Talk:Toronto subway/Archive 1

WikiProject Toronto

 * My suggestion would be to break up List of subway and RT stations in Toronto and give each line an article based on the table there, with its relevant notes, and the geographic layout from TTC. The history summarized in the top of the tables could be fleshed out, and notable stations could get a paragraph or two. If any station has a long enough text, it could perhaps get its own page (Lower Bay being a notable example). Radagast 19:51, 8 April 2004‎ (UTC) I've posted Sheppard Line as a short example. I'd also like a mini line map and an 'article series' box with the other lines, will work on those. Comments on the article welcomed and in fact requested! Radagast 22:52, 8 April 2004‎ (UTC)


 * Regarding peer review of Sheppard Line---Looks good so far; I particularly like the historical section. I think a map would definitely improve the article(s). I'd suggest using standard emphasis markup (em/strong using double/triple quotes) rather than the purple and greenish-yellow font coloring, though; font tags make the article harder to edit, and IMHO should generally be avoided. -- Wapcaplet 03:48, 9 April 2004‎ (UTC)


 * The reson for the coloured text was to identify each line by colour. I may be overdoing it, though - I will consider that further. the map is in the works. Thanks for the comments! Radagast 16:29, 9 April 2004‎ (UTC) - Removed the colour to the series box, now added; added a map. Very close to final design, IMO. Radagast 01:53, 14 April 2004‎ (UTC)


 * Bloor-Danforth Line is live, with Y-U-S in progress. I've done up Scarborough RT but since that one's an older article, I'll put up the changes once we're ready to roll. Any more comments? Anyone? Radagast 01:27, 24 April 2004‎ (UTC)

I have no idea who they are, but the user at 209.167.50.242 has been making some wonderfully detailed and clarifying additions to this series in the last day or so. I don't know if you'll ever read this, but if you do, kudos and thank you! I really appreciate the additions, as I'm sure the railfans and other Wikipedians who read them will. Thanks again. Radagast 01:16, 5 June 2004‎ (UTC)

I am the anonymous user referred to just above. (For reference, that's not the only IP address I use, nor am I the only anonymous user making changes using that address.) I appreciate the praise. However, while I'm sure it was well-intentioned, I do not appreciate the subsequent restructuring of the articles in December 2004 by PZFUN.

This is for two reasons. First, I took advantage of the list of stations being in geographical order along each line to add description, not only of the stations, but of features of interest along the line between them. I thought this was a sensible organization, describing all features along the line in sequence. Breaking up the page does violence to this -- for example, the fact that bored tunnel is used between Lansdowne and Dundas West stations is mentioned on the Dundas West station page alone, simply because the previous version of the article went along the line from west to east. The wording has been retained from that version and now is similarly wrong.

Second, I agree with the comment by Darkcore on the YUS Line talk page that "there is no need for individual station pages, as there is little to say about most of the stations". A few individual stations may merit their own articles, but most of the pages are little stubs that will never be appreciably expanded.

I think it might have been better if PZFUN had put the change up for discussion before creating something like 60 new pages, but that's water under the bridge (or maybe there was discussion in a place that I didn't look). In any case, for the same reason I am not going to edit so boldly as to revert a reorganization that big on my own say-so, particularly when I created enough of the content that I risk feeling ownership of it.

But if there is consensus, or no response to this after a while, that's another matter.

While I'm talking about organization of these pages, I'll add one more thought. I think the pages about the individual lines should be focused on geographical content, describing the present configuration of the lines and stations. (This is part of why I think the "one continuous page" format is more congenial.) The historical content, about the building of the lines, is better placed on a page about the system as a whole: the Toronto Subway and RT page. The histories of the two major lines, in particular, are significantly intertwined, and I hope to write something in the future explaining how.

207.176.159.90 (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2005 (UTC)

Anon: Thanks for your comments and response. I, too, have regrets over PZFUN's restructuring; while the work was well-intentioned and met the format being used by metro-system articles elsewhere, it does not lend itself perfectly to the Toronto system.

That being said, I have not had the time to plan or implement a compromise solution. It may be best to modify your interstation notes to fit on the articles of the station before and after, or to do major reversions and go back to the old format.

Should I have time for this in future, I'll look into which is better and ask for consensus; if anyone else would rather do this, feel free. Radagast 17:50, 23 January 2005‎ (UTC)

Meanwhile, could someone please fix the misspelled "Eglington" West station article? (Anonymous users aren't able to rename articles in the proper fashion that preserves history.)

