Berlin was mentioned twice, but not really explained : U4 was a line of the then-independent city of Schöneberg in the 1910s. Extension further south was originally planned, but eventually prevented for good in the 1970s when shortsightedly a freeway was built close to its terminus whose foundations block extension of U4. But it's perfectly possible to operate U4 as a branch of U1, thus effectively extending it north-east. It's not currently operated that way but could, and has been decades ago. U55 was never planned as a separate line. It was built as a western extension of U5, but mid construction money ran out so it existed as a stub for years. Construction has meanwhile completed, it is now part of U5 as planned.
You are wrong in one part: For operation of U3 using Nollendorfplatz turnaround tracks they had to flip the pair of switches that allowed trains from U4 going towards Warschauer Straße. Maybe it would be possible to have both, but in the current configuration U4 trains only reach the turnaround tracks.
Thanks, that's exactly right. So: sometimes short metro line just have their own history, with things happening, while history just takes another turn - or while you are busy making other plans ;)
Berlin had a line, that was comparable to U55. It was the initial line 5 from Deutsche Oper to Richard Wagner Platz. The reason for its existence is, initially the subway ended Richard Wagner Platz. They kept it, till they expanded the subway line 7, so the initial subway station was abounded, the track was used to have a connection between the narrower system and the broader one.
Historically, the U4 went beyond its current Southern terminus during its very early years to reach the depot which became obsolete once it was fully connected to the other subway lines at its Northern terminus at Nollendorfplatz. Keeping in mind that at that time also (Western) Berlin and Schöneberg had extensive tram services, the U4 had been a bit of a folly built by the master-planned new neighborhoods of Schöneberg, targeting solely at affluent, upper middle class people. More a "yes, we can burn that much money cause we have it" project than one to offer cheap public transport for the working classes. Ending the line where it still ends at Innsbrucker Platz did make sense as that part of the city of Schöneberg was still pretty much an undeveloped wasteland at that time - and the connection to the ring S-Bahn had been what mattered. While any extension further South is now not possible due to the freeway tunnel, the plans (and in Berlin there were always lots of plans, though not much action ;-) ) called for the U10 to do the job to connect densely populated neighborhood all the way South to Steglitz - especially since the S-Bahn which runs parallel to the planned U10 in that area was deemed politically unfeasible to use (between 1961 and, I think, 1984, when the S-Bahn was no longer unter control of the East German railways).... lots of confusing and contraticting plans altogether.
If you take the Waterloo and City Line in London for example, that was built by the South Western Railway, who run most of the mainline services out of Waterloo Station. It didn't become part of the Underground network until 1994. The South Western Railway wanted something to take their passengers from their terminus which was at that time in a rural location just outside of London into the City, and it was cheaper to have an underground line than take all of the mainline tracks into a central location.
Two stations and 5x 4car trains, plus being completely underground including the depot, is doing "short" properly. The trains are modified versions of stock used elsewhere, but when the line was last refurbished, the works locos didn't have numbers, just names - they were Walter, Lou, Ann & Kitty.
I find it odd that despite the Waterloo & City line passing directly underneath Blackfriars station, every time the idea of adding platforms is looked at, the cost:benefit analysis comes out against it. There are no good connections from Waterloo to King's Cross/St. Pancras, only to Euston. Surely allowing passengers heading between 2 such important rail hubs - and more to the point, the through Thameslink services offered from Blackfriars beyond St. Pancras - would make for a better network overall? Maybe it could even justify the W&C running at weekends. Even with the line as-is, I find it strange that TfL reckon there's not enough demand from day trippers who might want to travel from Dorset, Hampshire or Surrey to the City of London itself - it's not just office blocks after all!
@@peeky44 In the Network South East era, British Rail looked very seriously at adding an intermediate W&C stop at Blackfriars to complement the early development of the Thameslink service. The site was found to be impossibly difficult and costly however so the idea was dropped. Until 1994, the line had been owned by the national rail operator and its predecessors rather than London Underground and had been developed specifically to connect the major main line terminus to the heart of the financial district. Privatisation brought a transfer to LU following a major refurbishment, including new trains based on those running in longer form on the Central Line. A link between Waterloo and Blackfriars would be very useful, but it might better be accomplished by a new dedicated surface shuttle link built alongside/above existing railway viaducts. The Holborn line that serves Blackfriars passes within 300m of Waterloo East's platforms but there's never been an easy transfer available between these major corridors. A modern shuttle link with Waterloo could terminate at the south bank entrance at Blackfriars rather than the transit link having to cross the Thames itself. Recent remodelling provided new long platforms located on the bridge deck, with public entrances on both banks.
