Talk:Toronto subway

The Rocket?

When I went to Toronto, I remember this system as being called "The Rocket." This article makes no refernece to it. Did I just remember it wrong, or is it called the Rocket as well? - Hbdragon88 04:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

While you raise an interesting point, this is addressed in the overview of the main/parent article: the term has been applied to any number of TTC vehicle types and the term "Ride the Rocket" is often used to promote the entire system. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

GA failed

These reasons are given :

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

Lincher 00:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Connecting Routes - All Checked!

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

Digital renderings in infoboxes

You may note some new digital rendering of the TTC station walls popping up on Wikipedia. These are from "Neurotic" Jose Ongpin, who has releaed the images under the GFDL. Suigi 06:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the lack of updates. Been kinda busy with university right now. Will do what I can when I can. Suigi 21:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

All done! All stations 'cept Queens Quay are done (Jose never did that one).

OK, four years later, I'm thinking it's high time to get rid of the few renderings that are left in the TTC station infoboxes. Would anyone mind if I go ahead and snap some photos for replacement? Suigi (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

That can be done. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 00:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

What's keeping you? Please load all you photos to Commons so that they can be used on other language Wikipedias. The only stations I can think of that are left are College and Wellesley. Secondarywaltz (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

About two years of inactivity. Stations still to be updated include Bathurst, Coxwell, Donlands, Dufferin, Jane, Pape, Runnymede, Woodbine, and York Mills; most of those do have actual photographs on-page, feel free to use those to replace the digital renderings. Spadina needs a station shot for its info-box too, along with Bloor/Yonge. Suigi (talk) 05:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the list. I have some photos that I thought were uploaded. Now I have to find them - buried on my computer. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Grabbed pics of College and York Mills, and relocated other photos into the infobox on Coxwell, Dufferin, and Runnymede. Might be able to snap ones of the other ones in the next few days. Thanks for the help, Secondarywaltz! Suigi (talk) 03:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Future expansion

They recently annouced the results of the RT study. They're keeping it as is plus modiflying the track to have bigger trains. Then they're going to have the Malvern extension. The future expansino map should reflect this.

• It's a proposal by Scarborough Community Council. There's no money for it yet. Let's not jump the gun. Ground Zero | t 01:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There was a pie-in-the-sky expansion plan on the front page of the a Saturday Globe and Mail's Focus section sometime in the late 1990s. (I'm pretty sure it was while Howard Moscoe was chair. I recall his comment that it would cost $1B). It would be interesting to see a reproduction of this here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.162.251.67 (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That happened before Howard Moscoe was chair and only one part of the "pie-in-the-sky" expansion was actually implemented along Sheppard Avenue East between Yonge Street and Don Mills Road if I recall correctly. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 21:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

T35A08

The section on the new subway cars now being ordered is labelled "T35A08". Does anyone know whether this name has any real status with the TTC? From what I can see, it was a jokey reference used in the "name the subway train" contest, rather than serious code name.

Almost certainly these things will simply be internally referred to as T2, regardless of the contest outcome. But since that isn't known yet, perhaps the section should just be "new car design" or something similar?

Thoughts? Daveharr 12:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The official name was released this past week - it's the Toronto Rocket. See here: [1] Suigi 03:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Internally they will be known as the "TR" - The opted for this as the trains will be very different than the T1's and they wanted distinction. --Eja2k (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

An article exists on this topic. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Edits by 74.121.10.113

User 74.121.10.113 has been continuing to revert the article, claiming there are 69 stations on this subway system. I reverted it originally as vandalism, due to the obvious nature of the number chosen, and the fact that the list itself has 74 stations in it. These appear to be bad faith edits. -- Kesh 02:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

After thinking as you did (and reverting this), I rechecked and believe the anonymous editor is correct: TTC operating statistics (2005) indicate 69 stations in the system, with subway interchanges being counted once. The heightened number (74) results when the five interchanges -- Spadina, St. George, Bloor-Yonge, Sheppard-Yonge, and Kennedy -- are double-counted. Psychlopaedist 02:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Aha! That would account for it, then. It does appear that interchanges are listed multiple times on the TTC list. It might be helpful to add that specific link to the citations.

