Interesting how North American agencies and even laypeople always label trains as in “ADJECTIVE train”. Australians just call them trains. Why bother adding the adjective suburban or metropolitan? They’re just trains and people can ride trains to places whenever they want. Just follow T for trains! - ThreadSky

jacktatttran.bsky.social • 11 days ago

Interesting how North American agencies and even laypeople always label trains as in “ADJECTIVE train”. Australians just call them trains. Why bother adding the adjective suburban or metropolitan? They’re just trains and people can ride trains to places whenever they want.
Just follow T for trains!

1 / 3

Comments

boteball.bsky.social•11 days ago

Anyone who is not a railfan has less than zero knowledge nor understanding of trains and railroading. When a train stops after striking a trespasser, the cops complain about all the grade crossings being blocked--by them, bc they need HOURS to investigate. Nobody knows nuthin'

jacktatttran.bsky.social•11 days ago

So true! But weird how we still naturally throw “light rail” or “subway” or “high speed” on every train even in casual conversation in North America.

doug.city•11 days ago

TBF, this makes more sense in a country where pretty much everything is mainline rail ("a train") or a tram. In North America there are a lot more intermediate steps, so in most large cities there's more of a need to differentiate between different types of rail.

jacktatttran.bsky.social•11 days ago

Which is the case, because Australia never needed to make a subway/metro because of how good their trains were.

doug.city•11 days ago

Australia has certainly done fine with great suburban rail and no subways/metros, but it also doesn't have any cities as big as the largest North American or European cities. I'm not sure you could have NYC or Chicago (or London or Paris or...) with only suburban rail and trams, no matter how good.

jacktatttran.bsky.social•11 days ago

That is the case for large cities and places like London, Paris, New York where mainline rail alignments aren’t enough. Chicago actually is similar in population to Toronto and Sydney. Sydney did finally need a metro and get one in 2024 (I argue that Sydney Metro Northwest is like suburban rail).

doug.city•11 days ago

Size comparisons between countries can be tricky because of varying statistical units, but other than by city proper (which isn't a relevant concept in Australia), Chicago is 3-4 million people larger than Sydney. And possibly most relevant is CBD size.

doug.city•11 days ago

On the other hand, if we imagine an alternate universe where Philadelphia or Boston has really good suburban rail and a big tram network but no heavy rail, I can see that working out, although that's not how things developed.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply