Talk:Toronto streetcar system/Archive 1

Archive 1

Links

It is not necessary or advisable to link every instance of the same word or phrase.

Please review the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links), in particular, the part where it says:

do not make too many links. An article may be considered overlinked if any of the following is true:

10% of the words are contained in links

it has more links than lines

a link is repeated within the same screen (40 lines perhaps)

The last line in particlar relates to the list in this article. Thanks. Ground Zero 14:27, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Route map

Greetings! I've taken the liberty of creating and adding a streetcar route map, based somewhat on the current TTC subway/RT map and its 'future' cousin I created. Thoughts? Enjoy! E Pluribus Anthony 17:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks nice! The one thing I would suggest is to have separate colours for north-south and east-west lines; as it is, it's hard to tell the lines apart. David Arthur 18:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey there; thanks for the praise and comments. I thought about doing that; however, I'm remiss about colourising the lines: other colours in the maps we've done have an 'official' connotation/basis (i.e., current system usage), with red representing surface routes, and I would not want to cause a visitor to make such an inference (I know: I can be picky ;)). I also think that the route numbers (which I've placed at route termini) will be sufficient. I'm also hopeful to create some maps for individual streetcar routes, and I think those will be wholly clear: they will exhibit only the line in question and cross-connections with others.

Perhaps we can add arrows to some of the lines, particularly where they overlap or converge? The only other thing I can think of doing is to make it bigger, where users can clearly discern different lines (but to still constrain it within the article). Thoughts? E Pluribus Anthony 19:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd say at least a slightly different shade of red - I'm sure there's one somewhere in the TTC's colours :). I think it would be much more useful; at the moment it just has a tendency to meld into one huge blob of red lines. David Arthur 20:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I know ... the blob is not desirable; I'll see what I can do. :) Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 22:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

One point - this is a subway map, not as you say, a 'streetcar' map. ?

Tramway Abandonment

"After World War II, the TTC began plans to eliminate all streetcar routes. During the 1960s and 1970s, in part because subway development was thought to eliminate the need for them, but this policy was dropped in the face of widespread community opposition by citizens' groups who succeeded in persuading the TTC of the advantages of streetcars over buses on heavily-travelled main routes."

I gather that had the policy been dropped earlier, the "streetcar" (tramway) system in Toronto would be the largest survivor in the English speaking world.144.139.87.133Febuary 2006

Manual of Style fixes

I made the following tweaks per MOS:NUM: km to kilometres, metric first in track gauge section (it was also internally inconsistent). Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 06:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Network size

Excuse me, but the figure of 305.8 km/190 miles of tramway has to be wrong! Even counting by routes, including shared track once again for each route, those would average 27 km/17 miles in length.

Praeterea, I like finding an exhaustive article! /Keinstein 17:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Dundas and Howard Park yard

I saw a photo of the old streetcar yards at Howard Park and Dundas West in the Toronto Reference Library a while back - why is there no mention of it here?

Also, in the "loop" section it seems that the Dundas/College/Lansdowne loop has been omitted, a loop which is getting substantial use lately due to the track repairs on Dundas... Canada Jack 04:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only person to have heard of the Howard Park/Dundas yards? I find that hard to believe... AS for the Lansdowne / Dundas loop, I thought that perhaps because the section head says "off-street loops" that that is the reason for the omission, yet the Charlotte loop is included. Seems to me to be an odd omission. Canada Jack 16:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Found an article about the Howard Park yard...

Finally, Dundas Carhouse leaves only a few traces. Located on the triangular plot at Howard Park & Dundas, the yard was entered from Ritchie Avenue to the north. Until its most recent reconstruction, that intersection included an east-to-north curve, one last reminder of the carhouse (a runaround track) that was often used by railfan charters. The track is gone, but the overhead curve remains above the street.

If you pull up the Google satellite view of this area (or visit it yourself), you will see that Ritchie is wider for about half its length west of Dundas. This is due to the former presence of the ladder track for the carhouse. Indeed, the keen-eyed can spot locations around the city with short sections of a wide side-street that once held a wye terminal or short turn for a streetcar line. [1]

Perhaps someone with more specific details on dates (opening and closing) can add this to the defunct yards list.Canada Jack 20:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Looked at the map added as reference to the "loop" section and the College loop is quite clearly indicated. I therefore added it to the list. It may be unique (outside of streetcar yards) as two streetcar routes can use it, entering the loop at different locations: College streetcar travels College, left onto Dundas, left onto Lansdowne, right onto College; Dundas streetcars travels Dundas, right on Lansdowne, left on College, left on Dundas. Just thought you all would like to know... Canada Jack 20:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Number of stations

This page said that the streetcar network has 1 station, plus 6 shared with the subway. However, there are 8 stations shared with the subway (St Clair, St Clair W, Dundas W, Bathurst, Spadina, Broadview, Main St, Union), so I corrected this. Also, shouldn't Exhibition count as a station (making the total 2 plus 8)? It's debatable anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.174.61 (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Picture at top

I have replaced the top picture showing only an CLRV with a combination of two pics showing an ALRV and a CLRV, because both types of cars are representative of the system (vehicles used on the 501 and 502, and then those used elsewhere). --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting ridership data

Why does this page give ridership as 328,700 while this page gives it as 246,700? The latter number seems to come from here, it's unclear where the 328k number comes from... TastyCakes (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup and references

The article is a bit of a mess, there is a lot of unreferenced/uncited material that needs to be verified. (Some of it I believe to be true as I have read it in other sources - some of it that may be false or speculation). Either way the article needs a good once over to verify cite, and remove uncited materials.