I'm going to apologize on the user's Talk page, though I am somewhat puzzled they offered no support for their edits at all. -- Kesh 02:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

A candidate for a new table

Toronto Subway/RT
Overview
Locale	Toronto, Ontario
Transit type	Rapid transit
Number of lines	4
Number of stations	69
Daily ridership	1,186,050 (2006)
Operation
Began operation	March 30, 1954
Operator(s)	Toronto Transit Commission (TTC)
Technical
System length	68.3 km (42.7 mi)
Track gauge	4 ft 10 7/8 in (1495 mm)

Or we can change the logo to the original pic at St. Andrew station. Blackjays 14:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Subway Art

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

I also added nine other images of subway art throughout Wikipedia on each station that has images already uploaded. I placed them in a gallery. Johnny Au 04:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Defunct Subway Lines - What?!

Both of the links (Yonge-University-Bloor and Yonge-University-Danforth) refer to the page for Bay and the 1966 interlining trials. But why? Is this really necessary? Suigi 01:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I just linked it to there because there really is no other refernce article, section and those ones best describe what they were. Unless someone could make a main article for them, its the closest thing to something relevant. --Yllianos 04:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Calling them defunct lines is a bit misleading, though — they’re really more former routes that were run (and for just six months) on the same lines as the current, simpler routes. Listing two ‘defunct lines’ suggests that huge amounts of infrastructure has been abandoned, which is not the case; even Lower Bay is still in use, if only by out-of-service trains. I’d say it’s debatable whether they’re even significant to merit a place in the infobox, but if they do, it would be just as one link to the interlining trials. David Arthur 16:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Said interlining information can be found further down on this same page, so to be honest I would prefer if we ditch the defunct lines portion. Suigi 20:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Toronto Subway System

Can someone verify that name? I've never heard that name used to describe the subway system. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.116.213.216 (talk) 05:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Agreed — the previous name more closely reflects TTC usage, and the new one plays into the hands of the people who for some reason want to cover the Scarborough line separately. David Arthur 15:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Moved back

Because this article had been moved without any prior discussion, because the new article name violated Wikipedia naming conventions, and because three editors (me included) have objected to the move, I have moved it back to the original name.

If anyone wants to make the case here for renaming the article to "Toronto subway system" or something else, we can have that discussion prior to any future move. Ground Zero | t 15:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Help from an expert

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

Cleanup

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

Light rail expansion

No mention of the new plan yet? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.141.47.50 (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

See Toronto streetcar system, with which it has most similarity. Radagast 01:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Still, the SRT extension to Malvern should be mentioned, as should the Finch Line since it my understanding that it's going to have it's own dedicated right-of-way to the north of Finch along the hydro line. This would make it an actual RT line rather than a streetcar line. Snickerdo 03:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The future expansion map should be changed to reflect the Transit City proposal. Instead of an extension of the Sheppard line, the SRT extension and Yonge line extension from Finch station should be shown.

Eglinton-Crosstown LRT

Section was updated on April 1st after provincial announcement. However was worded very poorly. Indicated the "TTC learnt there would be an expansion" (does not reflect the fact they received funding for the project - they planed the expansion as part of the Transit City plan)

Also new edits went on about the line being built for people who don't want to pay "too much" for parking at the airport. - seems like someones opinion rather than fact. --Eja2k (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Subway worker death

There is presently no mention of today's accident that killed a subway worker and injuered two others [2][3]. I would add it myself, but the article layout is confusing and there is nowhere immediately obvious to place it. Thryduulf 17:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the general feeling about the tendency to include mention of every violent crime or tragic event in the vicinity (with the exception of suicides) in the station articles? While they are arguably relevant, I don't observe the same attention given to comparable articles (eg expressways or traffic intersections). --207.245.10.213 (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Changing the Box Photo

Alright, Selmo. Since you continue to refuse to allow anyone to unilaterally replace what myself and others have considered to be an ugly box pic (I didn't think someone like you would be so sarcastic about it, but fair enough, it should be discussed), we should do this practically.