207.176.159.90 (talk) 02:29, 28 January 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. Radagast 13:06, 28 January 2005‎ (UTC)

Hey I'm new to wikipedia but I'd love to contritbute. I can probably get a pic for every station to add but I don't know how to do the links. Can anyone help me with that?

Links
Wikipedia discourages excessive linking (Manual_of_Style_%28links%29) -- we do not need six links to the same article in a list. Also, Niigata does not link to a rolling stock manufacturer, so the link is not appropriate. If you want to add this link, then you should create an article to link it to. Ground Zero 13:57, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Facilities
Couldn't the info on the trainyards simply be included in this article? Cuz the individual ones are very tiny at best. --Madchester 16:06, 9 June 2005 (UTC)

August rewrite of the history section
A rewrite of the history section was started on August 4th, and then left half-finished, with empty and missing sections. I am not strongly attached to the attempt I made to complete this rewrite. I cut out two section headings, figuring if whomever put the headings in there returns, they can add the text they felt belonged there, with the heading. I added brief sections for each extension to the system. I only pointed to the main article to each line once. Maybe I should have pointed to those articles for each section I added. I dunno. -- Geo Swan 23:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The map
The map based on UrbanRail.net is nice, particularly in the way it shows GO lines as well, but what are the grounds for considering it fair use to post it here? David Arthur 17:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hello; thanks for the commentary. Out of a desire to see a legitimate, accurate map of the subway system (and with insufficient time to create one), I decided to modify the UrbanRail.net map.  Note it is not precisely the same as the original.  However, if I've included an inappropriate licence, etc., please let me know.  Thoughts?  E Pluribus Anthony 11:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer a GFDL map, whether adapted or made from scratch, over a borrowed-and-adapted map with tighter licensing; as it is, a major point of the article is shoehorned in with a mismatched license.

DavidArthur, I noticed you did a very passable version for fr:; any chance you could adapt that to English and put it here? On the same point, we may want to consider listing the proposed Spadina extension, now that the route is approved and the wheels have far more grease. Just a thought. Radagast 18:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I actually do have an English version of that map, and it even has the Spadina extension marked now; if no-one objects to my replacing the current one (and I think it's best, as I don't really see the fair-use argument) I'll put it up. David Arthur 17:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi there; I'm all for including a more 'legitimate' (GFDL, et al.) TTC route map; I adapted the UrbanRail map out of a desire to accurately reflect the system and didn't have time to create one (I also think there were some typos on the previous version). Upon taking a glance at the image by David Arthur (nice!), a few comments:
 * Is it possible to make it less congested?
 * I like the current (UrbanRail) map because, although not to scale, it provides a truer (though rough) representation of the distances between and general/relative locations of stations (e.g., College to Wellesley is far shorter than Eglinton to Lawrence; Eglinton West, Eglinton, and Kennedy should all form one 'straight' line, being on the 'same' street (Eglinton Ave.)).
 * Should the interchange station names be colourised to indicate what lines they belong to, as was once the case with a prior TTC route map? White text for the interchanges seems incongruous with the colourised text for other stations on the map.
 * On the legend, the text indicating lines should be all white or (preferably) all black, not both; see prior comment, too.


 * Just my two ... tokens worth. Thoughts? Thanks!  :) E Pluribus Anthony 17:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The congestedness is a result of my feeling that it ought to fit in a standard browser window on a 1024x768 monitor without scrolling; it's not great, but any alternative would be worse, given how unusually 'wide' Toronto's metro network is for one of its size. Given that the Bloor-Danforth line has to be squished, there isn't much point trying to make the rest of it to scale. As for straight lines, I have Kennedy farther south than Eglinton West and Eglinton Centre because the street does in fact curve slightly to the south; it isn't as much further south as my map suggests, but that's once again because of the limitations on width. Ultimately, this is a schematic map designed specifically for the limitations of a Wikipedia page.