Eja2k (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

11 lines and 1 station???

How is that possible? Someone should change that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.48.64 (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No, that's quite correct: it's a question of 'station' v. 'stop'. For the most part, Toronto's streetcars make frequent stops along the street, just like buses; at most, these stops consist of a bus shelter, and many are nothing more than a sign on a pole.

Beyond that, there are stops located at the off-street loops where the streetcars turn around, and a few places where they enter a subway station. Queen's Quay-Ferry Docks, however, is the only full-scale station dedicated exclusively to the streetcars. David Arthur (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Describing a streetcar system, it is a nonsense to count the offroad stations, only. Perhaps, somebody more envolved than me can study TTC's website at greater length than me and count all tram stops.--Ulamm (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be next to pointless, in my mind, as many of them are simply signs on a pole. Right now QQ/FD is the only offroad enclosed facility that only serves streetcars, so it's the only one mentioned.

Transit City will likely change this, particularly with the underground sections on Eglinton, etc. Until those are built, I think the current description is fine.

System length

Where does the 305.8 km system length number come from? The number is unreferenced, and if you add up all eleven routes, they come out to just a bit over 100 km. There are many bits of track that aren't used by any numbered route, but certainly not twice as much than is in the system itself. - SimonP (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps someone counted unidirectionally? At any rate, a referenced source would be great here, agreed. Radagast (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is probably what the number describes. 305.8 km of track is reasonable, but that can't be considered the system length. For the subway we certainly don't consider both directions of track in the length number. I've pulled the number from the info box and the intro until it can be reffed or replaced with an accurate number. - SimonP (talk) 13:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree; they seem to have counted every piece of steel rail in the ground. But c'mon! It's really not that hard to go the TTC website to verify the number. They say that their total for streetcar routes length "includes round trip length of routes and their branches along shared roadways". I've fixed the infobox. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Way too much unencyclopedic trivia

I would Ike to second the need for more references in this article, as was mentioned above. But I also want to say that there's way too much fluff that runs afoul of WP:NOT, namely the not a guide portion. Honestly, the disposition of the former TTC PCCs is more appropriate for a railfan guide or TTC fan page than for an encyclopedia. The article can really use some trimming. oknazevad (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your concerns regarding the long lists of trivia ... as a compromise for those who may still want it here ... I will move the PCC roster stuff to the PCC article ... and leave it for someone else to decide if it is relevant enough to keep... I will also try and do some general cleanup of the article eja2k 21:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Added tag. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 00:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The tag was removed. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010 rename

I'm sorry, but this was a lousy rename and should be reverted to Toronto streetcar system. This article covers more thatn just the vehicles (which is what is implied by using a plaural noun), it covers every aspect of the system and that should be reflected in the title. A plaural noun shouldn't be used to title an article on a singular whole. If that makes this title inconsistant with other articles on streetcar systems, then that convention needs re-examining, stat, as it falls under the same issue of lousy naming. oknazevad (talk) 05:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

AGREE as stated above, the article covers the entire system, from tracks, to overhead and everything in between.eja2k 05:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree as well This article is more than just streetcars and the contributor who moved the page did not have a consensus to move in the first place. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 15:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment The editor in question moved several articles that were ok/status quo to titles that make little sense or misrepresent the article. See as an example ICTS (Toronto SRT car) → ICTS (Toronto LRT car) the SRT is not an LRV it is Intermediate Capacity hence the ICTS trains that run on it (the TTC considers it "Rapid Transit" not "Light Rail" and that's just one bad rename example apparently the PCCs were called LRV's years before the term was coined... pretty sure everyone knew them as Streetcars eja2k 16:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Can I move this article back to Toronto streetcar system, since we got consensus? Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think so.oknazevad (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The page cannot be moved back to "Toronto streetcar system" since the page is already taken. An administrator must delete the page that occupies "Toronto streetcar system" before it can be moved back. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Disagree and comment: Good thing I saw this. First of all, my apologies for not clearing this up earlier. "Toronto streetcar system" is not a widely used name, it is rather a description of the network. Wouldn't other TTC services have to be named as (example) "Toronto bus system" and "Toronto subway and RT system?" The use of the word system I feel is inappropriate, though yes this article is about the entire system/network. I suggest this page be moved to Toronto Transit Commission streetcars. A simplistic title such as that can cover the network, the vehicles, and all other aspects related. I recently moved Toronto buses to Toronto Transit Commission buses, (again I apologize for not making consensus for it) which follows a similar naming convention to other systems (eg. New York City Transit buses). Streetcars and buses belong to the TTC and should be named under one name. EelamStyleZ (talk) 07:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Titles are meant to be descriptive, and "Toronto streetcar system" is the best descriptor of the whole network, which is the subject of the article. And "New York City Transit Buses" is actually the proper name (it is whats painted on the side of the bus itself), so its a poor comparison. (And, frankly, I don't know why the word "buses" in the NYC article is not capitalized; probably someone moved it thinking that it wasn't a proper noun. but I digress.)oknazevad (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I see. But I still think that it would be aesthetically beneficial if TTC services followed a similar naming convention (maybe with the exception of the subway). TTC maps term streetcar service as "TTC Streetcar" or "TTC Streetcar Rapid Transit." If the article is moved to "Toronto streetcar system," what would the Toronto buses page be named as? EelamStyleZ (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

