated line at Deansgate, and there's space to build a tunnel exit next to the convention centre. Also I'd hope they'd build a tunnel to Victoria with a station under the Arndale or Exchange Square as well. May as well send all the city center traffic underground rather than half of it.
@@Croz89 Presumably capacity - there's a lot of branches west/south of Cornbrook (Eccles, MediaCity, Trafford Park, Altrincham, Airport, East Didsbury) and so 4-tracking to there allows higher frequencies and/or faster/more reliable service. Even with Trafford Park terminating at Cornbrook, and the MediaCity branch being run by reversing Eccles services (both being cost-saving measures), there's currently 35 trams per hour between Cornbrook and Deansgate.
Stay tuned for a Metrolink video!
I would really like to see you do a video on Edmonton's transit system, specifically the LRT here, not really sure what topic just something involving the transit here
The history of it is fascinating, mainly for how close we came to having a 200 metre wide freeway surrounding downtown with spokes cutting outwards. Entire neighbourhoods would have been razed. Fortunately we were a bit late to the whole freeways-through-the-city thing, so we had only built a little bit of it before American cities' experiences showed that it was a terrible thing. But then in 1972 we were awarded the 1978 Commonwealth Games and we needed a freeway-less way to get people quickly from downtown to Commonwealth Stadium. We took a gamble on this new fangled (for North America) "light rail transit" thing. The rest is history.
Have you ever noticed how the James Macdonald Bridge and the interchange on its east end are just a bit different compared to the rest of central Edmonton? Out of place or out of scale? That's the only part of the freeway of doom that got built.
Where I live, we have a system like this, but it has been here since 1898. The K-Bahn (now U76/U70, but a lot of people still use the old name) running from Dusseldorf to Krefeld. It uses a tunnel inside the city center of Dusseldorf and its own separate track with level crossing for most of the way to Krefeld. Then it partly shares the street with cars and other traffic, inside of the city center here. What makes it interesting is that the tram system in Krefeld is meter-gauge and the K-Bahn is standard-gauge. Where those two systems share the street you have 4 rails. One pair inside of the other.
Thank you for giving me a better word to describe what my city called light rail. The city train is what we currently have in St. Louis and we are building a streetcar with dedicated lanes but one that will still have to follow stop lights. Calling our current system a city train helps differentiate these two light rail systems.
'Light rail' is an unfortunate catch-all sadly. These days, it really is a vehicle weight class, and causes confusion because it comes with other assumed characteristics that aren't necessarily appropriate.
To be fair, the Stadtbahn concept also encompasses multiple implementations as Karlsruhe, Kassel and Chemnitz's tram-trains are also called a form of Stadtbahn even though none of them have anything to do as the one of Stuttgart, Cologne or Frankfurt (unless you count the underground tunnels in Karlsruhe's city centre or Cologne's driving on freight tracks). That being said, it's never used for classical trams which have no underground sections nor run anytime under EBO rules but may largely run in their own ROW.
St. Louis' system is great!
@@jonathanj8303 yeah I think bigmoodenergy’s video on light rail still holds up applying the justice potter test
@@georgekarnezis4311 haven't seen that video, but I suspect that it's reached the point where 'light rail' is no longer a useful label for anyone other than bridgebuilders and and track part suppliers. A range of options - trams, city-trains, tram-trains (those two being different), light metro, 'true' interurban, etc. etc.
Guadalajara's light rail took inspiration from Belgian cities like Brussels when they planned their systems, a concept called PreMetro. Later on, they got assistance from German technicians, which is why the vehicles are so similar to West Germany's trams.
It was the better plan according to their limited budget back in the 80s, Line 1 was built very fast and on a dime.
Manila LRT 1 (even though all the systems run more like a metro) also had influences from Belgian transit like the Charleroi Metro by using similar vehicles with their high-floor trams
Regional metro with an underlying Citytrain would be chefs kiss.
Makes me think of the 1968 rail study amsterdam did which planned to intergrate something like this ontop of the tram network. so im usually jealous of other cities
Funnily enough, the Lausanne M1 is one of its kind in Switzerland. There are no plans in extending or reusing this type of technology anywhere else in Switzerland, or even Lausanne.
It was originaly built for serving the Universities campuses between Renens and Lausanne. It is a fairly optimised system, despite the single tracks in between stations, it has frequencies up to every 5 minutes in both direction at rush hour.
You can get a lot out of single rail, especially if it's purpose built for frequent service!