 * The TTC interchange station names aren't coloured because they belong to more than one line, and I thought the half-yellow-half-green text very readable or communicative; having them white also makes them stand out more. As for the legend, neither white nor black works against all the background colours. David Arthur 22:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think DavidArthur's version communicates the facts a bit more clearly; the colours work better on a black backround (which is also on the official TTC map, and that gives it a better sense of 'belonging', to me), and the GO lines don't need to be shown on a TTC map. I'm not overly concerned with scale or alignment, myself; so long as it gives a good approximation of their locations, anyone concerned witht he actual location of a given station can look it up in the article and cross-reference to a street map, if needed. Radagast 01:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi there! Comments and concerns noted and understood; I merely cite suggestions for potential improvements.  It's a good map.  I'm more concerned with scale and alignment, but not hugely: I don't propose drawing the map geographically, but just enhancing it diagrammatically.  The TTC, in actuality, is about as 'tall' as it is 'wide.'  Toronto is based roughly on a grid, and 'parallel' stations should be roughly at the same level (e.g., Eglinton Ave.).  And genuine TTC route maps have to fit above the narrow advertising space above doors on subways, so this is unworkable in that format!  I realise the need to keep the map as small as possible for easy viewing, but we don't have precisely the same limitations in Wikipedia/on screen and I think the space can be used more efficiently.  (Conversely, users with high-res monitors would be imperilled to view either map.)  Besides: it can be marginally higher but reduced/resized in the article, as currently.


 * Yes: I like the black background, too! The interchanges stand out, but by having the interchange text one colour (white), you cannot distinguish which station is on which line (though this may be functionally impractical): for instance, Bloor is on the YUS line while Yonge is on the BD line; another Yonge station is on the Sheppard line and Sheppard station is on the YUS (though these are practically the same) (sheesh: this is starting to sound like Chicago!) :)  As well, white interchange labels can be confusing with the legend line labels/text, which has white and black text in it (for noted reasons); big white circles clearly indicate them regardless of text.


 * Yes: the GO lines don't need to remain on the map; it's nice to merely have the stations as you do. Remember: I was working with what I had, not reinventing the wheel ... and neither should we!


 * Use whatever is best. Either way, just another two tokens worth. :)  Again, thanks alot!  E Pluribus Anthony 01:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, I just uploaded the same map as previously but essentially reversed out the colours, etc. (The text should be made larger/more readable, however.)  Whatyathink?  Anyhow, use what's best.  (Do I get a Metropass now? :))  Enjoy; thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 12:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * For the white interchange labels: Sheppard-Yonge is actually the name used for both lines, and while the signs still say 'Bloor' on the Yonge line and 'Yonge' on the Bloor-Danforth line, the idea of the two being 'separate' stations is rather abstract - Spadina is the only station where the two lines are actually separate in any meaningful way (which is why I marked it with an Underground-style linked double circle), and it has the same name on both lines.
 * We aren't subject to the same limitations as the TTC, but I think we are subject to different ones. I have given quite a lot of thought to the layout, and I don't think people should have to scroll horizontally or enlarge the map in order to be able to read it. Toronto is unusual in two ways that affect its metro network: it has long, straight streets which the lines follow, and its downtown is nowhere near the north-south centre of the city. These make it difficult to make a metro map that will fit on a Wikipedia page without some compromises, but I don't think it could be much better in that respect within the design criteria I used. David Arthur 15:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey there; thanks for your reply. I appreciate it.  As I said: I am merely summarising and noting possible improvements to the map given the available 'framework', not contesting your map's validity or practicality.  I may work on a home-grown map to dually integrate collective notions mentioned, but please feel free to use your map – which is good! – in the interim, if you wish.  This is not a big-ee for me.  Thanks again!  E Pluribus Anthony 16:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Right, take a look at the Train network section: the new map is up. David Arthur 16:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks good! Better than its predecessor, but not perfect. ;) Thanks alot! :) E Pluribus Anthony 17:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, I know it's imperfect - my original version was much better, but I had to squash it and remove some details to get it an acceptable width. David Arthur 22:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The 'new' map
Hello! I hope you're well. I took a crack at creating a TTC subway/RT route map that dually addresses points of our prior discussion (I merely uploaded this file and changed the link in the article; I haven't replaced anything). The map is not in the 'London' style as previously, but harks more of the route maps in use on the TTC (and somewhat similar to those in Beantown, DC, et al. except for the black!); it provides a truer representation of the route shapes/stations (and other stations/streets they are in line with) without getting claustrophic. Comments? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 07:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It's certainly attractive and very Toronto, though it is quite wide - I have to scroll way over to see it all. I can't say I like the multi-coloured interchange station names, but I suppose I can't really complain too much since it was the TTC's idea. David Arthur


 * Hey there; thanks! It is a wee-bit wider (800px), and should still fit reasonably – without scrolling – within a 1024px monitor (as I've tested this) on the first/article page, but can be resized; I also have a 1680x1050 monitor, so it's actually smaller than desired.  I'm either way on the interchange names: I actually like(d) the dual colouring of the names, but also wouldn't mind 'em all white (since the TTC now uses all-white for the text).  I feel a mix of the two (colour and white) is potentially ambiguous.  Thoughts?


