The original article was a hodge-podge of lifted and disjointed and misspelled copy taken from other sources and just dumped on this page! I have attempted a massive clean-up but it still needs work. I am not an expert in this subject. I created an article about Handley (Fort Worth) which had an interurban service, and that is how I originally arrived here! I then took on the job of trying to make sense out of a total mess. If you are an expert on this subject and a writer, take another look at the article. I don't know whether interurban and light rail have all been mixed up together - it looks like it with regards to the entry for Australia. MPLX/MH 17:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I deleted the Australia section, and added some more about Canada. The thigns described in Australia are a collection of modern light rail, commuter rail and heavy rail, and not the historical interurbans this article refers to. Simkid
If you look at the Electric Railway Dictionary of 1911 you will find some definitions of EQUIPMENT that divide passenger cars into three groups.
(1) City Cars (2) Suburban Cars (3) Interurban Cars
that defined the type of service the equipment was designed for, not the length of the line or the fact that it ran between two urban areas. By the revisions of today the city cars of the Cleveland Railway that were used to develop the suburbs would qualify as interurban streetcars along with the Lorain & Elyria line in Ohio and even the Newark & Zanesville and the longest push yet is the Victory Park Railway ...all of which used city cars as defined by the industry. In 1893 the Sandusky Milan and Norwalk Electric Railway recieved equipment that was above and beyond city car design and began the true INTERURBAN era in Ohio.
I do not think interurban streetcar was a term the industry used
The term most commonly used was Interurban Electric Railway.
Interesting point, re: definition of equipment as to type of service. It has always been my understanding that a "City Car" was what was commonly called a "street car." It was a car designed and built for use city streets. It was smaller in size and lighter in weight than standard steam railroad equipment. It was intended for operation at low speeds with frequent stops. It was capable of handling very sharp radius turns. It was capable of handling crush passenger loads during rush hour traffic. In cities like Cleveland, Ohio, the city streetcar system reached out to the corporate limits of the city. An example of this would have been a car owned and operated by the Cleveland Street Railway.
As the population pushed outward and away from the central city, a "Suburban Car" would have been used to serve (and in some cases, even to help create) what we now call "first ring suburbs." Equipment may have been newer than standard City Cars, maybe a little bit more plush, but they could easily be used in city service over a city system's entire line. An example of a suburban line would be the Shaker Heights Rapid Transit which ran from Cleveland's Public Square out into the City of Shaker Heights (which was built in conjunction with the Rapid Transit line). The cars originally used on this system were eventually replaced by PCC cars.
An "Interurban Car" was typically much larger than either of the other two types of car (it is interesting to see a period photograph showing a City Car and an Interurban Car standing in close proximity to one another. The size difference is quite impressive.). It was built more to steam railroad standards as was the trackage over which it ran. It was built for much higher maximum speed than either of the other two cars and, depending on the road, it may have been built for high-platform use outside of the center city. The lines which were called "interurban" lines often ran between larger cities or, at least, a larger city and another city of some significant size at some distance away from the larger city. Sometimes the interurban ran parallel to, and in direct competition with, the steam railroads. They served the freight and travel needs of the people we would now say lived in the "exurbs" and rural areas.
In most cases, all of the cars noted above would have shared the same gauge. Any problems with interoperability would have been due to the particular characteristics of the cars' electrical systems and those of the power distribution system. NorthCoastReader ( talk) 02:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Stadtbahn Karlsruhe deserves a mention, because the rolling stock is designed to do all of the following:
![]() |
Stadtbahn on a city square, acting as Straßenbahn. |
|
Stadtbahn in the central station, acting as S-Bahn. |
![]() |
Stadtbahn in the Schwarzwald, acting as Regionalbahn. |
68.35.55.55 ( talk) 23:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I think "Interurban streetcar" is a poor name for this article. In a project where Use Common Names is one of the prime naming conventions, this article has ended up being named something almost never used.
Any suggestions as to a better name? Does a pointer to Australian intercity rail (that could simply be a
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
{{ otheruses}} marker at the top of the article) really signify we shouldn't just have this article at Interurban? Taking your suggestions ... — Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 05:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I was bold and just moved it to Interurban after looking at what linked to that page; all the links meant this, not the Australian term. We do primary topic disambiguation when one meaning of a term overwhelms the usage of the other; I think that especially counts in this case, where the other usage doesn't even have its own article, but just redirects to a page named differently. — Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 13:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that such tramways as New Jersey's new light rail lines and the Portland light rail systems should be considered interurbans, as well as the San Diego and Los Angeles systems. That's why I put a POV tag on there. 68.32.48.42 02:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
If I could add that true interurbans did a lot more then carry passengers ... they did package, LCL freight and car-load lots. The progressive ones sold power, ran amusement parks and did all sorts of promotional exercises to generate fares. A true interurban would have a hard time operating with streetcar equipment.
