Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.13 $; site uiucdcs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!friedman
From: friedman@uiucdcs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.railroad
Subject: Re: Re: Subways of US and Canada - furth - (nf)
Message-ID: <20600012@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Jul-84 10:53:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.20600012
Posted: Thu Jul  5 10:53:00 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Jul-84 01:21:25 EDT
References: <963@dciem.UUCP>
Lines: 32
Nf-ID: #R:dciem:-96300:uiucdcs:20600012:000:1934
Nf-From: uiucdcs!friedman    Jul  5 09:53:00 1984

#R:dciem:-96300:uiucdcs:20600012:000:1934
uiucdcs!friedman    Jul  5 09:53:00 1984

Thanks to Mark Brader for the additional details on Toronto.  My information
is second hand.  As to "tunnel" vs. "subway", I don't know; I would not have
made such a distinction, but the information reported was supposedly supplied
by TTC, and either they or Mass Transit could have used such a distinction
without my realizing it.

I would only quarrel with the statement that TTC's streetcar system is the
last such on the continent.  It is a very good one, and perhaps the most
extensive surviving streetcar system.  Mexico City also has a good one (I
limited my article to USA and Canada, but Mexico is on this continent).
And at least Philadelphia (10 routes) and San Francisco (5 routes) still
include enough routes to merit the (subjective) noun "system" (as opposed
to a one-route remnant, such as New Orleans) with significant amounts of
street running.

As to trolley poles vs. pantographs:  I suspect that the real reason that
trolley poles are going the way of the dinosaur, in favor of half-pantographs,
is that a pantograph (or half) can't slip off the wire, as a trolley pole can.
Junctions are also simpler, requiring no frog (that "thing" in the overhead
that connects one wire from one direction to either of two from the other
direction).  I have seen a picture of an LRV of the San Francisco/Boston type
(Boeing made) equipped with a trolley pole, but only for testing purposes on
a system whose overhead at the time (I think it was Boston's) would not
accept a pantograph.  Obviously, if SF had wanted to, they could have used
trolley poles on their LRVs, but I think the problem of losing the pole while
in the subway probably made the difference.  You're right, though, about the
problem of crossing a pantograph line with a trolley coach dual-wire line;
I can't think of any way to equip a TC with pantographs!  I'm not sure of this,
but I'll stick my neck out:  I think SF may in fact have no such crossings.