Yep! Its quite the unique system!
High Floor Trams with level boarding is almost Light Metro territory in some aspects if it was grade separated like Manila LRT & MRT systems.
Hi Reese. Your neighbors in Buffalo are expanding their city train, which is even more weird than you might expect. The subway portion is not the city-center. Rather, it is for faster travel to and from the city center, which uses city train as a tram, with retractable steps but also with simultaneous platform boarding for accessibility. Expansion southward involves restoring a classic train station (Delaware and Lackawanna RR). Northward, the system will be doubled in length into the suburbs and connect university centers. Now if we can talk Canada customs into speeding things up, maybe GO train's next expansion could be to Buffalo!
San Francisco's Muni Metro system is a hybrid system - streetcar, light rail, automated metro. They submerge into subway tunnels... emerge into the streets for streetcar operation... or emerge into a dedicated right of way. It's kind of broken, but it works.
Functionally, and maybe excluding the city centre tunnels, these are starting to look a lit like the best of the old US style interurbans (and which modern Japanese interurbans were historically similar to). Go slow and stop frequently in the built areas to provide local pick-up and drop off, plus local service, and sprint between them on a separate alignment. The Electroliners are probably the classic example, effectively running as a mainline express, and then running round the chicago loop, but there were plenty of similar operations that used more traditional equipment.
Would you consider the Green Line of Boston a city train? It has tunnel sections, grade separated sections on the new GLX extension, and then street running and level crossings on the older sections.
I was about to ask this. I’m pretty sure that Boston might have been one of the first places to have something resembling a city train.
One notable difference is that it's build with low-floor platforms in mind and thus is still a very streetcar system. Nonetheless, Boston does have the oldest premetro, which Reece should definitively make a video of, which can be thought as the opposite concept.
I mean...City Train is a possible translation for Stadtbahn
Indeed ;_)
More like "city railway" but it's clearly inspired by the latter.
We have such a system in Stuttgart. (the yellow trains) It's literally called the "Stadtbahn" it even translates to city train / city rail...
I was about to say that, Citytrain is a literal translation of Stadtbahn, and not only Frankfurt, but Hannover and Cologne use this concept too.
@@alexanderlammers6980 in fact, almost all German cities that have a tram system use Stadtbahn vehicles (at least for the older models), which is rather strange x)
Interestingly though, whereas in cities such as Frankfurt, Düsseldorf, Hannover and so on the Stadtbahn vehicles are derived from tram designs, Stuttgart is the only city that actually derived its Stadtbahns from a proper metro design. Whilst the trains are some of the most comfortable ones in Germany, they’re really not designed for street running. In hindsight, Stuttgart might have been better off if they kept their trams and additionally built a proper metro on some trunk lines. Sadly, that was never even an option.
The eastern section of Rotterdam's at grade line B is considered problematic because a lot of accidents happen here, mostly with pedestrians and cyclists involved. The western part was openend recently and is based on an old rail line. The at grade crossings here are less cramped and there are no obstacles, hedges, trees, etc. that can block the view. After the flaws of the eastern branch were exposed, back in the eighties, no more lines were built like that anymore. In Amsterdam. a similar line was recently restructured to remove many level crossings and actually became a traditional tramline, with low-floor trams.
In the early 1900s, all grade crossings were removed in Brooklyn, NY. Trolleys cars came off the streets in the 1950s. But now, the MTA wants to create a major grade crossing, by street running the Interborough Express along a major highway and through Middle Village. Dumb.
Well, the Amsteltram is not really the same since it did not have protected crossings
@@RMTransit In the beginning, the crossings in Rotterdam didn't have any protective barriers either. Most of the barriers you see today have been installed later, after many accidents. There were warning lights and bells but no barriers.
Despite Amsterdam being in the position to learn from the problems in Rotterdam, also here, there were many accidents but there was also opposition to installing barriers. That's why Amsterdam chose to rebuild te whole line. Plans to do the same in Rotterdam stalled.
SF muni trains are kinda like this right?
Yup, that's another example of such a system given that it was planned to be fully converted into San Francisco's own subway (unlike BART and Caltrain which are more regional).
That ability to evolve along with the city sure does make these attractive!
Any thoughts on retrofitting a BRT into one of these? I suspect that the forthcoming BRT in my city (Halifax, NS, Canada) would veer toward some sort of low-floor rail future if the local powers that be finally wake up to our need for a more frequent, higher-capacity, non-driver-dependant transit mode.