"Toronto buses" is fine or "Toronto Transit Commission buses" if the scope of the article is limited to TTC ops. The difference is that the bus article describes the buses and their operations (i.e. routes), but not the physical characteristics and history of the roads they drive on, as those roads aren't exclusive to the buses. This contrasts with the streetcar article, which covers, in great detail, the tracks, which constitute an exclusive, fixed guideway. In short, rail transport is different because of the sunk, fixed nature of the infrastructure. There's volumes written on the advantages and disadvantages of that, but regardless, that's why rail transportation is inherently a system, and should be called such. oknazevad (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I can agree with this. A few other systems in North America seem to have the term "system" in their name (although it is capitalized, as they are proper nouns). But as of now I guess I can't object reverting back to "Toronto streetcar system." This would be easier if the TTC applied names to each of their services (eg. London Buses, Vancouver SkyTrain, etc.). EelamStyleZ (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

TTC ETS Trolley Bus

this can possibly be merged into the article on the system, but it may take an expert--I do not myself see where it would fit exactly. DGG ( talk ) 09:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Disagree - Should be part of the bus/trolley bus system articles if anything, or just killed all together. Articles for specific vehicles built for the commission CLRV, ALRV, subway fleet etc. make sense ... but trolley buses that were shelf models and leased from Edmonton don't really need a special article ... in fact one could roll the technical info into the GM bus article if its not already there. eja2k 16:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Against. Agree with eja2k, these trolley buses have nothing to do with the streetcar system, and the article should be most likely be merged with the bus sytem article, if not deleted.oknazevad (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Wrong article: Merge this article with Toronto Transit Commission bus fleet. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 22:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Missing history

Toronto's streetcars are definitely part of its culture. So it surprised me that about 60 years of history was missing from the "history" section. I've pieced a little together. It's slightly modified copied material from the Toronto Street Railway and Toronto Railway Company articles. But there have to be more interesting details from the true early period to mention. I hope others can help to better fill this gap. A.Roz (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Rolling Stock

Toronto had a few Birney Safety cars before the Peter Witts. I think they were all sold off to Halifax. Why no mention of this rolling stock.

There are also works cars as well as the open air cars and some other unusual rolling stock, much of it preserved at the Halton Transit Museum. 173.52.10.4 (talk) 02:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

This question would best be posed at Talk:Toronto streetcar system rolling stock (but that needs a complete overhaul). Useddenim (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Gauge

According to James Bow the 1861 agreement between the city and the railway includes this statement:

That the gauge of the said railways shall be such that the ordinary vehicles now in use may travel on the said tracks, and that it shall and may be lawful to and for all and every person and persons whatsoever to travel upon and use the said tracks with their vehicles loaded or empty, when and so often as they may please, provided they do not impede or interfere with the cars of the party of the second part (Toronto Street Railway), running thereon, and subject at all times to the right of the said party of the second part, his executors, and administrators and assigns to keep the said tracks with his and their cars, when meeting or overtaking any other vehicle thereon.

Does anyone have any evidence to admit to the contrary? If not, it seems the article should be modified to state that the reason was wagons, and that the other reasons are apocryphal. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

As there were no comments, and the evidence seems overwhelming, I have re-written the gauge section to include this information. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

contradictory claims

So it says, in the 1860's , there was no such thing as "standard" railway gauge, so they just made one up. [ this is a rather dubious claim - "standard gauge" was already becoming pre-eminent ].

And then in the next paragraph, it claims that horse carts and buggies used the standard gauge, so they would fit between the rails in Toronto. This is even more dubious! Why would the myriad builders of horse carts and buggies use a standard gauge, when even railways ( which had obviously operational necessities) did not ? ( supposedly ).Eregli bob (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

explanation

I added some missing wikilinks, and added some links to articles that I think should exist. I would appreciate it if those red-links weren't immediately deleted or redirected. Geo Swan (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Track gauge redux

The Toronto streetcar system#Track gauge section currently starts ″TTC streetcars/LRT uses two different track gauges:″ Should the LRT be conflated with streetcars? I don't think so.

The main reason the LRT will use standard gauge as opposed to the TTC gauge is that the LRT will remain the property of Metrolinx. By using standard gauge Metrolinx retains the flexibility to move rolling stock to or from Toronto and the other LRT systems Metrolinx plans to build in Hamilton, Kitchener, or Mississauga.

The LRT will use Flexity Freedom vehicles. They are similar to the Flexity Outlook Toronto vehicles the TTC owns outright, and will use on its legacy streetcar routes. It is not the minor differences that matter, it is their different intended purposes that matter.

I think this section should be rewritten. Geo Swan (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

That opening statement is redundant to what is in the rest of the paragraph. I have simply removed it. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Good. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Gauge definition

Clearly the rail gauge 4 ft 10+7⁄8 in (1,495 mm) is unique worldwide, and so it can be named "Toronto gauge" without confusion. {{RailGauge}} accepptes "Toronto"/"Toronto gauge", and returns the imperial size: 4 ft 10+7⁄8 in (1,495 mm) Toronto gauge.

I'd like to know whether the gauge has ever defined in metric. That would be 1495 mm then. For example, in orders after the start of metrication of Canada. Any source? (If not, the input option for {RailGauge} "1495 mm" will be removed). -DePiep (talk) 10:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Uh oh -- original research

The article has a long -- and unreferenced -- explanation for why the TTC did not use standard gauge. It says in part:

As the decision was made well over a century ago, and the companies involved no longer exist, a number of apocryphal stories have evolved over the years to explain the odd gauge. One belief, sometimes quoted by the TTC themselves, is that the City of Toronto feared that the street railway franchise operator, first in 1861, the Toronto Street Railway, then in 1891, the Toronto Railway Company, and in 1921, the TTC, would allow the operation of steam locomotives and freight trains through city streets, as was common practice in Hamilton, Ontario (until the 1950s) and in many US cities, such as New York City and Syracuse, New York.

