Re: Metro Re: buses or trams

[tksweden@newsguy.com (Tim Kynerd)]

Followups set.

In article <JYr9K6BVd9b2EwJe@geodeon.demon.co.uk>, Charles Norrie wrote:
>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 wrote:
>>
>>> >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.

Wasn't the City and South London several years old by that time?  Had it not
become 'significant' yet?

Also, Giovanni's point about 'metro' as a word for *systems* is very well
taken.  My understanding has always been that its use in this sense in other
languages is derived from French.

>
>>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.

And to an American, "subway" = "metro" = "underground railway" = "U-bahn" =
"tunnelbana."  What the British (I speak generically here) refer to as a
"subway" is called a "pedestrian underpass" in the US.

>>
>>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. 
>

You think the French borrowed the word "metropolitain" from English?  I'd
tend to doubt that.

>>
>>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.

I think Giovanni was referring to current practice.  In addition, Berlin
isn't all of Germany; as you may know, Hamburg still has a Hochbahn.

>>
>>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.

Again, I think Giovanni is referring to current practice.

>>
>>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.

Which part didn't you understand?  The part about how U-bahnen and S-bahnen
are differentiated in Germany, or the part about the Verkehrverbund
mechanism?  (Note:  serious question, not a flame. :-) )

>>
>>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.

Nor in Sweden.  Both the mainline railways and the Stockholm underground run
on the left.

-rest snipped-

-- 
Tim Kynerd   Sundbyberg (småstan i storstan), Sweden   tksweden@newsguy.com
-- Powered by S.u.S.E. Linux 5.2 until I can get a bigger hard drive and 
-- install 5.3....
-- "Can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding." -- TMBG