Dennis 70.39.33.111 13:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
A bit shocked not to see these in the Canada section; on the other hand I'm getting use to seeing sites on "Canada" only talking about Ontario and Quebec, which is par for the course in this country (and they wonder why the so-called "regions" are "alienated"). The BC Electric Railway Company interurban and streetcar system was very important in the development of Vancouver and Victoria, and is the foundation of the current crown corp BC Hydro; think there may have also been an interurban line around Nelson-Trail in the West Kootenay, run by West Kootenay Power and Light but I'm not sure; both cities had electrified streetcar systems but most intercity rail lines around there were CPR/steam. Anyway, no time right now but just notice of a pending section or article on the BC systems; if anyone from BC is reading this let me know if you want to help. Skookum1 19:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Another glaringly-missing line; will do my best on this from available on-line resources but I'm not a Seattlite; I'll see who I can enlist. Skookum1 20:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The title of this article "should" be either Interurban Electric Railway or "Electric Interurban Railway;" it's clear from the historic record that the label "Interurban" was understood as a one-word abbreviation either or both.
Also, it is true that "not all interurbans were electrified." But very few enterprises were promoted (or considered themselves) as "interurbans" and did not use electric traction. This fact should be mentioned in the title but should not determine the choice of title. Ldemery 03:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC) 03:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Is it original research to use the term for newer lines like Portland's MAX that undeniably meet the criteria? There is at least one source ( [2]) that calls it one but it might not be a reliable source. There is a similar source ( [3] - but possibly more reliable - is Railway Age reliable?) that calls the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail an interurban. -- NE2 08:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
This "B-Class" article has some "A-Class" features, and I thought I'd throw in my two cent's worth about how the overall classification could be improved to "A-Class."
--OK, this is a "pet concern" of mine, but:
We who edit English Wikipedia articles should keep in mind that English pages are likely to be the "primary" reference for many, many people whose first language is something other than English. We should therefore work to make pages such as this (which at the moment is available "only" in German, Dutch, Japanese, Russian and Swedish in addition to English) as "reader-friendly" as possible.
In other words, "pariochalism" on English-language pages should be avoided. We should avoid "Americanisms" and use terminology likely to be easily and widely understood. After all, U.S. and Canadian interurbans do command a "following" overseas - not a "large" readership, but a readership nonetheless.
--the "first graf"
"An interurban, also called a radial railway in parts of Canada, is a streetcar line running between urban areas or from urban to rural areas. The term was mostly used in North America. The lines were mainly electrified in an era when steam railroads had not yet adopted electricity to any large degree."
This needs work. How about:
"Interurban lines are a form of land transport that incorporate elements of railway and tramway practice. The "typical" U.S. interurban operated between urban areas, serving towns and rural areas in between. It used technology based on railway and urban tramway practice. The most notable tramway practice was large-scale use of electric traction in an era when few railways were electrified.
"In the U.S. and parts of Canada, the term "interurban" became the common one-word abbreviation for "interurban electric railway" or "electric interurban railway" at an early date. The term "radial railway" was also used in parts of Canada. The term "interurban," whether borrowed directly or translated, was seldom used in other countries.
"The various U.S. and Canadian lines described as interurbans had distinctive sets of characteristics. These were not typical of other electric railways or tramways. Interurbans were distinct from railways, metros, urban or suburban tramways, and from current applications of light rail transit. There were relatively few overseas examples of electric railways or tramways built after U.S. - Canadian "interurban" practice."
Just a suggestion, and a starting point.
--"This article deals mainly with the interurban in North America."
Um, why? Why not make an attempt to "compare and contrast" with "elsewhere?" I'd be willing at least to "start" to take this on. . .
(see also "first graf," above)
--"North America"
Um, why does this section "precede" rather than follow "Definition of 'Interurban'" and "Interurban technology"?
--Definition of "Interurban"
Kudos to the editor who wrote this. There are some things that "should" be added - some of which are in Hilton and Due - but the overall quality is very high.