(Frankly, I don't think it's necessary to point out that it should be changed, but I can understand that everyone's tastes are different.)

Here is a list of various TTC subway photos (and diagram) that can be found in the Wikimedia Commons. Keep in mind this list doesn't have to be exclusive, it's just what I could find on short notice.

I propose editors of this page should either choose a new photo from this list, or add other photos to the list for discussion. When we reach some sort of consensus, then we make a final decision about the box picture.--Willmolls 07:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: Seems to me we have an agreement on #1. I'll make the change.--Willmolls 23:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I beg you pardon? Never was I srcastic. If you feel the pic I "favor" is so obviously ugly, that's your opinion. Just because your pic is not my cup of tea does not make me unintelligent (as you seem to imply). — Selmo ^(talk) 23:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

That is absolutely not what I mean to imply. Selmo, I am most sincerely sorry you feel this way. I tried to make it clear that deeming it ugly was only my opinion, and I absolutely did not mean to imply you were unintelligent for reverting the edits. In fact, this discussion was meant to expand on that - this issue deserves proper discussion, which was my intention here. It was in absolutely no way meant as a personal attack, or mean-spirited. I was hoping you'd have a good sense of humour about it, but I see I was mistaken, so I apologize.

It seemed clear that I, as well as others, wanted a change - but since you reverted them, it became clear to me the best way to resolve the issue was with a discussion. That's what this is for - absolutely not as a personal attack on you. --Willmolls 04:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay sorry. Thanks for clearing things up. — Selmo ^(talk) 15:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Box Photo Candidates

• 
  Candidate #1: Lovely picture of a T1 in Sheppard-Yonge station on the Sheppard line.
• 
  Candidate #2: A lovely route map of the system, in similar style to the map currently on the Moscow Metro article.
• 
  Candidate #3: My photo of a T1 in St. George station with the TTC logo visable.
• 
  Candidate #4: The current box picture.
• 
  Candidate #5: Previous box pic, deemed ugly by Selmo.

Candidate #1

I like this photo because everything is included in it. First of all, the train in the picture is the most current model in use, the T1. Secondly, it's at Sheppard-Yonge, a relatively new and clean station. Thirdly, a big plus is all the (modern and still fresh) TTC signage in the picture. Overall I find it aesthetically pleasing, and does a nice job of covering all the bases (with the exception of representing the RT).

• This one looks the most aesthetic and shows the most aspects of a subway. –Pomte 07:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• It's a crisp picture if nothing else, I vote for #1 Jack1254 12:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with the above two. Johnny Au 16:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Candidate #2

Given that the article covers not only the subway but the RT, a simple route map seems like a good comprimise that represents both systems in one box picture. The Moscow Metro article currently employs a map rather than a picture of it's trains. Further in the article, pictures of both the subway and the RT could be included.

Candidate #3

My photo. Less going on in this picture, and again, it's of the most current train in use right now, the T1. Open doors show both the interior of the train and the platform itself, although not as much of the platform is visible. A nifty bonus is the TTC logo on the train which is clearly visable in the picture.

Candidate #4

I really don't like this photo representing the system, but that's just me. Admittedly it's not that different from the others, but I find the others simply more aesthetically pleasing to the eye. The photo in the picture is of an older H-model train.

Candidate #5

Once the box pic but subsequently replaced. Selmo says it's ugly, I don't think it's that bad. It's of Bloor station, one of the busiest. Yet again (as it's on the Yonge line) it's of a T1. As well, the TTC logo is again visible on the train. In this photo we have a wider view of the platform, giving an overall better impression of what a Toronto subway train looks like.