This unreferenced explanation looks like a big lapse from WP:No original research to me. The article calls the standard explanation "apocryphal". Well, that standard explanation is referenced. Even if we somehow knew the unreferenced explanation currently offered here were correct compliance with OR requires it to be removed and replaced with what reliable sources say. WP:VER says "verifiability, not truth".

Personally, I am highly skeptical of the claim asserted here, as I have read in the early history of some US radial lines that they made the same decision to use non-standard gauges for the same "apocryphal" reason the article currently discounts.

If no references for this non-standard explanation is provided, in a reasonable period of time, the entire several paragraphs should be struck, as OR. Geo Swan (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

According to the TTC's official history,

To avoid the difficulty and expense of having vehicles travel on the right-of-way with one wheel on a rail and the other making a rut close to the opposite rail, the gauge adopted was that of the English wagon track—4 feet 10⅞ inches.^{Wheels of Progress (5 ed.). Toronto: Toronto Transportation Commission. 1953. p. 5.}

As noted above, I checked my 5th edition copy, but the same text was in the original, 1942 edition. Useddenim (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Steve Munro said the same thing. Perhaps he too has the official history book as well. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 16:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised if he didn't. He's been in this game a lot longer than I have, and I can remember riding Air-Electric PCCs (4000–4299). Useddenim (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

LRT creep

I'm finding in many places aspects of the LRT lines (Eglinton Crosstown, Finch West, Sheppard East) slipping into this article - overly involved discussion of the Flexity Outlook, inclusion of their carhouses, etc. I intend to start clearing off these details as those standard-gauge, separated-ROW lines are clearly not associated with the Toronto-gauge, mainly-mixed-traffic system covered by this article. Any objections? Radagast (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe that the article should be split: streetcar/LRT lines that use the Toronto gauge remain in the article, while a new article could be created for LRT lines that use standard gauge, perhaps re-using Transit City but renamed. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Based on the numbering and naming conventions we've seen so far, it's looking like the LRT lines will be lumped in with 'Rapid Transit' like the subways and RT currently are. Not sure if the LRTs should get their own article, or be included in the (already openly-named) Toronto rapid transit article. Radagast (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I would go with four articles: subway/RT, LRT, streetcars, buses. There's enough material. Ground Zero | t 17:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

As I see it the problem is that anonymous IPs keep adding overly complex duplicate information to many TTC articles. That detail about the line, vehicle or POP should only be simply outlined outside the main articles. Streetcars have frequent stops whereas stations on the LRT lines are farther apart and the TTC seem to consider them part of the rapid transit system. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

That's what "undo" is for. I have seen the curfting going on too, and am fairly aggressive about using undo. Ground Zero | t 22:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the LRT stuff would go into the rapid transit article (until it becomes too unwieldy) (and undo any duplicate information from anon users and new users; remember not to bite the newcomers). Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Most of it has been done by me just now; please feel free to indicate (or remove yourself!) any other areas of concern. Radagast (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Updated map needed

So Toronto_2011_wiki.jpg is already out of date in that it lacks the Leslie Barns and associated trackage, plus the new Cherry Street streetcar line; but this will reach critical mass when the 514 Cherry launches in June.

It looks like a master vector file exists for this and should be able to be updated. Does anyone know of its source and/or have the vector skills to update it? Radagast (talk) 04:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't forget that 508 Lake Shore is defunct. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 12:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Steve Munro

173.230.176.176 states that, “Munro's expertise is IT, he does maintain a transit blog but that's an amateur blog and he has never worked in the transit industry, there is a deliberate attempt to promote him as an expert on Wikipedia”. If (s)he bothered to even look at Munro’s Wikipedia entry, they would see that that’s hardly the case. He has been a transit advocate for over 30 years, and has appeared before countless TTC meetings, government commissions, etc. over the years. Useddenim (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

There's no doubt that Munro is an effective advocate, but that is not the same thing as a subject matter expert...the opposite, in some cases, since practical politics often suggests downplaying inconvenient facts.

If you stand near track engineers while Mr Munro holds forth on track ballast, for instance, you'll hear winces, snorts, chortles, guffaws, and chuckles, not murmured approval, unless the TTC does actually hire the sorta defective who doesn't know the difference between crushed stone and gravel. Anmccaff (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Split the difference and call him “knowledgeable”? Useddenim (talk) 03:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

He would seem a good deal more knowledgeable on this subject if there were -any- other cites for his contention. Many of the few book cites I've seen involved "loading gauge", not "wheel gauge", and several involved "carriages" in the more equine sense. Take a look if you get a chance. Anmccaff (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

PS: take a gander at this. Anmccaff (talk) 07:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay; so you’ve found a reference to cite that the TTC is not standard gauge. We all knew that. Useddenim (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, no. Perhaps you should take a little more than a mere gander, and go for the full gaggle. To begin with, it explicitly states (p 87) that England uses a wide range of wagon/carriage gauges, from 3'8" to 5 feet.., i.e., there is no single "English Carriage gauge". (A good many other references, however, center on the standard Stephenson adopted, for ordinary wagons and carriages, as well as those on flanged wheels, as the "English gauge".) This cite also covers in some detail all of the ins-and-outs of why road vehicles often had to have a standard gauge, and how widely they varied from place to place. Here is another example of this. Note that Canada, much of it as surely "English" as Trono, runs the gamut down to 3'6", up to 4' 10.5"(sic), but that the standard was...standard gauge, except where widened for heavier vehicles, "same as in England." Anmccaff (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