--Passenger service
Hilton and Due would be a good source to start.
Enough for now. Ldemery 23:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Heavy rail with no grade crossings is NOT interurban, correct??? DCDuring 07:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
If so, the New York, Westchester and Boston Railway was no more an interurban than the Long Island Rail Road. Its equipment and track was of a standard equal to or better than the New Haven. It WAS predominantly freight and exclusively electric, but not street operations at all, ever. DCDuring 07:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that the section dealing with Europe be moved to intercity rail or tram. After all the author of the section on German "interurbans" claims that they weren't really interurbans at all. It shouldn't be here. -- RedJ 17 00:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Isn't the Isle of Man Electric system (consisting of 2 lines) an interurban?
Exile ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
In the US, interurbans often supplied electricity in rural areas along their lines. According to Electrifying America, by David E. Nye, in 1935, the federal government forced interurbans to give up their electric utility service. This contributed to their decline.
The article omits these points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.90.210 ( talk) 23:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The new sections added to the bottom of the page make me think that the article is becoming US-centric. Is it time to split out the majority of US information to a new article? Maybe Interurbans in the United States? Binksternet ( talk) 01:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Of course, not every sailship is a Viking longship. However, if I build a Viking longship, it is a Viking longship though it doesn’t play the same role as the Vikings’ longships did. By the same way, I think a railcar or train which runs both through the streets like a tram (streetcar) and between the cities or towns, is an interurban even if the word interurban is untrendy and never has been common in European English. Therefore, a light rail or a commuter railway may or may not be an interurban. But the modernized ones like the Tram-Trains differs from the old ones, e.g. by using AC and by some other technical improvements and a different design (by the same way, a T-Ford differs from today’s models, but they are all automobiles). The limit between interurban/light rail and heavy rail is blurring, but just this flexibility characterizes this transportation mode.
It’s true the interurbans never became as extensive in Europe as in the U.S., and Europe’s interurban scene doesn’t know any high-speed interurbans before the Tram-Train renaissance. In Europe, most of the intercity rail network was built outside the streets.
Pål Jensen (
talk)
09:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Local rail historians in the U.S. state of Minnesota claim that the Interurban (with a capital "I") service along University Avenue, also known as the St. Paul–Minneapolis Line, is where the term "interurban" originated. That line started up in 1890 as an electrified streetcar, around the same time that the street railways of the two cities were merged under the umbrella of the Twin City Rapid Transit Company. However, since many other claimed "firsts" in this region turn out to be false, I've been reluctant to add this statement to any articles. Also, any rural areas that might have existed between the two downtowns when the line started probably became urbanized very quickly after it opened, so the line probably never fit the definition it (supposedly) helped spawn. Of course, if anyone can find references to the term "interurban" dated to before 1890, this probably all works out to be false anyway. — Mulad (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Both inter and urban have Latin origin. Did the Romans use the word, e.g. in the form interurbanus, for instance about their roads which ran from city to city? Pål Jensen ( talk) 09:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
SUNSET LINES, The Story of the Chicago Aurora & Elgin, Volume 1-Trackage by Larry Plachno, published in 1986 by Transportation Trails ISBN: 0-933449-02-X.
Page 3 has “The Chicago, Aurora, and Elgin is unique among electric interurban railways.” There are other “interurban”s on that page
Page 9 paragraph 3 ends with “These longer-distance lines soon became known as electric interurban railways.” The rest of this page, the Introduction, repeatedly mentions “interurban”, as does page 15, the first page in chapter 1, The Super Interurban.
SUNSET LINES, The Story of the Chicago Aurora & Elgin, Volume 2-History by Larry Plachno, published in 1989 by Transportation Trails ISBN: 0-933449-10-0.
Page 169 (page numbers are a continuation of volume 1) has “December 10, 1891, saw the incorporation of the Aurora & Chicago Interurban Railway...by electric railway”. This shows the word “interurban” used legally as early as 1891 for an electric railway.