Its hard in places with small streets like Halifax where the space taken by high platforms could actually be an issue!
The history of Edmonton's LRT is fascinating, mainly for how close we came to having a 200 metre wide freeway surrounding downtown with spokes cutting outwards. Entire neighbourhoods would have been razed. Fortunately we were a bit late to the whole freeways-through-the-city thing, so we had only built a little bit of it before American cities' experiences showed that it was a terrible thing. But then in 1972 we were awarded the 1978 Commonwealth Games and we needed a freeway-less way to get people quickly from downtown to Commonwealth Stadium. We took a gamble on this new fangled (for North America) "light rail transit" thing. The rest is history.
Edmontonians: have you ever noticed how the James Macdonald Bridge and the interchange on its east end are just a bit different compared to the rest of central Edmonton? Out of place or out of scale? That's the only part of the freeway of doom that got built.
Yes the ill-fated METS system... Also why the McKinnon Ravine feels manicured and flat because it was... Truth be told though it's fun to shoot across the MacDonald and gaze up at the skyline though..
Cleveland this is for you 😮
Sydney used to call their urban trains CityRail. That is until every time people change the letter C to S whenever there is some delay or cancellation so now it's called Sydney Trains.
High floors are good. Easier to maintain and board. Grade crossings are bad. Planners spend too much time on appearance. Riders care most
about reliability, frequency and cleanliness.
Cleveland RTA recently bought/is buying a fleet "city trains" exactly like the new Siemens models in Calgary to replace both its metro and light rail trains. So I guess that form of transit isn't completely dead.
San Diego's MTS interestingly enough started running in the 80s the same high-floor trains used by Frankfort U-Bahn, but has recently switched to all low-floor design which comes at a higher cost despite the very tight budget here. It's always a tough tradeoff between accessibility and cost but it almost seems like a move backwards.
True, but it's worth noting that stations like America Plaza and City College were built with low-floor height retail entrances.
You just described why Cleveland, Ohio is switching to the S200s like in Calgary. The system is kind of already hybrid(light and heavy on same rails) but in a couple years will have a unified system with the same train that can be ran on the heavy rail red line and the light rail blue and green lines.
St. Louis is kind of like this save for the boulevard integration. It goes way out into Illinois through fields to Scott AFB, under ground around downtown and into elevated guideways near the airport and the latest expansion from the early 2000s to the 44-Landsdowne station. They’re planning on doing a low floor team that runs North-South soon
Manchester does this! It's a great idea!
Thank you for finally doing a video on the defense of high-floor LRT aka Stadtbahn's... They truly are the best solution because of their flexibility which is why Edmonton chose them ultimately over a traditional heavy rapid transit system like was planned in years previous to its 1978 opening... Even though Vancouver's skytrain really is a great technology in many ways it was a shame the city didn't go with LRT like was originally planned because that would make all three Western Canadian cities with similar tech and probably could have bulk-ordered trains together as a result...
Now to this video speciffically: Aside from the percieved "accessibility", I also feel like the many misused low-floor LRTs were supposed to be built more traditional tramway/streetcars before the systems grew more and more grade separated but with no futureproofing (in contrast, many premetros in Europe are built with high-floor vehicles in mind) for a variety of reasons (e.g. NIMBYs) which also resulted in two videos you made (no tunnelled light rail and overbuilding light rail).
SLC's TRAX is a good example for avoiding this fallacy, being practicaly a modern tram outside of the relatively high stop distances. OTOH, I remember the O-Train Confederation Line falling into this fallacy (and thus would be a particularly egregious case) because it was planned into a high-floor metro before it was decided to use low-floor trams in case it's used as a tramway on the branches à la MBTA Green Line (it never happened).
In any case, as much as I like them, in the end, I do prefer metros and semi-metros. The "metroisation" of trams (that is, treating trams less like buses and more as a cheap metro alternative) is a thorn in my side (and I grew a certain dislike of low-floor vehicles in recent years) for a reason in part because they benefit from a mesh while single lines just hinder their potential (especially since this view also only considers dediced ROW for them only and avoids mixed-traffic at all cost), not to mention high platform also make a system feel more like a proper railway than with lower platforms, in addition when ballast is visible and like.
Conversely, I don't think a city railway should be cheapened out too much and as you can ask yourself whether it's truly necessary to have the grade crossings in the first place as there is a danger to fall into the Golden Mean Fallacy i.e. a compromise between two proposals which fails to be a good solution. Trams still have the advantages to be run like buses (i.e. in mixed traffic) while a proper metro has better capacity, don't get disrupted by street traffic too much (and likewise don't disrupt street traffic either - pedestrians and cyclists including) and have no operational headaches (relatively speaking).