Station pages

What do people think about consolidating the station pages (e.g. Finch (TTC) ) into pages such as "Stations on the Bloor-Danforth line"? A lot of the pages are one paragraph or less, and don't seem like there is much more that can be added. Jack1254 18:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That would definitely make them easier to maintain, especially when some upgrade info is copy pasted across several articles. Obviously the long articles would remain with a summary in the "Stations on the..." article. –Pomte 18:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Many stations have multiple paragraphs, like the Bay (TTC) station page, for instance. There are too many stations to put on just one page, even if they have only a paragraph or two to describe them. So I'm inclined to keep individual pages for each station, and expand them (yes it takes work, but a better product will be the benefit).--Abebenjoe 20:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I say keep them separate — it follows the precedent of most of the articles documenting the world’s railways. The stations are significant structures in their own right, and even if Wikipedia doesn’t have a great deal of information on many of them, that doesn’t mean that their isn’t more that could be said. Besides, if they were grouped by line, then how would we handle the stations that form junctions between two lines? David Arthur 21:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Stations are often important neighbourhood hubs and the pages often have interesting bits of information about entrances, design, history, future plans, and landmarks. The articles will be likely be developed in the future. For instance, look at the Spadina line station articles, which now have information about their architecture which was hard to find elsewhere. They're as valid as articles on neighbourhoods in the city. And it seems that every major city follows this convention A.Roz (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Excessive information

Well, I tried removing non-notable, trivial details from the article yesterday, but it was reverted because it does not violate the letter of the rules. I say it is irrelevant to the article, major news articles are only notable for a certain period of time. The chime information is more suitable for a travel guide, not an encyclopedia. The sign information in that depth of detail is not suited for Wikipedia. See WP:NOT#INFO. — Selmo ^(talk) 17:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I generally find Selmo tries to quote rules and regulations without reading them fully, and therefore attempts to sound authoritative, when the rule in question is not appropriate for the use that they ascribe to it. I probably wouldn't mind changes to some of the items Selmo mentioned, but it is their rationale that I find very problematic. Keep in mind, these aren't additions I contributed to this article, so I actually do not have a stake in them. I suggest that maybe the chime information is too detailed, but a mention of them should be in the article, because they are part of the subway's signaling system, which falls under its operations and procedures. However, only a brief mention is needed. I agree with Selmo that as it is currently written in the article, the paragraph is too long, hence too detailed. As well, mentioning the only child-birth to occur on a subway car, which paralysed the system for a significant period, does merit a line or two because it was a major news story for multiple days, hence that confers its notability. Maybe someone can rewrite it more concisely.--Abebenjoe 19:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Wrong Image

The image that accompanies the following text is from the NYC subway(see the map on the picture and read the sign on the floor at the lower left):

Toronto Transit Commission's Bay Lower Station, during the 2007 Doors Open Toronto festival. The station has been closed to the public since 1966. This view is looking westward from the Bay St. entrance.Notice the big 'Y' floor tile for Yorkville Station/Y junction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.175.236.10 (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The closed lower level of Bay station is frequently used in films set in New York, and so parts of the set stay up (notice, though, that one of the signs is just sitting on the floor). In the same photograph, you can see part of a TTC logo on the stopped train. Look at Image:Bay_Lower_Station_stairwell-Panorama.jpg for another view of the same scene. David Arthur 18:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Toronto subway and RT#Track gauge

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

Yonge extension

It seems [4] like a 6-station extension north from Finch to Richmond Hill is solidly into the planning phase. How heavily should we get into this? There are articles for all the proposed Spadina extension stations; do these deserve such coverage yet? Radagast (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Number of Lines/Stations

The Skytrain has a line listed as planned, why can't we have it here99.247.60.143 (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Although the Downtown Relief Line is currently under consideration, it has neither the government approval nor the specific plans that Vancouver's Evergreen Line has. No one has yet committed to building it, nor is it clear what route it would follow and how many stations it would have if they did. As for Transit City, it's a streetcar project. David Arthur (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Individual Station articles - a standard scheme for subsections

In editing individual station articles and adding details, I propose that a unified scheme of subsections be used with the following titles:

• Entrances
• History
• Architecture and art (or "Public Art" if no architectural info is available or necessary)
• Subway infrastructure in the vicinity
• Nearby Landmarks
• Surface connections
• Gallery
• References
• External links

Note that these subsections aren't necessary in every article and can be omitted as an editor sees fit. Unique sections can be used on a case by case basis. It's just a way of organizing article info in a unified way.