Has anyone outside the United States used the word locally? Has anyone in the United States used the word for “Light Rail”? Isn’t "interurban" an historical American term, used for a class of electric railroads?A Source Monster (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I think this article is much, much too long as currently written. Consider that rail transport, in some ways a peer article, has 41K of prose. This article has 92KB. Besides being prosy throughout, there's a lot of duplicated content. The discussion (more than a summary) of interurbans should probably be removed altogether as the material duplicates content in articles about the individual systems. Per WP:SUMMARY, this article simply goes into too much detail. I've scaffolded a possible new article structure at User:Mackensen/Interurban and I'd appreciate comments. Relatedly, there's a question of scope. I think the article should be clear at the outset that the article is discussing the "interurban" as a distinctly North American, early 20th century phenomenon, unless there are reliable sources which discuss non-North American interurbans as interurbans. Mackensen (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
There may be several reasons why this article is longer than the rail transport article, e.g. that the latter theme is split into a lot of articles: High-speed trains, high-speed rail, Land speed record for rail vehicles, Rainhill Trials, LGV Atlantique, North-East Corridor, etc., etc.
Interurbans, i.e. railcars or trains which run as streetcars (trams) in the cities and from city to city, is not only as a distinctly North American, early 20th century phenomenon:
But perhaps the high-speed, long-distance interurbans like Red Devils were unique for the U.S. However, I'll think some of the Tram-Trains seem to be very similar. Of course the technology has developed a lot, the safety requirements are stricter, etc. – but perhaps the biggest difference is that they are rarely named the untrendy word "interurban".
There are several reliable sources which discuss non-North American interurbans as interurbans, e.g. William Middleton's The Interurban Era, Swedish Wikipedia, and several articles in the Norwegian railway publication For Jernbane. But of course the word "interurban" is not used overall.
I think the article does not contain too much information, though it may be too long because of repetitions and verbosity.
But if it is correct to reduce "interurban" into a distinctly North American, early 20th century phenomenon, I think the article should start like e.g.:
"Interurban" denotes a sort of North American streetcars ( trams) which, like e.g. some of the modern Tram-trains, also ran between cities. They were invented about 1890, and the systems expanded very fast till about 1920. Thereafter, most of them afterwards were dismantled or reduced to goods railways, but a couple of interurbans do still exist... Pål Jensen ( talk) 08:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I've implemented my proposed refactoring. In so doing I found a number of errors in dates, titles, and names in addition to the long rambling discourses and digressions. Most of the citations were irrelevant (appropriate for an essay, but not an article). In my view none of the removed material should be re-added without an ironclad citation. I think the article could be usefully expanded with a few sentences about operations in Canada, and about stations such as the Indianapolis Traction Terminal. I'm hoping to have access to Middleton and Hilton soon so that I can work on referencing. Mackensen (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
In the U.S., an interurban was just that, an electrified rail line that ran between “urban” centers. If they made stops within a city to get to their stations, their stops were within the municipal boundaries would have been very limited, as the interurban’s attraction was its speed and limited number of stations (most with platforms) served.
The term Interurban Car, or “car” is more accurate when discussing the actual vehicles in the U.S. Also, Interurban cars were larger and more robust than a streetcars, and in scale could be as large as a traditional train’s passenger car by itself. The term tram was not used in the era of the interurban in the U.S. Again, Interurban cars could be as large as a passenger train car, far larger than a traditional “tram” implied in the U.S. during that era. In U.S. rail museums, “interurban cars” are a common term, agin, tram being used for a conveyance slower and smaller.
And in common parlance, the term “Interurban” suffices by itself after it is established that these networks were Interurban Electric Railroads.
Like privately held streetcar lines, the owners of these lines generated their own power, the excess of which was often sold back to communities as an additional source of revenue. Also like privately held street car lines, some interurban lines opened amusement parks to increase ridership during off hours. Interurbans also ran freight cars either by themselves, or in tandem with passenger cars.
Finally, many of these systems chained together to provide additional range, through shared systems. So a person could travel from say, Columbus, Ohio on the CDM line to the end of the line in Marion, Ohio, change networks to the CMB line, travel to Bucyrus, Ohio, change lines, etc. and arrive in Cleveland, Ohio. Whether or not this was as efficient, or economical or as fast as traditional railway travel is up for debate, but the interurban systems never supplanted traditional rail. ClevelandExPat ( talk) 15:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
The term "interurban" is mainly considered US/Canada-specific. Would it be worth clearly separating the US/Canada interurbans from the tramways etc. in other countries that had similar characteristics? Eldomtom2 ( talk) 12:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Just a question: Why is USA first in the history section, when the Kusttram in Belgium clearly is the oldest "interurban" in the article? Shouldn't the Belgium go first? I also worry about the sole focus on Sprague's electrical systems, and nothing on Siemens and Ganz, who were more influential in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.194.47.42 ( talk) 10:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
The original article was a hodge-podge of lifted and disjointed and misspelled copy taken from other sources and just dumped on this page! I have attempted a massive clean-up but it still needs work. I am not an expert in this subject. I created an article about Handley (Fort Worth) which had an interurban service, and that is how I originally arrived here! I then took on the job of trying to make sense out of a total mess. If you are an expert on this subject and a writer, take another look at the article. I don't know whether interurban and light rail have all been mixed up together - it looks like it with regards to the entry for Australia. MPLX/MH 17:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I deleted the Australia section, and added some more about Canada. The thigns described in Australia are a collection of modern light rail, commuter rail and heavy rail, and not the historical interurbans this article refers to. Simkid
If you look at the Electric Railway Dictionary of 1911 you will find some definitions of EQUIPMENT that divide passenger cars into three groups.