This is why cities like Frankfurt and most of the Ruhr cities still have (more or less) traditional trams in addition to a semi-metro not unlike Munich and Nuremberg (which have a proper metro) to the point where I want them to have their Stadtbahn be converted into a proper metro for them (and I also get iffy when new lines for these systems are built but not to metro standards) while sticking to high-floor LRVs only is a risky move similar to how considering metros as the only option is problematic (get it, Hamburg?).
Ultimately, it's better to get a system with a concrete goal than trying it to solve everything but if you do insist with the latter, get it at least right.
Istanbul's M1 is truly suffering. The trains constantly break down and are inadequate for the huge amounts of traffic Istanbul generates. There are plans to increase platform lengths and automate the entire line but it's taking a very long time.
Great to hear your enthousiasm about my hometown Rotterdam. The system started off as a plan for a river crossing tram tunnel, because so many trams were crossing the river (with also frequent bridge openings) and city centre to the railway station. Congestion was a big problem. The plans for a tramtunnel evolved into a small 6km metroline, (1968) later extended to some suburbs (1974) and a second line added.(1982). The extension to that seond line, with catenary and crossings were built that way because a fully seperated metro was too expensive. Later extensions however, you mentioned line B in the North-East were afian true metro, because of the public resistance against the crossings.
The latest extensions were railway conversions. Suburban railway lines were connected with the network, and this als incorporated some level crossings but because they were there for over 100 years there was less resistance.
So the plan in Rotterdam started with trams, then turned into metrolines and later went back to light rail (sneltram in Dutch, which means fast tram) wiyh crossings. We also have street running trams in Rotterdam, and there is a lot of discusion about its future at the moment.
Now that you've talked about how Frankfurt introduced CityTrains to the world, when are we gonna see a transit explained on the city/metro area? Since it has a lot more to offer than just an almost-Subway ;)
Greetings from Frankfurt ^^
Agreed! Edmonton Transit and its users like me thank you! ;-)
Docklands Light Railway in London exemplifies the evolution aspect, in my opinion. They use high-floor vehicles that are very Frankfurt U-bahn-esque. Now their soon-to-be-newest trains by CAF are unmistakably metro-style.
I think doing a transit explainer on either the Manchester Metrolink, SEPTA, or Cairo would be cool
"Describe a Stadtbahn system without saying the term Stadtbahn challange" I'm kidding lol but I could've sworn you already had videos on Stadtbahn systems where you did call it that way. Made me think this was some kind of different system but I guess you just went with the literal translation
I want to cry you named Guadalajara, It’s the best day of my life
As someone just mentioned, Reece basically described the Stadhban. I also like the German Stadhban model.
The Stadtbahn in Bielefeld, Germany (not an S-Bahn despite the naming) is a great example of this kind of system for a small town, with just four (!) lines. They use tunnels in the crowded center of the city, and further out the trains come up and run either on the roads or in dedicated rail corridors, up to 80km/h. To migrate older, street-level stations the train models have retractable steps, but they are used less and less these days as more stations are converted to being level with the trains. I think it's a great example of good transit evolution in a small city without as much funding as the bigger ones. I think the system has so far gone a bit unnoticed due to being in such a small city.
And considering the aesthetics of the trains, I think their newest model (the "Vamos") looks as modern, if not more futuristic, than the current low floor tram designs. These new cars show the evolvability of these systems as they are narrow at the bottom to fit the existing stations, but wider at the top to allow for more space inside, expanding capacity without requiring many station rebuilds on existing routes (though some routes had to be retrofitted to allow two trains to pass each other, so the new cars were rolled out on other routes first).
seattle’s link should’ve been something similar to this and not the low floor trams we got, considering the link barely runs at street level and is in a subway tunnel and elevated guideways 95% of the time.
This is basically what Seattle built. The only real difference was using the 70% low floor vehicles but even then, it basically works the same with similar capacity and flexibility as Calgary and Edmonton, but having the advantage of being able to use the existing tunnel, previously alongside busses instead of building a new one
In Turin the "Orange trams" were built combining two smaller trams already in the 1930s. Now they are being replaced by newer veicles, bet 10 will be kept in service and 2 will be added to the historical fleet.