See Museum (TTC) for example. A.Roz (talk) 02:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

What about most of the Bloor-Danforth Line stations that have very much the same utilitarian architecture and design and vary only by the colour of the main and trim tiles, as well as the station name colour? Otherwise, this scheme is useful. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sections like "Architecture and art" can be omitted if there's no need for them, as I mentioned above. A.Roz (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Oddity at Kipling

Does anyone know what the deck on the south side of the upper level of Kipling station is for? The construction suggests it is for either a streetcar connection, or more likely given the timing, a LRT extension. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently that's where the 'Etobicoke RT' would have connected. Scroll to the bottom of this page for more. David Arthur (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Very cool, thanks for the link! Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Route map

On my screen, using Safari 4/Win (try it some time) the map is very large and covers part of the infobox. Is this just me? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

On mine (firefox) it's a big map but it doesn't cover any of the infobox. TastyCakes (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with TastyCakes. I also have Firefox. My recommendation is to use Firefox instead. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Picture in All the subway Stations articles

File:TTC Subway Sign.png

Can someone explain why this photo is being used to represent the system. The sign is only used at Dundas and Queen Stations in the Eaton Centre, and follows Eaton Centre Signage conventions. While it does include the TTC logo and the TTC subway graphic is is not a TTC branding format.Eja2k (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No idea, but this type of signage is also found in Osgoode station. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 14:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Where? That sign follows the sign formatting and branding standards of the Toronto Eaton Centre and Cadillac Fairview (Grey Background white lettering same font).

It might be something to have someone make a new graphic that follows the TTC's current "branding Standards" (if we can call them that) on black and have it so that B/D Line Stations have the little green stripe, YUS with the little yellow stripe, etc. 99.232.105.15 (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The image has now been mysteriously deleted by some guy that doesn't appear to even be living in Toronto or Canada. Looks like we need a new header image now :-S

eja2k 00:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The excuse was no evidence of permission from the TTC under WP:CSD#F11. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It was not my image, I didnt even like it, as I had mentioned before it wasn't even based on official TTC Signs it was based on signs used in Cadillac Fairview Locations such as the Eaton Centre. Either way I belive the image was created by someone based on there observations of such signs. I would still like to see something that more closely resembles the TTC signage convention with Black background ... White Lettering (preferably in the Toronto Subway Font - which is available online (I have it)) it would be nice to make info boxes for each line so that the headder image could have the line colour on top, and the word "SUBWAY" ... I may have time to make such a thing, we shall see...

eja2k 22:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just migrate the information to a regular Station infobox? I did some work to bring the TTC one to where it is, but I think it is probably time to become less parochial and standardize this information. Here is a quick mockup. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Eglinton
TTC Subway Station
File:TTC Eglinton - Digital Rendering.PNG
General information
Location	2190 Yonge Street
Coordinates	43°42′17.15″N 79°23′52.52″W
Line(s)	Yonge–University–Spadina
Platforms	centre
Construction
Structure type	underground
History
Opened	30 March 1954
Passengers
2008	60,814

The mockup headings should be the same colour as the subway line for unity purposes. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 20:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd personally prefer just a simple colored bar at the top ... with the name of the station in white on black lettering ... and then the rest of the box remaining the same throughout all lines, any chance we can make that happen?

eja2k 20:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Main Header white on black to match signage is now done. Section Headings are red for TTC. Subway Line colour will show in the succession box for that line, allowing for more than one line. See Union Station if you want to see this in action. More thoughts to come tomorrow - it's Saturday night. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

See below for template.Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Reorganization