(1) City Cars (2) Suburban Cars (3) Interurban Cars
that defined the type of service the equipment was designed for, not the length of the line or the fact that it ran between two urban areas. By the revisions of today the city cars of the Cleveland Railway that were used to develop the suburbs would qualify as interurban streetcars along with the Lorain & Elyria line in Ohio and even the Newark & Zanesville and the longest push yet is the Victory Park Railway ...all of which used city cars as defined by the industry. In 1893 the Sandusky Milan and Norwalk Electric Railway recieved equipment that was above and beyond city car design and began the true INTERURBAN era in Ohio.
I do not think interurban streetcar was a term the industry used
The term most commonly used was Interurban Electric Railway.
Interesting point, re: definition of equipment as to type of service. It has always been my understanding that a "City Car" was what was commonly called a "street car." It was a car designed and built for use city streets. It was smaller in size and lighter in weight than standard steam railroad equipment. It was intended for operation at low speeds with frequent stops. It was capable of handling very sharp radius turns. It was capable of handling crush passenger loads during rush hour traffic. In cities like Cleveland, Ohio, the city streetcar system reached out to the corporate limits of the city. An example of this would have been a car owned and operated by the Cleveland Street Railway.
As the population pushed outward and away from the central city, a "Suburban Car" would have been used to serve (and in some cases, even to help create) what we now call "first ring suburbs." Equipment may have been newer than standard City Cars, maybe a little bit more plush, but they could easily be used in city service over a city system's entire line. An example of a suburban line would be the Shaker Heights Rapid Transit which ran from Cleveland's Public Square out into the City of Shaker Heights (which was built in conjunction with the Rapid Transit line). The cars originally used on this system were eventually replaced by PCC cars.
An "Interurban Car" was typically much larger than either of the other two types of car (it is interesting to see a period photograph showing a City Car and an Interurban Car standing in close proximity to one another. The size difference is quite impressive.). It was built more to steam railroad standards as was the trackage over which it ran. It was built for much higher maximum speed than either of the other two cars and, depending on the road, it may have been built for high-platform use outside of the center city. The lines which were called "interurban" lines often ran between larger cities or, at least, a larger city and another city of some significant size at some distance away from the larger city. Sometimes the interurban ran parallel to, and in direct competition with, the steam railroads. They served the freight and travel needs of the people we would now say lived in the "exurbs" and rural areas.
In most cases, all of the cars noted above would have shared the same gauge. Any problems with interoperability would have been due to the particular characteristics of the cars' electrical systems and those of the power distribution system. NorthCoastReader ( talk) 02:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Stadtbahn Karlsruhe deserves a mention, because the rolling stock is designed to do all of the following:
![]() |
Stadtbahn on a city square, acting as Straßenbahn. |
|
Stadtbahn in the central station, acting as S-Bahn. |
![]() |
Stadtbahn in the Schwarzwald, acting as Regionalbahn. |
68.35.55.55 ( talk) 23:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I think "Interurban streetcar" is a poor name for this article. In a project where Use Common Names is one of the prime naming conventions, this article has ended up being named something almost never used.
Any suggestions as to a better name? Does a pointer to Australian intercity rail (that could simply be a
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
{{ otheruses}} marker at the top of the article) really signify we shouldn't just have this article at Interurban? Taking your suggestions ... — Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 05:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I was bold and just moved it to Interurban after looking at what linked to that page; all the links meant this, not the Australian term. We do primary topic disambiguation when one meaning of a term overwhelms the usage of the other; I think that especially counts in this case, where the other usage doesn't even have its own article, but just redirects to a page named differently. — Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 13:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that such tramways as New Jersey's new light rail lines and the Portland light rail systems should be considered interurbans, as well as the San Diego and Los Angeles systems. That's why I put a POV tag on there. 68.32.48.42 02:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
If I could add that true interurbans did a lot more then carry passengers ... they did package, LCL freight and car-load lots. The progressive ones sold power, ran amusement parks and did all sorts of promotional exercises to generate fares. A true interurban would have a hard time operating with streetcar equipment.