In my opinion, the high-floor light rail is not the most versatile means of public transport. This might be true for a POV from over 60 years ago, when trams were high floor and with steps to get in and out. In the case of Frankfurt/Main, the construction of a wider Stadtbahn with elevated platforms meant that there are now two mutually incompatible networks in the city: the Frankfurt U-Bahn with cars that are 2.65 m wide, and the low-floor tram with cars that are 2.40 m wide.
I’m my opinion the low floor light rail is the way to go as you showed as an example of Karlsruhe. There are some more tram systems with a tunnel in the city center like Augsburg (under construction), Krakow, Linz, Nizza.
If planning a new light rail from scratch, I doubt someone would consider building it high floor, as you need high platforms that don’t fit well into a city. To stay with the example of Frankfurt, the fenced-in, above-ground subway lines have a rather negative effect on the quality of life on the street. 😢
I disagree that high platforms don't fit into a city necessarily (unless street running is involved in which case yes, that should definitively be avoided) as they do give a more railway appearance than a typical tram stop but moreover, what you're complaining at e.g. Eschersheimer Landstraße is not the result of using high-floor vehicles but rather that of an exclusive trackbed (that being said, these tracks should be put below or above the street 100%). The most important point is that there are no subsidies to street-running so all trackbeds have to be protected, to the point of actually putting fences around the tracks.
Take a look at the Mainzelbahn in Mainz: Low-floor network, still manages to bisects Am Ostergraben / Marienborner Straße of west Bretzenheim, even fenced on the side adjacent to the footway. The one difference is that the tracks are built to the side of the street and also are fenced only on one side (so more comparable to Gießener Straße than Eschersheimer Landstraße) but nonetheless, you can't really cross the street whenever you want.
Manchester UK currently has a Tram System (Metrolink) that launched in the 90s, and initially was 2 City Train Lines repurposed as Metro (Manchester, like most UK cities, having got Rid of Trams decades before) - it's a now good balance of Tram & Metro now at 99 Stations and a Good mix of Street Running and Dedicated Tracks.
The Trams with folding steps rather startet in Düsseldorf, Germany where Düwag has build them. They are very spread around Nothrhine-Westfalia, like Düsseldorf! Even new one are there like that! And with the city-to-city is also very common in Düsseldorf with U79 to Duisburg and U76/U70 to Krefeld!
Could you do a explainer about cologne or the Rhine Ruhr region. I think it is pretty under appreachiated and a ton of future projects are in the pipeline.
The Stadler tram trains being delivered to Cardiff can also be called City Trains or Statbahn.
Can you do a video on whether the proposed Baltimore red line could use this technology?
And a video on Baltimore transit generally?
Baltimore might get a video someday, but I have a lot of cities on my list
Similar moves to put tram lines underground in the city center and thus slowly migrate from a tram network into a subway network can be seen in many German cities. Stuttgart, Essen and Hannover would be some examples.
Honestly city trains are great, I just don't like when they rely too heavily on mixed traffic, e.g. the Toronto street car for example.
The Toronto Streetcar does not fall into the same category as what Reece is talking about here. It‘s just a traditional tram system.
@@bahnspotterEUI meant that as a comparison to the track in road design, not the service itself.
I never really thought of it as a separate category but it does make sense. In the uk context Newcastle’s and Liverpool’s are similar to this concept, high floor trains using new build tunnels in the city centre then running along legacy lines further out.
3:09 This windshield blind is almost fully closed
Quite funny
7:50 Portland's MAX system actually evolved in this way.
That was great Reece. Another alternative
As someone working for the Frankfurt U-Bahn (the OG Stadtbahn/city train ;) ) I can approve. In the Gremany the Stadtbahnen really caught on traction, as a good compromise for mid-sized cities and it is interesting how the concept exportet well.
These are common in Germany as "Stadtbahns" and I went on the one in Cologne. Basically it acts like a subway in the central parts of the city and as an at-grade tram in the city's outskirts.
My sister lives in Manchester, UK and I've really wanted to see you do a video on your take on their trams. They have high floor trams that run as trams in some places and operate like trains on completely separated tracks and stations in others. The contrast with, say, Birmingham in the UK is really interesting to see.
Honestly this is what I imagine my transport network to be like in Simcity 4 (don’t judge me). I like having a subway in my main downtown & using light rail in the suburbs (sometimes on street trams). I vaguely knew there was real life versions but I wasn’t sure.
This sounds a lot like the metro of Porto in Portugal. The whole system was built from scratch some years ago by taking advantage of existing tram and train lines and limiting the construction of tunnels to the city centre where all lines share the same tunnel.
In the centre, the metro acts as a regular grade separated subway. In the big cities that make up the metro area, such as Gaia, it uses former tram tracks, including the incredible Luiz 1 Bridge and running at-grade. And on the suburbs, it uses old railway corridors and runs as a suburban rail system. All of this made building a big metro system possible while still maintaining a relatively low cost.
I read the Eglinton Crosstown line in Toronto is low-floor which might limit its expansion in the future... if it ever gets running
It is, and it might! I am not worried about it getting running!
Literally Stadtbahn! Just like what I translated in my worldbuilding project: City Rail!
Nice video explaining this, as this is literally the middle ground between MRT and Tram (Even tram is already a middle ground). Or even better, this is simply a High-Floored Tram....... :D
And by the way, Stuttgart is, I think, a better example vs Karlsruhe
Heheheh. Technically speaking though, under EU Standardisation (CEN-CENELEC), Stadtbahn is a Light Rail system
Great video man! Any chance there will be a video about the Mumbai Railways and Metro system?
Very interesting video, as always.
Any chance of you doing a video on the new Kitchener-Waterloo ION system, and possibly how this system going into a comparatively small metro area could impact thinking in cities like London and Hamilton, or similarly sized US markets?
Also, could you do a video about the electric part of Ottawa's 'O-Train' (which kind of fits the city train idea, I believe) electric route, and its issues with weather (where other cities with a similar winter climate don't have those issues?
Thanks
Unless you you want to not build stations and just use poles as in a bus stop, low floors trams are the ones that makes no sense at all. You’re investing on a system incompatible with all the others, with limited interior space, just so you’re stations can be slightly at street level… even tough you will still will have to build ramps
Very much like Tyne & Wear Metro system which runs above and below ground, shares lines with regional and national rail in places.
Reese coming out as a (high floor) light rail stan is a massive twist.
Would this be suitable for Auckland, NZ? Their plans seem like such a mess. I'd love to hear your opinion on it - maybe even an entire video about Auckland's proposed light rail "plans".
I just went to Istanbul and was VERY impressed with their transit. Their T1 tram has more ridership than most rail systems in NA.
You forgot about Manchester Metrolink!
Oh no, its getting a video!
Hey Reece,
I was wondering if you have plans to cover night trains in your videos. They are having some kind of renaissance in Europe and can really be an alternative to flying to the destination of your vacation.
Thank you so much for your informative videos!
I feel like a service such as this or the Karlsruhe Model could greatly serve some of Australian regional cities like Newcastle and perhaps Geelong, places with growing city centres of a few hundred thousand people where just having buses won't cut it anymore, but also have a lot of smaller satellite towns that are presently not well connected. The interurbans may even make good regional lines for more countryside towns, such as the old Mudgee line. What do you think of that RM?
Hoping you could make a video about Edmonton's LRT systems. Though, I remember you making a demystified episode on it (which I cant find anymore).
Just like Porto's metro, although it uses low floor vehicles. But the principle is the same.
Well yes, but the height of the floor is the whole point!
It seems like you are warming up to the Denver light rail system.
You should really talk about the Dublin Luas line. It's insane that a semi ok tram has become the most crucial mode of transport in one of the world's richest city, that is truly falling apart...
9:10 Funny enough, Frankfurt is actually going to automize the U-Bahn. Construction work to implement the necessary CBTC components starts in a few weeks. Well, it won’t be driverless for obvious reasons but it will operate in GoA2-mode on grade-separated sections and reversing at Südbahnhof will be fully automatic and driverless. Pretty impressive for something that only pretends to be a metro.
You should look into the Stuttgart city train system, it’s really interesting
while i do agree that high floor city trains are superior, i also think that 100% low floor trams still are a great alternative; especially for light rail systems in europe, where they need to be compatible with modern or legacy trams systems which have low platform. also, these systems in europe need more stops and cover shorter distances (because of higher density and less sprawl). great video as always btw!
Hi, have you ever done a video on the Tyne and Wear metro?
It seems very odd not to mention that the whole 'Stadtbahn' idea exists throughout Germany, where it originated. Hannover, Stuttgart, Cologne, Dortmund, Dusseldorf, the Ruhr all have these
This seems to be the South East Queensland/Brisbane model. Though Australia suffers so much in last mile transit and there are big empty corridors in the network that need service 😓
WOOOH ROTTERDAM MENTIONED!!!