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

"Largest System" vers. "longest system" Re: edits by 24.84.212.226

24.84.212.226 changed text in the article to indicate the ttc was the second largest system in Canada on the opening day of the new Canada Line on the Vancouver SkyTrain System. The SkyTrain now is the longest system (beating the TTC by a whopping .4 km of track). However ... the TTC subway system is still by no contest the largest system in Canada by number of stations, number of passengers carried, size of fleet (I could go on). For that reason the edit has been reversed. Eja2k (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It's impressive that Vancouver has built such a large system (though part of the reason is that it serves functions that in Toronto are covered by the main-line railways), but Toronto is far larger by every other measure, including capacity. David Arthur (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I consider ridership and capacity as a much more important measure of the size of a rapid transit system than length. For example, the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority may have a longer subway system than Toronto's, but Toronto's is much busier and has more stations, and thus, a higher capacity. Vancouver and Atlanta are both not as densely populated as Toronto, which would justify for their longer rapid transit systems. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 22:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Come to think of it, the Canada Line is single-track for the last kilometre or so in Richmond, and on the approach to the airport as well. So, with the line lengths so close together, the TTC probably still has slightly more track. David Arthur (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

What about the TTC's pocket tracks? There are a few, which would mean that the TTC has a longer total track length than the SkyTrain in Vancouver. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 18:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel like track kilometer-age is best reserved for running rail used for revenue service, the single direction stuff has merit and raises some questions. But counting pocket tracks, tail tracks, crossovers, and yard track is not really relevant as it doesn't really get the paying customer anywhere beyond where they could already go with in the system. How does the New York subway classify portions of track that are 4 tracks side by side (2 express 2 local) is that counted once or twice? Eja2k (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Those are counted once. Using that measure, Vancouver's SkyTrain is longer than the Toronto subway and RT by four hundred metres. Using total trackage, the TTC is longer. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 20:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Known Problems

All subways have their issues and the TTC's is no exception, however the problems of this subway system, physical ones not administrative, have not been documented anywhere on this page and I thought it a good idea to do. For example, documenting how some trains literally fly and even leave the tracks vertically between some stations, while at others they squeek and squeel and lightning bolts fly out. It's ridiculous and perhaps dangerous. This could be expanded with names of stations and better descriptions of phenomena.

The items you list as "problems" are more operational issues - if a train is going from a station slowly, perhaps there is a slow order/restricted speed zone or a work zone up ahead.

Arching (what you referred to as "lightning bolts" occurs regularly when the power rail ends - the collector shoes on the moving train loose contact with the end of the 3rd rail and an arch of power attempts to continue the circuit - this is normal - and not dangerous unless you are standing at track level directly beside the area.

Trains bunching is poor route management by the TCC - The TCC can try to turn back trains, hold trains etc to try to put the line back on time or "un-bunch it" so to speak. The problem is often that the TCC does not know how long a problem ie medical emergency or PAA will last, so they don't turn trains soon enough and bunching occurs. These issues occur on many systems not just the TTC. None of the issues you highlighted seem necessary enough to add into a Wikipedia article

eja2k 02:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Standard infobox

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

{{Infobox station 
| name          = 
| type          = TTC Subway Station
| style         = <!-- Line name or "TTC" -->
| image         = 
| image_size    = 
| image_caption = 
| address       = 
| coordinates   = 
| line          = <!-- {{rail color box| system=TTC| line=}} -->
| other         = 
| structure     = underground
| platform      =  
| depth         = 
| levels        = 
| tracks        = 
| parking       = 
| bicycle       = 
| baggage_check = 
| opened        = 
| closed        = 
| rebuilt       = 
| electrified   = 
| ADA           = <!-- "Accessible": If anything is entered an Icon is displayed. Do not enter NO etc. -->
| code          = 
| owned         = 
| zone          = 
| former        = 
| passengers    = <!-- copy existing template {{TTC ridership|name}} -->
| pass_year     = {{TTC ridership}}
| pass_percent  = 
| pass_system   = 
| mpassengers   = 
| services      =
{{s-rail|title=TTC}}
{{s-line|system=TTC|line=Yonge–University–Spadina|previous=|next=}}
{{s-line|system=TTC|line=Bloor–Danforth|previous=|next=}}
{{s-line|system=TTC|line=Scarborough RT|previous=|next=}}
{{s-line|system=TTC|line=Sheppard|previous=|next=}} 
}}