Dennis 70.39.33.111 13:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
A bit shocked not to see these in the Canada section; on the other hand I'm getting use to seeing sites on "Canada" only talking about Ontario and Quebec, which is par for the course in this country (and they wonder why the so-called "regions" are "alienated"). The BC Electric Railway Company interurban and streetcar system was very important in the development of Vancouver and Victoria, and is the foundation of the current crown corp BC Hydro; think there may have also been an interurban line around Nelson-Trail in the West Kootenay, run by West Kootenay Power and Light but I'm not sure; both cities had electrified streetcar systems but most intercity rail lines around there were CPR/steam. Anyway, no time right now but just notice of a pending section or article on the BC systems; if anyone from BC is reading this let me know if you want to help. Skookum1 19:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Another glaringly-missing line; will do my best on this from available on-line resources but I'm not a Seattlite; I'll see who I can enlist. Skookum1 20:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The title of this article "should" be either Interurban Electric Railway or "Electric Interurban Railway;" it's clear from the historic record that the label "Interurban" was understood as a one-word abbreviation either or both.
Also, it is true that "not all interurbans were electrified." But very few enterprises were promoted (or considered themselves) as "interurbans" and did not use electric traction. This fact should be mentioned in the title but should not determine the choice of title. Ldemery 03:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC) 03:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Is it original research to use the term for newer lines like Portland's MAX that undeniably meet the criteria? There is at least one source ( [2]) that calls it one but it might not be a reliable source. There is a similar source ( [3] - but possibly more reliable - is Railway Age reliable?) that calls the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail an interurban. -- NE2 08:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
This "B-Class" article has some "A-Class" features, and I thought I'd throw in my two cent's worth about how the overall classification could be improved to "A-Class."
--OK, this is a "pet concern" of mine, but:
We who edit English Wikipedia articles should keep in mind that English pages are likely to be the "primary" reference for many, many people whose first language is something other than English. We should therefore work to make pages such as this (which at the moment is available "only" in German, Dutch, Japanese, Russian and Swedish in addition to English) as "reader-friendly" as possible.
In other words, "pariochalism" on English-language pages should be avoided. We should avoid "Americanisms" and use terminology likely to be easily and widely understood. After all, U.S. and Canadian interurbans do command a "following" overseas - not a "large" readership, but a readership nonetheless.
--the "first graf"
"An interurban, also called a radial railway in parts of Canada, is a streetcar line running between urban areas or from urban to rural areas. The term was mostly used in North America. The lines were mainly electrified in an era when steam railroads had not yet adopted electricity to any large degree."
This needs work. How about:
"Interurban lines are a form of land transport that incorporate elements of railway and tramway practice. The "typical" U.S. interurban operated between urban areas, serving towns and rural areas in between. It used technology based on railway and urban tramway practice. The most notable tramway practice was large-scale use of electric traction in an era when few railways were electrified.
"In the U.S. and parts of Canada, the term "interurban" became the common one-word abbreviation for "interurban electric railway" or "electric interurban railway" at an early date. The term "radial railway" was also used in parts of Canada. The term "interurban," whether borrowed directly or translated, was seldom used in other countries.
"The various U.S. and Canadian lines described as interurbans had distinctive sets of characteristics. These were not typical of other electric railways or tramways. Interurbans were distinct from railways, metros, urban or suburban tramways, and from current applications of light rail transit. There were relatively few overseas examples of electric railways or tramways built after U.S. - Canadian "interurban" practice."
Just a suggestion, and a starting point.
--"This article deals mainly with the interurban in North America."
Um, why? Why not make an attempt to "compare and contrast" with "elsewhere?" I'd be willing at least to "start" to take this on. . .
(see also "first graf," above)
--"North America"
Um, why does this section "precede" rather than follow "Definition of 'Interurban'" and "Interurban technology"?
--Definition of "Interurban"
Kudos to the editor who wrote this. There are some things that "should" be added - some of which are in Hilton and Due - but the overall quality is very high.