 * My preference, as well, was for the proposed extension to appear as a variable black/yellow line (not grey) with unbound circles, but am yet unsure how to get CorelDraw to do that ideally. Thanks? E Pluribus Anthony 16:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The reason I like having the interchange names white with the others coloured is that it makes the names stand out in the way the icons do. It's also helpful where the map is a bit packed (as tends to happen around Toronto's 90° interchanges); on your map, my eyes tend to first associate the name Bloor-Yonge with the circle that actually represents Rosedale, whereas that wouldn't happen if the name was more visibly distinguished.


 * As for marking proposed extensions, the broken line is probably how I would tend to do it too (my map dates from when I was doing them with Photoshop, where such things are awkward), but the grey might actually be better, since it emphasises that they are not part of the current network, or even under construction yet.
 * While we're on the subject, since your map is so roomy, do you think it might be a good idea to also mark the Sheppard extension to Scarborough Centre? The station names are on the line's article, and it shouldn't be too difficult to figure out the route.


 * Another idea that I had but wasn't able to implement because of lack of space is marking the names of GO stations. It's not necessary for Kipling and Kennedy, where the TTC and GO stations have the same name, but perhaps for Main Street and Dundas West, the GO icon should be followed by Danforth and Bloor? That's what London does when an Underground station interchanges with a BR station of a different name, and I think it helps avoid confusion (though not as much as if they simply renamed the GO stations). David Arthur 17:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey there; thanks for the comments ... they are appreciated! There are small white lines where station/names appear 'cramped'. I'll upload a map with all-white station names ... I'm easy (but not cheap).  Whatyathink?  :)


 * In labelling names and proposed extentions, et al., I used the TTC map and particularly used a prior map of the DC metro as reference (and have also been there; it's a good system!) which has undergone much extension. However, I couldn't jig CorelDraw to get the desired effect ... just yet.  But, agreed: the grey does work.


 * I think the GO symbols are sufficient; I wouldn't want to collude the map with the names of extraneous stations (though am open to this). Besides: Kipling and Kennedy (and Union) are direct connxns in the same facility (I should know, since I pass through the latter two almost every day), while the others are not and a small trek away.  Food for thought, however.


 * (As a segue: maybe I'll create a GO map for Wikipedia, too?)


 * Speaking of which: I think the Sheppard (TTC) extension should be left off for now merely because it is not as imminent and, thus, not as much a priority for the TTC (though I realise it was, or perhaps still is?). If so, we need to revise the station list/articles as well.  We should focus more on what is or what will (likely) be, not what may be.  The one thing I wouldn't want to do is to include every proposed line/station under the sun, since these are merely proposed and may not at all materialise (God forbid).  For instance, do we include the proposed Sheppard line between Sheppard-Yonge and Downsview as well?  The proposed Brimley station on the SRT (which I erroneously labelled as Midland in the prior map; ack!)?  Perhaps consulting a recent TTC 'expansion' report (e.g., ridership strategy?) or the like may prove fruitful in this regard.  (Again, I'm easy.)  Let's work on it.  Thanks again!  E Pluribus Anthony 18:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * PS: I don't know if there's a need or value, but I'll gladly assist (you) in producing other TTC/transit maps for Wikipedia/public use, in any consistent style. Let me know!


 * I believe the Sheppard extension from Don Mills east to Scarborough Centre remains a priority for the TTC, and could begin immediately upon funding becoming available, as the environmental assessment has already been performed.
 * The only reasons that the Spadina extension gets all the attention or seemed any more likely are that a) the environmental assessment is happening right now, and b) Sorbara liked it, and so funding seemed more likely - what his recent troubles will mean for the TTC, I don't know. West on Sheppard to Downsview and any Scarborough RT expansion, on the other hand, aren't really on the list any more.
 * (Of course, the Spadina extension does seem to have a stronger public voice behind it, and would replace an overloaded express bus rather than extending an under-performing line, so I suppose there is a reason to consider it more important than the Sheppard extension.)