You're drifting off into WP:OR, but that's a different issue. I was just reacting to the wholesale dismissal of Mr. Munro. However, in this instance you've adequately made the point that he cannot be considered an WP:RS with respect to TTC gauge. Useddenim (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Flexity Outlook (Toronto streetcar)

173.230.176.176 has made a similar mod in article Flexity Outlook (Toronto streetcar) saying "once again Munro does NOT decide the rollout schedule as Munro does not work for the TTC, Munro simply reports on some of the TTC's plans; there is a deliberate attempt to promote Munro as an authority on transit". I attributed information and an opinion to Steve Munro. (The opinion was an estimate as to when 514 would fully convert to Flexitycars.) 173.230.176.176 replaced Munro's name and incorrectly attributed the information directly to the TTC. As far as I know, the TTC has made no announcement as to the revised rollout. 173.230.176.176 has backed out the attribution twice. What should be done? TheTrolleyPole (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC) @Johnny Au and Useddenim: Re: 173.230.176.176 mods. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheTrolleyPole: Ask an admin to block 173.230.176.176 for disruptive editing and WP:POV-pushing. Useddenim (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Go right ahead, @TheTrolleyPole: just go to WP:AIV and write a short report. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

504A/504B unfinished details

@Johnny Au and Joeyconnick: Please comment on a proposed change. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

There are still 3 outstanding items with respect to 504 King after the demise of 514 Cherry:

1. The Wikipedia streetcar system map is out of date as it shows 514 but not 504A and 504B. It's creator Craftwerker no longer appears to be active. I lack the skills to update it.
2. The 504 King schema is out-of-date by two generations: It mentions neither 514 nor 504A/504B. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
3. The length of 504 King is longer than 13.97 km because of the addition of two branches to Dufferin Gate Loop and Distillery Loop.

For the first point, I did a makeshift change by commenting out the out-of-date map and replacing it by an external link to a map on the TTC site. An alternative would have been to describe in words the changes to the out-of-date map as a long caption. The commented out caption ("Of the 11 regular routes, the newest – 514 Cherry – became operational in June 2016, but was discontinued in October 2018.") seems inadequate.

For the second point, is there a volunteer? I have only rudementary experience with schema templates. If there are no volunteers, I could attempt to update later in the winter.

For the third point, there are 4 options to express the length of 504 King:

1. Omit the 2 branches (Dufferin Gate and Distillery) from the length, thus leaving the length unchanged.
2. Show the sum of the lengths of 504A and 504B, thus double-counting the downtown overlap.
3. Show the lengths of 504A and 504B separately, showing each with a separate length, as if they were separate routes (which effectively they are).
4. Sum up the 5 segments of route 504 (west of Dufferin, Dufferin Street branch, downtown, Sumach/Cherry branch (800 metres), east of Sumach). I could compute this from TTC service summary data.

TTC service summaries give round-trip route lengths in kilometres to 2-decimal accuracy for each route or sub-route (i.e. 504A, 504B). If we pick option 4, we would need to show 1-decimal accuracy.

So how to proceed? TheTrolleyPole (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• I had nothing to do with this. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oops. Sorry, my error. It appears there are a number of users (User:Useddenim User:Reaperexpress) who have modified the Template:504 King.
• I say go with option 3 for the route length - they are, properly, two routes. Radagast (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with Radagast about how to report the lengths... list the 504A length and the 504B length separately. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I too agree with Radagast and Joeyconnick. It's the fairest way to measure the length of the two branches and they are effectively two separate routes. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
• I made the 504A/504B branch length changes to this article as well as 504 King. The TTC service summary does give round-trip lengths to 2-decimal accuracy, which I divided by 2. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Re: point 2; Template:504 King has been updated. Useddenim (talk) 02:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Streetcar route templates: proposed change

So I've been toying with this for a while and nearly went BOLDly ahead and did it... but I figured it's a big enough change that it warrants some discussion beforehand.

I'd like us to remove the bus route transfers from the streetcar route diagrms. Here's my reasoning:

• The subway route diagrams don't include bus route transfers available at each station.
• Bus routes are far more likely to be changed than either streetcar routes or subway routes, meaning there's a lot more chance for inaccuracies to creep in and a lot more maintenance work required to keep this type of diagram up to date.

The immediate benefit of this is a lot less clutter in all the diagrams, most of which are prodigiously wider than the average route diagram, with nearly all the width owing to the inclusion of three or more bus routes where streetcar routes intersect subway stations. But beyond the aesthetic benefit, it would make the diagrams easier for readers to skim/parse and, again, work to ensure they are more likely to be accurate and less likely to require frequent updating.

