Re: Metro Re: buses or trams

[Charles Norrie <Charles@geodeon.demon.co.uk>]

In article <Pine.OSF.4.05.9812101020210.17902-100000@poseidon.ifctr.mi.c
nr.it>, Giovanni Drogo <drogo@rn.bastiani.it> writes
>On Mon, 7 Dec 1998, Charles Norrie wrote:
>> In article <366C431E.23E1@ichips.intel.com>, Greg Gritton
>
>> >Does "metro" have a more specific meaning in some region of the world?
>
>some considerations on the matter follows.
>
>> >on Paris's "metro".   I believe Paris was the original city to call 
>> >its heavy rail system the "Metro".
>
>I guess that's correct 
> 
>> That's as maybe. But the 'proper' name originally used was Metropolitan
>> (accented to choice). It is difficult to see how they were not
>> influenced by the Metropolitan and the Metropolitan District Railway in
>
>And I often wondered about that ... however in the case of London it was
>the name of a LINE, while in the case of Paris it was the name of a
>NETWORK.
>
Good point. But at the time Paris was beginning to set up the only
significant lines in London that were underground were the Met and M.D.

>A "subWAY" (or it's equivalent in any European language) will be either a
>pedestrian crossing under a road, or a road passing under another road.

Unless, of course, it's Glasgow.
>
>I believe the full term for Paris metro was "chemin de fer metropolitain",
>which is "metropolitan railway", where the term "metropolitan" comes from the
>greek "metropolis" ('mother city'), which commonly makes reference to a city
>with more than 1 million inhabitants.

I don't doubt the Greek derivation. What I do is that Paris got it
direct from the Greek.

If you looked in a trades directory in London at the end of the C19 you
would have found lots of things called Metroplitan from 'temples' to
insurance companies. 

>
>The word "metropolitan" gives more emphasis to this characteristics than to
>the fact it runs underground (as in the British expression "Underground" or
>in the German "U-Bahn - Untergrundbahn" which are equivalent to it). In fact
>at least in Paris there were elevated parts since very early, and in many
>places even an U-Bahn has stretches in open air.

I can give you chapter and verse from Alfred Gottwald, Das Berliner U-
und S-bahnnetz,  Argon, Berlin, 1994, ISBN 3-87024-284-1

This lovely book has lots of route maps for Berlin railways.

1896. S-bahn is the coss-city line (Grunewald to Ostbahn); the circular
line is known as the Nord and Sud rings.

1902 The line from Zoo south of Potsdamer and Anhalter bahnhofs across
Warschauerbrucke is called untergrundbahn when underground and Hochbahn
when it is above ground.

1923 Hoch- and untergrundbahn are undifferentiated.

1934 hochbahn not mentioned. Only U- and S- bahns mentioned.
>
>Another characteristics would be that a "metropolitan" is managed by a local
>or municipal transport agency, and not by the state (or by private companies),
>as it is the case for long distance railways.

Not true in the London case until 1933.
>
>This seems e.g. the major distinction between an U-bahn and an S-bahn in
>Germany (which however are lucky enough to have unified fares with the
>Verkehrverbund mechanism).

Sorry, I don't understand.
>
>Also concerning "heavy" and "light" rail, we do not make such distinction in
>such terms. One thing is "railway" (ferrovia) meaning the lines connecting
>cities or towns, independently of the rolling stock and gauge (also railways
>keep the left); another thing is "metropolitana" (which keeps the right). This
>is usually quite on the heavy side. 

A clar Paris distinction, but doesn't apply in Germany.

>
>
>A further consideration is that a "metropolitan" service is usually organized
>in distinct lines (typically each one has a number or name, and a colour code)
>eventually with branches, but with dedicated tracks or stations (or at least
>dedicated platforms in interchange stations).

Yup. But see debate on services versus routes. 
>
>

-- 
Charles Norrie