 * I appreciate your reasoning in terms of the GO stations; I suppose I tend to think in terms of the British systems, where main-line railways are much more a major part of the system and interchanges, even circuitous ones, become correspondingly more important. David Arthur 22:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I like it. The feel is definitely different from David's, and it is larger; it looks fine now, I'll have to compare on my 800x600 monitor at work.
 * While both subway extensions have been formally routed in an environmental assessment procedure, I would hesitate to add the Sheppard plan - it's a longer project with a less immediate future.
 * I don't think GO station names are needed, it's sufficient to indicate a connection exists. One thing I mentioned to David, that would be great if you could do, would be to indicate where the Viva York lines connect - perhaps just by placing the 'VIVA' logo in the appropriate line colour, and indicating in the legend. As of tomorrow, three Viva lines will be connecting with TTC stations.
 * Good work, glad to see so much effort from all corners! Radagast 22:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for your comments, praise, and assistance ... I appreciate it! Let's investigate Sheppard; if it officially appears to trump the York U extension, and stops confirmed (and this is variable from what I gather), let's include it; however, I suspect that the YUS extension may see the light of day earlier (given the current zeitgeist).  The other option is to remove both Shepppard and York U proposed tracks, since neither is officially confirmed.


 * I'm unsure about the utility of including YRT BRT notations (or any other regional authority connxns) on this TTC map, or GO station names. I believe the map should provide a summative view of its topic: TTC train/RT rail network and little else.  Do we also include notes for Mississauga Transit?  Brampton?  Ajax?  (Where applicable.)  GO (trains) differ: they are kindred rail lines that provide inter-regional service within Toronto and over all of the GTA.  All of these connections, however, somehow should appear on an anticipated GO/inter-regional map, which I'll work on, with a similar style.  Make sense?


 * I'm glad to help! Thanks again!  E Pluribus Anthony 00:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * My suggestion of Viva was because it is such a distinct kind of BRT (no other transit agency in the area has such a separate, branded service with unique vehicles), and that it's intermodal and intermunicipal. In my mind, that justifies noting the connections.


 * As for the subway extensions, the Sheppard line extension has been on the books since before it was built; it has, however, been on the back burner since the decision to build no further than Don Mills. The York U line, however, is gaining momentum rapidly and has strong support from both the university community and York Region interests. That seems to be the more likely to be built first, and justifies putting it on the map but not the other.


 * Note these are style suggestions by a non-Torontonian who just has strong interest in the article. Do as you feel best. Radagast 03:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey there; thanks for the feedback. I'm gonna leave Viva off for now: while unique, it isn't rail.  I'd like to keep the map as simple as possible.  (Similarly, Viva does not appear yet in the articles listing TTC stations; streetcars do, and yet I wouldn't generally include them on this map either.)  However, I can be coerced.  (Besides: Viva, et al. can also appear in a similar more appropriate map, with GO and or with other GTA/'905' transit services.) :)


 * I know about the plan for Sheppard, but how active or how much a priority is it now (vis a vis the York U extension, since I recall that it has also been on the books for awhile)? I'm gonna dig a bit for an authoritative answer.  More thoughts?


 * If only more Torontonians exhibited your zeal and long-term interest (in such articles, and the system too), not to mention all of your input, we'd all be laughing! Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 03:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * On a related note, check out Lower Bay: I've added a new map, showing how the TTC worked during the 1966 interlining/branching experiment. David Arthur 15:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Nice! Is there some way to marry (i.e., amalgamate) your map (on the main page, not on Lower Bay per se) with the B&W track map below it, providing a summary of prior/current TTC stations/rails?


 * And perhaps another series of maps which details TTC rail evolution? E Pluribus Anthony 15:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

As well, upon consulting the TTC's rapid transit expansion study (RTES) of 2002, both the Sheppard and York U extensions are included (being retained for future consideration). To that end, I think it prudent to include both proposed extensions in a map.