Thoughts/concerns? —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• COMMENT without prejudice: Subways interchanges at stations which list the routes, while streetcars interchange on the street. Secondarywaltz (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• I feel streetcars and buses have an affinity in being surface routes, and that these indicators are useful in that respect. Radagast (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• Given that intersecting streetcar routes remain included, I suspect that excluding bus routes won't help the template width problem by much. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 14:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• Streetcar routes do change over time as well, not as drastic as bus route changes, but can be drastic, especially if no one is around to maintain them on a timely manner. Construction, maintenance, and special events can modify streetcar routes in a whim and sometimes last for a few months. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 14:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone's thoughtful comments. I'll reply in order:

1. That's a good point re: subways having station articles that list bus routes. Still, we aren't the TTC website, so I don't feel like listing every possible connection of the TTC system is either required or desired, as per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. While I've seen people go a bit overboard with using that policy to call for the deletion of a lot of transit-related articles, I think a balanced approach would be something like this proposal, which is to say including major connections like stations but not every possible one, like buses.
2. I don't disagree that the bus indicators can be useful, but are they useful enough to counterbalance the clutter they create and the work they require to keep accurate? I would argue no. Furthermore, do people come to Wikipedia expecting to see a duplicate of all the info available from the TTC? I would hope not. That's why the TTC has system maps and their own detailed information on where you can transfer to and from what.
3. With respect to the intersecting streetcar routes potentially keeping the width of the templates high, I assume you mean like in the 504B template where all this: Dundas Street 505 to Dundas West station is on one line? That extra and smaller destination text is not included in all templates where streetcar routes intersect (not even consistently in the 504 template; c.f. Spadina Avenue) and I say we either consistently drop it across all streetcar templates (again, in the name of keeping the diagrams simple and compact) or we rework the diagrams so that the destination text is on a separate line, like on {{509 Harbourfront}} where 510 to Spadina station is below "Lower Spadina Avenue". This would obviously lengthen some of the templates a bit but it would keep them narrow(er), and since their primary orientation is vertical, I don't think the extra length is problematic. I'm just not quite good enough with the routemap stuff to do all that myself (easily) but it can obviously be done.
4. Finally, with respect to streetcar routes changing, yes, sure, obviously the 514 and 504 recently did change; I'm not claiming they never do. But the likelihood of them changing vs. a bus being rerouted is an order of magnitude less likely and often a lot harder to pull off, especially given that a lot of streetcar route changes require infrastructure changes (i.e. digging up the road, laying track, etc.) which means those changes usually have far more lead time and publicity, which means far more chance that information will be updated.

Those are my thoughts in reply. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Promoting the article to Good article

It would be great if this article could become a good article. There is so much potential in that it's well written and well sourced. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Radius of curvature

A curve along the streetcar track. The TTC's unique track gauge allows for wider curves when compared to standard gauge.

The minimum railway curve radius, which is 36 feet 0 inches (10.973 m) in this case, and the radius of curvature are totally independent of the track gauge. Peter Horn User talk 13:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick: Consequently I removed the statement ‘’The TTC's unique track gauge allows for wider curves when compared to standard gauge’’ from from the image in that section as being meaningless. Peter Horn User talk 15:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Significant ridership decrease

Hey Blaixx, any idea what the cause of the huge decrease seen in these updated figures is? Is APTA counting things in a different way or is it only counting trips on actual streetcars and not replacement buses somehow? 1/3 of the ridership evaporating from 2016 to 2018 seems pretty dramatic. 😮 —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Joeyconnick yeah, I was surprised by the numbers as well but they seem to be correct. My best guesses are the same as yours: either something to do with the replacement buses, or some new counting method. From the same source, subway ridership is way up – maybe a subway + streetcar ride with transfer only counts as subway for some reason? BLAIXX 22:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmmn... yeah that sounds plausible. Oh... weird: they are blaming Presto:

Ridership has also been impacted because more people have adopted Presto cards – from around 46 per cent in December 2018 to almost 81 per cent of riders in April 2019. That translates into more than 220,000 unique Presto cards using the system in the first quarter of 2019.

With more people making the switch, about 28 per cent of people who were buying monthly passes have now moved over to Presto's pay-as-you-go option each month in 2019. The report suggests these customers likely ride the TTC less often than the monthly average of 71 rides per adult monthly pass.

and severe weather. From here. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

...and according to the link, increased sexual assaults. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 12:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Something is definitely not right... Here is the data for Q1 2019 from APTA. Here is the "light rail" ridership each month from October 2018 to March 2019 in millions: 5.612, 5.605, 4.935, 11.936, 11.576, 14.530. Did ridership really triple from December to March? BLAIXX 12:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

That is a good question. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Info in wrong template

pantograph This info does not belong in this template but rather in Template:Infobox train. If this info really needs to be here, then add an additional field in this template Peter Horn User talk 02:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Track gauge

Proposal

I propose splitting the section Toronto streetcar system#Track gauge into the existing article called 1495 mm gauge railways. (I am not particularly keen on the article's name; I would have preferred either "TTC gauge" or "Toronto gauge" since the gauge is peculiar to the GTA, in particular to Toronto. Should we rename it? Note: The template {{RailGauge|toronto|lk=on|al=on}} generates the text "4 ft 10+7⁄8 in (1,495 mm) Toronto gauge" with a link to 1495 mm gauge railways.) The redirects TTC gauge would be modified to point to 1495 mm gauge railways; the redirect Toronto gauge already points there. The new article would reorganize the split text and expand a little more on the list of the former GTA radial lines that used it. After the split, Track gauge would contain only a paragraph or two preceeded by a {{main|1495 mm gauge railways}} link. All links from other articles to Toronto streetcar system#Track gauge, Toronto subway trackage#Gauge and Toronto subway#Track would be replaced by {{main|1495 mm gauge railways}}. Comments? TheTrolleyPole (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