Looks much better than the old TTC infobox. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 15:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Daily ridership

The figure on this page was recently changed to 942,400, contradicting the numbers on the individual line pages: Yonge-Uni-Spadina @ 672,390; Bloor-Danforth @ 484,000...already over 1 million without including the other two lines. Alexcaban, are you sure the old ~1,200,000 number included buses and streetcars? Sprocket (talk) 05:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Well the TTC subway was used more often in the past so I'm guessing that the numbers for the Youge and Bloor line are a little out of date. According to the new source the Subway is used by only ~950,000 in the 1st Q of 2010 making the Montreal Metro the busiest in Canada. (Alexcaban) (talk) 18:26 EST July 8, 2010

Mmm! Have you been thinking about this for five months? The statistics are from different years and different sources, which also measure ridership in different ways. Secondarywaltz (talk)19:00 EST 8 July 2010

Check page 33 of the June 2010 APTA report, Heavy Rail (HR) average trips are 910,300, while the Light Rail (LR) 285,600 for a combined total of 1,195,900. I have no idea where the 950,000 comes from, as it is not supported by the report.--Abebenjoe (talk) 05:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah sure, but last time I checked the Streetcars are not part of your subway system so they have nothing to do with the numbers related to the subway and RT. So like I said before the ridership for the Subway and RT is ~950,000 (Alexcaban) (talk) 12:04 EST July 11, 2010

That is where you are wrong! The Spadina LRT runs underground, and is considered part of the subway, connecting at Union Station, with a second underground station on Lakeshore BLVD. Finally, it goes underground at Spadina Station.--Abebenjoe (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, did I mention we opened a new LRT or RT in the past six months, that the APTA accounts as LT, that is of course the St. Clair RT. This would mean that the TTC has a higher ridership than the Montreal Metro.--Abebenjoe (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact the HR and LT segmentation is a false argument, since the TTC uses a variety of rail transport that are part of its "Subway RT" as the title of the article suggests. No one would seriously suggest that Montreal has a larger subway rt than Toronto.--Abebenjoe (talk) 03:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Abebenjoe how exactly are you substantiating your claims that the Spadina and St. Clair Streetcars are somehow considered to be part of the subway? They are, and always have been run by Roncy/Russel STREETCAR divisional CIS, They have nothing to do with subway operations which run out of Wilson SUBWAY and Danforth Division and are controlled out of the Hilcrest Complex directly. The only thing i can think of that makes you suggest such misinformed allegations is that than that those two routes happen to have underground streetcar platforms to offload passengers into the subway system. Just because the streetcar runs underground or on a dedicated right of way does not make it a subway... please check your facts. eja2k 07:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is entitled "subway and RT", and the streetcars are termed RT by the TTC. Sprocket (talk) 05:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sprocket, please refer to the OFFICIAL TTC SERVICE SUMMARY and check your facts. The only routes refered to as "Rapid Transit" are routes 1 thru 4 (being the Y-U-S subway, B-D subway, Sheppard subway, and the SRT). Streetcar service is not considered to be "Rapid Transit" please also note my comment above about the operational differences between the Surface (bus/streetcar) routes and the Heavy Rail Rapid transit routes.

eja2k 07:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this page should be moved to an appropriate title

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move Kotniski (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Toronto subway and RT → Toronto Subway and RT — Since it is the official name of the system, each first letter should be capitalized in its name, just like all other city systems (such as, Montreal Metro, New York City Subway, etc.). EelamStyleZ (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

However, it is not the name of an organization. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 00:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That is indeed correct, but shouldn't the same be considered for other subway/metro systems around the world? "Toronto Subway and RT" I think is a proper noun given to the system by TTC, just like "Montreal Metro" and "New York City Subway". I believe TTC maps and publications given them capital initial names. EelamStyleZ (talk) 03:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose "Toronto Subway" is not a formal name, subway is to be left in lowercase.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Include transitcity and "lrt" streetcar lines 509, 510, 512.