Now: to not collude the existing map (e.g., what is real or not, to visitors), I propose to replace the map up-top with one of current stations only, and include an expanded map down below in the Future expansion section. Make sense? E Pluribus Anthony 15:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Although the York extension seems more likely at the moment, these things change constantly - witness Sorbara's departure - and since the TTC place the two lines at roughly the same status, I think we should too.


 * I see someone has already added a thumbnail of my map to the main page. :) I put it on Lower Bay since that's where the most detail about the interlining system was found, and it seemed an appropriate place, especially since there was room for me to display it full-size.
 * I created this one in particular since the interlining/branching system was so different than anything else the TTC have done, and it's much easier to convey in pictures than words how it worked. I was thinking about also making one of the original Yonge subway, but I don't think I'll take on the entire history of the TTC at the moment - I've still got some British tramways I want to map that don't have as many crowded sections. :)
 * The track map doesn't have any copyright information attached to it, but I think I've seen it before, and not on a GFDL or public-domain site, so I'm afraid we may not be able to keep it. (It also doesn't show the Scarborough and Sheppard lines.) David Arthur 16:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I'll make the current/future map editions as proposed (I've already made the map w/Sheppard and Spadina extensions).


 * It would be good to exhibit on the subway page a map of the station and track information, thereby killing two birds with one stone. However, we all have capacity limitations, just as the TTC does. :)  In good time ...  Merci!  E Pluribus Anthony 16:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've done the 'map' switch; looking good! Thanks so much! E Pluribus Anthony 20:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Formerly-planned lines: copyright issue
The new additions to the 'Formerly-planned lines' section is copied directly from this Transit Toronto page; unless User:Yllianos is connected with that site, this appears to be a copyright violation. David Arthur 20:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes! It needs to be referenced, edited, and shortened ... severely. :) E Pluribus Anthony 20:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow, fully, everyone just blasted me for making a few "unethical" decisions, then again you should moderate other pages too. It's not like Wikipedia is a Democracy, is it? Now in regards to the whole "Eglinton West Subway", I FOUND it on someone else's website; I typed on a search engine about it, and found it on some random page.


 * Hello! Thanks for the input.  Yes: they were, er, "crazy."  We don't discourage input, but a number of recent contributions made were lengthy, unreferenced (some of which were copied), require editing, and may be better placed elsewhere.  Since there's so much information and other users edit these pages periodically (present company included), we strive to organise information efficiently.  And, yes: we monitor/moderate other pages too.  Thanks!  E Pluribus Anthony 02:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Stations table, et al.
Hello! Moreover, an extremely unwieldly table of stations (current/proposed) has been added and (other editions made) to the article by the same contributor as for 'formerly-planned lines'. I'm not averse to a table, but I think it's redundant here (given other content in the article and links thereof); if it is somehow retained, it needs to be significantly massaged. Thoughts? E Pluribus Anthony 23:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The table definitely is overkill; it's straight duplication of details which are already in the line articles. I'm taking it out myself. As for the 'former plans' business, I second trimming it down, or if it's copyvio, nixing it. Radagast 00:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed (thanks!); we should nix, move – and significantly edit – relevant text to the appropriate articles; e.g., details regarding former lines can be added to their respective articles. It only needs brief mention in the overview. E Pluribus Anthony 01:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey there; whew! Thanks for helping to consolidate and restore the prior 'virginal' state of the article. :)  I think the 'Track' section needs significant manipulation, but I cannot do this just yet.  Game?  In any event, please let me know if assistance is required.  Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 01:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Track Information and Vehicles Excessive
Seems a little dense here. Shouldn't most of the track information and Vehicles stuff go to separate pages? I expect most people don't need a list of turnouts, or 50+ service vehicles! Just a suggestion Nfitz 23:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Nick


 * Hi! I think the track information is due for much pruning/editing, but the vehicle information as presented (although hefty) is informative.  There's always room for improvement, however. E Pluribus Anthony 01:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Informative yes! Just wondering if it should have a separate page ...  Nfitz 01:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm: I think the information would be more useful as part of the current article ... if it was organised more effectively. E Pluribus Anthony 04:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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)
 * Done! All the digital renderings have been speedy-deleted, too. Suigi (talk) 20:12, 29 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: 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
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. &mdash; 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. 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). &mdash; 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. &mdash; Selmo  (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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. &mdash; 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. &mdash; 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. &mdash; 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
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 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
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. 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)

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 TTC - The TTC 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 TTC 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)


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