All the facts and the references as well as the external links of the three sections to be split away from their respective original articles would have to be transferred and blent and condensed when incorporated into 1495 mm gauge railways. Peter Horn User talk 02:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

All the text in the "Track gauge" section and its sub-section would be copied over with REFs and links to other articles, and would be inserted before the existing lists in the target article. It would not be condensed, but rather may be expanded. The intros in the target article and the source section would need be merged in some fashion. Later I intend to add text to briefly explain the long list of often related radial lines some of which alternated between Toronto and standard gauge during their existence. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 02:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@TheTrolleyPole: Permit me to suggest that you "copy and paste" the following three (3) sections, Toronto subway#Track, Toronto streetcar system#Track gauge and Toronto subway trackage#Gauge into your personal sandbox or onto a Microsoft Word sheet in your personal PC and blend the info. After you are satisfied with your effort you would then "copy and paste" the result to 1495 mm gauge railways. Peter Horn User talk 17:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 17:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Hullo TheTrolleyPole... overall sounds like a good idea to me. Definitely better than having it split over 3 or more articles. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I think splitting the track gauge into a new article is a great idea to avoid duplication across several articles. I'd prefer the title to include Toronto gauge since it predates the TTC and is more descriptive than "1495 mm". BLAIXX 12:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I also support the split into the Toronto gauge article. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 13:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles describing Toronto gauge

Here is a list of Articles and sections describing Toronto gauge: TheTrolleyPole (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• 1495 mm gauge railways - converted to redirect
• TTC gauge - changed redirect
• Toronto gauge - changed redirect
• Toronto streetcar system#Track gauge - replaced by new summary
• Toronto subway#Track - shortened summary
• Toronto subway trackage#Gauge - shortened summary
• Track gauge in Canada#Toronto gauge - updated text and added link to new article
• Broad-gauge railway#History: added article link; updated nice one-paragraph summary
• Rail transport in Canada: updated article intro and added link to new article
• Standard-gauge railway#Modern almost standard gauge railways: updated article intro and added link to new article
• Track gauge in North America#Canada – done, see below
• Bombardier Flexity Outlook#Cityrunner – done, see below
• Halton County Radial Railway links to subway article – done, see below
• List of track gauges#Broad gauge – done, see below
• List of tram systems by gauge and electrification – done, added or changed links where appropriate. BLAIXX 17:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Templates

Have I missed anything? TheTrolleyPole (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Template:Track gauge - changed to link to Toronto-gauge railways for Toronto gauge
• Template:Track gauge sidebar/tracks - added link to Toronto-gauge railways for Toronto gauge

First draft about Toronto gauge

@Peter Horn, Joeyconnick, Johnny Au, and Blaixx: First draft for "1495 mm gauge railways" is ready in my sandbox. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The first draft of the new (or revised) article 1495 mm gauge railways is now in User:TheTrolleyPole/sandbox. Since the sandbox's modification history won't be copied over, I would suggest that only minor mods of style, spelling and wording be done. The old article is essentially an index of articles and little more than a duplication of Category:4 ft 10⅞ in gauge railways. I merged the list of articles into new and copied text. I omitted the list of former streetcar lines as a full list is given in Toronto streetcar system. Some of the copied text lacks REFs, which I may try to resolve later. I added a gauge history of the GTA radial railways. User:Blaixx suggested changing the article name to include the words "Toronto gauge". Here are some suggested alternatives:

1. Retain the name 1495 mm gauge railways as I originally proposed.
2. Retain the name 1495 mm gauge railways but have other articles explicitly access it via Toronto gauge. This gives the impression that the article has 2 names.
3. Change the article name to Toronto-gauge railways, and convert 1495 mm gauge railways into a redirect.
4. Replace the redirect Toronto gauge by the article, and convert 1495 mm gauge railways into a redirect.

What would be the preference? TheTrolleyPole (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Option #1 would be my preference. It is included as 4 ft 10+7⁄8 in (1,495 mm) in the infoboxes or texts of all articles in addition keep the redirect Toronto gauge because Toronto Suburban Railway, 4 ft 10+3⁄4 in (1,492 mm) gauge, and User pages link to it. Peter Horn User talk 03:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

4 ft 10+7⁄8 in (1,495 mm) is also included in Template:Track gauge sidebar/tracks so it best to keep the title as is. Peter Horn User talk 04:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Also 4 ft 10+7⁄8 in (1,495 mm) has the most articles linked to it making it NOT a good choice as a redirect. Peter Horn User talk 04:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Rather make that read 1495 mm gauge railways has the most articles link to it. Peter Horn User talk 15:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Option 3 is my preference. I don't like 1495 mm because it is not very recognizable as the measurement is usually written in imperial units (i.e. 4 ft 10⅞). Given that the article is exclusively about Toronto, I think "Toronto gauge railways" is the best descriptor while also being a name that is commonly used. Peter Horn, the fact that there are many links to "1495 mm gauge railways" is not a strong argument to keep that title. Most of those links come from the "rail gauge" template which means one change there would "fix" all of the links. Not that there's anything wrong with redirects in the first place. BLAIXX 17:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick: Could you please provide a tie-breaking vote? TheTrolleyPole (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I prefer a mix of suggestions 1 & 2. Suggestion 2 is useful for many articles that already explicitly use the words "Toronto gauge". Neither suggestion 1 nor 2 would preclude some ambitious person from implementing suggestion 3 in future by renaming 1495 mm gauge railways.TheTrolleyPole (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm open to discussing option 1 but right now I don't understand its mertis. Can you or someone else elaborate on what make 1495 mm a good title, beyond the fact that it happens to be the current title? Thanks, BLAIXX 12:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll go with Option 4 as stated earlier. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry... super-busy week at work.