--Passenger service
Hilton and Due would be a good source to start.
Enough for now. Ldemery 23:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Heavy rail with no grade crossings is NOT interurban, correct??? DCDuring 07:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
If so, the New York, Westchester and Boston Railway was no more an interurban than the Long Island Rail Road. Its equipment and track was of a standard equal to or better than the New Haven. It WAS predominantly freight and exclusively electric, but not street operations at all, ever. DCDuring 07:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that the section dealing with Europe be moved to intercity rail or tram. After all the author of the section on German "interurbans" claims that they weren't really interurbans at all. It shouldn't be here. -- RedJ 17 00:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Isn't the Isle of Man Electric system (consisting of 2 lines) an interurban?
Exile ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
In the US, interurbans often supplied electricity in rural areas along their lines. According to Electrifying America, by David E. Nye, in 1935, the federal government forced interurbans to give up their electric utility service. This contributed to their decline.
The article omits these points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.90.210 ( talk) 23:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The new sections added to the bottom of the page make me think that the article is becoming US-centric. Is it time to split out the majority of US information to a new article? Maybe Interurbans in the United States? Binksternet ( talk) 01:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Of course, not every sailship is a Viking longship. However, if I build a Viking longship, it is a Viking longship though it doesn’t play the same role as the Vikings’ longships did. By the same way, I think a railcar or train which runs both through the streets like a tram (streetcar) and between the cities or towns, is an interurban even if the word interurban is untrendy and never has been common in European English. Therefore, a light rail or a commuter railway may or may not be an interurban. But the modernized ones like the Tram-Trains differs from the old ones, e.g. by using AC and by some other technical improvements and a different design (by the same way, a T-Ford differs from today’s models, but they are all automobiles). The limit between interurban/light rail and heavy rail is blurring, but just this flexibility characterizes this transportation mode.
It’s true the interurbans never became as extensive in Europe as in the U.S., and Europe’s interurban scene doesn’t know any high-speed interurbans before the Tram-Train renaissance. In Europe, most of the intercity rail network was built outside the streets.
Pål Jensen (
talk)
09:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Local rail historians in the U.S. state of Minnesota claim that the Interurban (with a capital "I") service along University Avenue, also known as the St. Paul–Minneapolis Line, is where the term "interurban" originated. That line started up in 1890 as an electrified streetcar, around the same time that the street railways of the two cities were merged under the umbrella of the Twin City Rapid Transit Company. However, since many other claimed "firsts" in this region turn out to be false, I've been reluctant to add this statement to any articles. Also, any rural areas that might have existed between the two downtowns when the line started probably became urbanized very quickly after it opened, so the line probably never fit the definition it (supposedly) helped spawn. Of course, if anyone can find references to the term "interurban" dated to before 1890, this probably all works out to be false anyway. — Mulad (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Both inter and urban have Latin origin. Did the Romans use the word, e.g. in the form interurbanus, for instance about their roads which ran from city to city? Pål Jensen ( talk) 09:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
SUNSET LINES, The Story of the Chicago Aurora & Elgin, Volume 1-Trackage by Larry Plachno, published in 1986 by Transportation Trails ISBN: 0-933449-02-X.
Page 3 has “The Chicago, Aurora, and Elgin is unique among electric interurban railways.” There are other “interurban”s on that page
Page 9 paragraph 3 ends with “These longer-distance lines soon became known as electric interurban railways.” The rest of this page, the Introduction, repeatedly mentions “interurban”, as does page 15, the first page in chapter 1, The Super Interurban.
SUNSET LINES, The Story of the Chicago Aurora & Elgin, Volume 2-History by Larry Plachno, published in 1989 by Transportation Trails ISBN: 0-933449-10-0.
Page 169 (page numbers are a continuation of volume 1) has “December 10, 1891, saw the incorporation of the Aurora & Chicago Interurban Railway...by electric railway”. This shows the word “interurban” used legally as early as 1891 for an electric railway.