Even though it isn't /isn't going to be "rapid", it is still classified by the ttc as rapid transit in official documents. The scarborough RT isn't techinaclly a subway, but it's included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.111.89.103 (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The difference here is the grade separation. The streetcar routes, as well as much of Transit City, are and will not be grade-separate. The Scarborough RT, however, is grade separated. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

What about Queens Quay-Ferry Docks station and the part of the Eglinton Crosstown LRT that is underground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.111.90.221 (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

They may be grade-separated, but the line that serves Queens Quay station is mostly not grade-separated and the outer sections of the Eglinton Crosstown LRT are generally not grade-separated. Thus, the Toronto subway and RT article only covers rapid transit lines that are completely grade-separated. Another thing, please sign your comments with ~~~~ at the end, as it is standard practice to do so, instead of SineBot having to do your work. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 22:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Names of TTC subway station articles

Wikipedia:WikiProject Toronto#Naming conventions says

• All TTC stations: as [[Spadina TTC station]]

So why are they all named such as Spadina (TTC)? And without even a redirect from Spadina TTC station or Spadina station or Spadina Station? Set theorist (talk) 10:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• I think that most members of WikiProject Toronto forgot to do that! Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 14:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This is probably because it takes too much work, given that there are approximately 75 articles in that format. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 00:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I sort of disagree with this naming convention. I don't think its appropriate to use abbreviations in article titles. Rather name them similar to London's stations (i.e. Union subway station) or that of NYC stations (i.e. Union (Toronto subway and RT). EelamStyleZ (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Once a naming/renaming convention or a list of possible redirects has been established I'd be happy to take on some of the workload of renaming, or redirecting alternate names. Just let me know when we have reached a consensus on how we wish to proceed. eja2k 21:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

We should discuss that in the WikiProject. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 23:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

What WikiProject? The naming convention was the standard when the articles were created, the thought being that this gives universal disambiguation and identification with the system. Look at articles suffixed with (C-Train), (ETS), (Los Angeles Metro station), (Montreal Metro), (Minsk Metro), (Rome Metro), (Rotterdam Metro), (Washington Metro), (Viva), and many more. There is no need to mess with these names, and redirects can be from anything else that could possibly be entered for a search. Secondarywaltz (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The WikiProject in question is WikiProject Toronto. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Official station webpage template

I've created a template that can be used to link official station pages to articles here. I've used it on Kennedy (TTC) as a start, hope someone can change it up for other stations too. Feel free to edit the template itself if anything's wrong or doesn't seem right. EelamStyleZ (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I have updated the majority of the articles with this new template, however station names with multiple words (ie. Royal York, or St. Clair West) do not work properly with the template. If written in plain text the template does not recognize any words after a space, and if one uses underscores between_the_words there does not appear to be anyway to eliminate them from the actual displayed text.eja2k 21:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up, I haven't thought about that. I'll work on that soon if possible. EelamStyleZ (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I've made a possibly temporary fix for it in the meantime. Underscores will have to be used when typing in the station name in the space. But I've made it display the page title on the actual link. So after a template is put up for say Royal York Station, on the template it would display up as "Royal York (TTC) Station". Hopefully someone who is more knowledgeable in this could get that fixed in a way that would take out the "(TTC)" part. Otherwise, in reference to the talk section above, we should rename all TTC station pages accordingly. EelamStyleZ (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC) I played with it a bit and came to perhaps another temporary solution. The template now has two input spaces, the first one should have underscores in multiple-word stations and the second one can have the station name in normal text without any underscores. That way, one space is for linking, the other is for the displaying. Unfortunately this would require changing up the station pages that already have the previous template, though. Sorry about that! EelamStyleZ (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

All articles now updated with the new template! eja2k 02:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Secondarywaltz (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I find it odd that this template is part of the GO Transit template category. Is there not a TTC template category? Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That would be "Category:TTC templates" - done. Secondarywaltz (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)