What has the most links now is irrelevant: redirects are cheap and there's enough of us to make edits as necessary even if that weren't the case. Also whatever is at Template:Track gauge sidebar/tracks can be edited.

The template {{Track gauge}} seems to prefer the actual original measurement, in this case the Imperial "4 ft 10+7⁄8 in", rather than letting us specify metric or Imperial/customary as the primary/first-listed value. I take exception to this: Canada is metric, has been metric longer than I've been alive, and we shouldn't be giving feet and inches just because that's what the measurement was originally specified in. So for just that reason alone, I prefer either "Toronto gauge" or "Toronto-gauge railways" ala Iberian-gauge railways and Swedish three foot gauge railways. (I wouldn't mind "Toronto gauge railways" either, even though technically that's slightly less grammatical.) Add to that word precedence and the fact this gauge is clearly associated with Toronto and pretty much only Toronto, and I think a choice with "Toronto" makes more sense than one with millimetres. So given the options above, my !vote is with Option 3. —Joeyconnick (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Joeyconnick. I will go with option 3 creating a new article called Toronto-gauge railways with the hyphen. This is similar in name to option 4; redirect Toronto gauge may still be useful for links within paragraph text. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Implementation

@TheTrolleyPole: Not all of the track material in the three articles has yet been absorbed into the new article Toronto-gauge railways and replaced by

Main article: Toronto-gauge railways

. A lot of work is left. Peter Horn User talk 00:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Not just that, but the TTC template itself doesn't have a link to Toronto-gauge railways. The world map of railway gauges also doesn't have a square for Toronto. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 00:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Putting 1495 mm first in {{Track gauge|1495mm}} 1495mm would mean a revision (addition) to the template:Track gauge and the template:RailGauge. I'm all for that. Also let's include it in template:TTC as Toronto-gauge railways. Peter Horn User talk 01:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Peter Horn: I did a paragraph-by-paragraph check and could not find omissions between the old and new text. The order of text was changed, however. Could you please be more specific like identifying specific sentences in the old articles? I will hold off deleting old text until you get back to me. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

It is not just a question of missing sentences. There is just a great deal MORE info in the following sections. Toronto streetcar system#Track gauge, Toronto subway#Track and even Toronto subway trackage#Gauge that has not been transferred, not to forget all the references contained in those sections. The first two sections are rather much larger than the new article. Peter Horn User talk 01:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Peter Horn:I checked that the contents of the first two sections are in the new article. The third section duplicates the second but with a weaker explanation. I wish you would quote a few missing sentences to resolve this issue. When I started the article, I copied over all the REFs with the text, and then reorganized it and reworded much of it. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Mea culpa, I see what you have done. You have divided into sections. There may still be additional info in the "weaker sections". Peter Horn User talk 02:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion

Excellent work everyone, the new article looks great! Special thanks to TheTrolleyPole for leading the charge and creating the first draft! BLAIXX 01:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Route length

Prior to the mods I made, most of the route lengths in the Routes table and in most route articles appeared to be derived from a 2009 Service Summary and were somewhat different from the lengths given in a 2020 Service Summary. For example, the 2009 SS said 511 Bathurst was 6.47 km long but the 2020 SS said 5.33 km. For comparison, the Google Maps distance is about 5.3 km. Except for 508 Lake Shore, both the 2009 and 2020 SS give the round trip length which must be divided by 2 for the Wikipedia articles. For 508, the length is expressed as two one-way lengths: eastbound 18.88 km, westbound 19.95 km (Google Maps gives about 17.8 km, Long Branch to Parliament Street); the article had erroneously recorded half of the one-way trip. The Routes table shows only the EB length; the 508 article shows both EB & WB length. The length of night routes, where different from daytime, appear in the route article infobox, but not in the Routes table. I am not certain whether the 503 Kingston Rd length in the 2020 SS is for the original streetcar route or the slightly different replacement bus route prior to the pandemic cutbacks. I changed all the lengths to agree with the 2020 SS in the Routes table as well as the the infobox in each route article. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

With the reintroduction of streetcar service on 503 Kingston Rd to the Charlotte Loop on June 22, 2020, I pulled the new route length from Service Summary February 18, 2018 to March 31, 2018 and halved it for a one-way trip. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Discontinued streetcar routes

I propose moving the tables listing the routes for the TTC predecessors (Toronto Street Railway, Toronto Railway Company and Toronto Civic Railways) from Toronto streetcar system#Discontinued streetcar routes to Toronto Street Railway#Routes, Toronto Railway Company#Routes and Toronto Civic Railways#Routes respectively. The tables from Toronto streetcar system would replace the incomplete tables in the target articles, except possibly for TCR where I may need to merge some data. Only the table for Toronto streetcar system#Toronto Transportation Commission/Toronto Transit Commission would remain in the Toronto streetcar system article. This change would enhance the target articles as, except for TCR, their route lists are incomplete. After the split, all detailed info on predecessor operators would be in the predecessor articles. After the split, I will review the TTC table for completeness. Please comment. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Initially I was skeptical because I had forgotten all three of those former operators already had articles and was thinking the tables would make for pretty flimsy and short entries, but given full-fledged articles exists, this makes sense. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Table splits completed. Later I will expand the remaining, TTC-era table with additional route names. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Updated TTC-era table. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)