Has anyone outside the United States used the word locally? Has anyone in the United States used the word for “Light Rail”? Isn’t "interurban" an historical American term, used for a class of electric railroads?A Source Monster (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I think this article is much, much too long as currently written. Consider that rail transport, in some ways a peer article, has 41K of prose. This article has 92KB. Besides being prosy throughout, there's a lot of duplicated content. The discussion (more than a summary) of interurbans should probably be removed altogether as the material duplicates content in articles about the individual systems. Per WP:SUMMARY, this article simply goes into too much detail. I've scaffolded a possible new article structure at User:Mackensen/Interurban and I'd appreciate comments. Relatedly, there's a question of scope. I think the article should be clear at the outset that the article is discussing the "interurban" as a distinctly North American, early 20th century phenomenon, unless there are reliable sources which discuss non-North American interurbans as interurbans. Mackensen (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
There may be several reasons why this article is longer than the rail transport article, e.g. that the latter theme is split into a lot of articles: High-speed trains, high-speed rail, Land speed record for rail vehicles, Rainhill Trials, LGV Atlantique, North-East Corridor, etc., etc.
Interurbans, i.e. railcars or trains which run as streetcars (trams) in the cities and from city to city, is not only as a distinctly North American, early 20th century phenomenon:
But perhaps the high-speed, long-distance interurbans like Red Devils were unique for the U.S. However, I'll think some of the Tram-Trains seem to be very similar. Of course the technology has developed a lot, the safety requirements are stricter, etc. – but perhaps the biggest difference is that they are rarely named the untrendy word "interurban".
There are several reliable sources which discuss non-North American interurbans as interurbans, e.g. William Middleton's The Interurban Era, Swedish Wikipedia, and several articles in the Norwegian railway publication For Jernbane. But of course the word "interurban" is not used overall.
I think the article does not contain too much information, though it may be too long because of repetitions and verbosity.
But if it is correct to reduce "interurban" into a distinctly North American, early 20th century phenomenon, I think the article should start like e.g.:
"Interurban" denotes a sort of North American streetcars ( trams) which, like e.g. some of the modern Tram-trains, also ran between cities. They were invented about 1890, and the systems expanded very fast till about 1920. Thereafter, most of them afterwards were dismantled or reduced to goods railways, but a couple of interurbans do still exist... Pål Jensen ( talk) 08:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I've implemented my proposed refactoring. In so doing I found a number of errors in dates, titles, and names in addition to the long rambling discourses and digressions. Most of the citations were irrelevant (appropriate for an essay, but not an article). In my view none of the removed material should be re-added without an ironclad citation. I think the article could be usefully expanded with a few sentences about operations in Canada, and about stations such as the Indianapolis Traction Terminal. I'm hoping to have access to Middleton and Hilton soon so that I can work on referencing. Mackensen (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
In the U.S., an interurban was just that, an electrified rail line that ran between “urban” centers. If they made stops within a city to get to their stations, their stops were within the municipal boundaries would have been very limited, as the interurban’s attraction was its speed and limited number of stations (most with platforms) served.
The term Interurban Car, or “car” is more accurate when discussing the actual vehicles in the U.S. Also, Interurban cars were larger and more robust than a streetcars, and in scale could be as large as a traditional train’s passenger car by itself. The term tram was not used in the era of the interurban in the U.S. Again, Interurban cars could be as large as a passenger train car, far larger than a traditional “tram” implied in the U.S. during that era. In U.S. rail museums, “interurban cars” are a common term, agin, tram being used for a conveyance slower and smaller.
And in common parlance, the term “Interurban” suffices by itself after it is established that these networks were Interurban Electric Railroads.
Like privately held streetcar lines, the owners of these lines generated their own power, the excess of which was often sold back to communities as an additional source of revenue. Also like privately held street car lines, some interurban lines opened amusement parks to increase ridership during off hours. Interurbans also ran freight cars either by themselves, or in tandem with passenger cars.
Finally, many of these systems chained together to provide additional range, through shared systems. So a person could travel from say, Columbus, Ohio on the CDM line to the end of the line in Marion, Ohio, change networks to the CMB line, travel to Bucyrus, Ohio, change lines, etc. and arrive in Cleveland, Ohio. Whether or not this was as efficient, or economical or as fast as traditional railway travel is up for debate, but the interurban systems never supplanted traditional rail. ClevelandExPat ( talk) 15:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
The term "interurban" is mainly considered US/Canada-specific. Would it be worth clearly separating the US/Canada interurbans from the tramways etc. in other countries that had similar characteristics? Eldomtom2 ( talk) 12:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Just a question: Why is USA first in the history section, when the Kusttram in Belgium clearly is the oldest "interurban" in the article? Shouldn't the Belgium go first? I also worry about the sole focus on Sprague's electrical systems, and nothing on Siemens and Ganz, who were more influential in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.194.47.42 ( talk) 10:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)