There's an interesting phenomenon in Europe of turning small metros into commuter rail systems such as the S-Bahn in Vienna or the Northern City line in London. Basically you take the tunnel sections and link them to a larger surface rail network to create an S-Bahn style system, its an interesting concept
The Northern City Line was originally intended to be what it is now. It just took them about 80 years from opening the first section of it to actually completing the project.
Well the Northern City line was purpose built for that. It just ended up as a tube line and part of the underground because it's previous owner was the Metropolitan Railway.
In Tokyo they connect "commuter" lines to a subway lines so that "commuter" trains can run into the city center and subway trains can run out to the suburbs
In Osaka, the Yumesaki line to Sakurajima in Konohana has only 4 stations, but has surprisingly high ridership since it connects Universal Studios Japan to the rest of the network at Nishi-Kujō Station. Since so many people use the train to get around the city, even this baby line to a tourist destination makes sense.
@@RMTransit Not really a "short stub subway" because the Sakurajima line it was born as a freight line and it still is, however the history of passenger service on the line is not too different from stub subways as in that when the Osaka Loop line was completed shuttle service began on the section that didn't become part of the Loop line. By the way when USJ opened through service to the Loop line started therefore there are now trains passenger trains that do travel the entire lenght of the original Sakurajima line when it still was the Nishinari line.
What I find interesting about japanese lines is, a lot of them are much longer than they appear on the map. I don't know about the one you mentioned, but Rinkai in Tokyo for example has like 8 stations on the map, but when you actually use it, you often can just stay on the train and it will continue on another line, turning from Rinkai line into another at Osaki station. I've used trains that switched lines like 3 times, but never had to leave the train. This is of course because different companies operate different sections of the tracks.
@@HDreamer I've certainly noticed that. A lot of Japanese lines have 'through-service' which means they change to a different line after the terminus. Even without that, Japanese lines are just... super long, especially a lot of the JR lines in places like Tokyo and Osaka. Makes a little baby line like the Yurikamome stand out more.
The 42nd Street Shuttle is more famous, but the Franklin Ave Shuttle is the most interesting of the NYC shuttles considering unlike the other NYC shuttles, it has a station that's only served by a shuttle service, Park Place (also the only station to have a single-track that's NOT a terminal station). Its original purpose was as part of a line to Coney Island, but extending the D to Coney Island ultimately made it a shuttle. The line was home to the deadliest crash in NYC subway history in November 1918 when, as over 90 people lost their lives because a speeding train derailed in a sharply curved tunnel when it approached Prospect Park. Basically there was a labor strike and they got a dispatcher with NO experience operating the line. But my favorite of the stub subway lines is the MTR's Disneyland Resort Line. Not only because it has special cute rolling stock with Mickey windows and Mickey handholds, but also the designs of the two stations are meant to be like a time machine, as in you're going from the futuristic city of Hong Kong at Sunny Bay, to the fantasy world of the Disneyland Resort (with Victorian-themed Disneyland Resort station). Because taking a trip to a theme park is like going back to your childhood. And not to mention, the line had the first automated MTR trains before the South Island Line.
The 42nd St Shuttle actually was automated back in the early 60s and there were plans to automate several other lines, including the now defunct Culver Shuttle. Unfortunately, the test train was destroyed in a fire and it never came to anything.
The Pyongyang Metro doesn't have a shuttle service, but our tram network does! You see, the Kumsusan Palace of the Sun in Pyongyang is currently a mausoleum though it wasn't built as such (it was built as the residence of Kim Il-sung). Kwangmyong on the Metro's Hyoksin Line served the area of the palace. But when it was decided to turn the palace into a mausoleum, the site became sacred grounds and thus the station was shut down in 1995. To replace the station, a tram shuttle service was built above ground, which connects Samhung station (also on the Metro's Hyoksin Line) to the palace. Unlike the rest of the network, the tram on the Kumsusan shuttle is actually a 1950s Zurich tram that was purchased in 1995 for it. Another interesting shuttle is SEPTA's Broad-Ridge Spur. It was originally designed as part of a loop line that would have circled around the Center City of Philadelphia. They act like express trains, with Broad-Ridge Spur trains currently skipping Logan, Wyoming, Hunting Park, Allegheny, Susquehanna-Dauphin, and Cecil B. Moore. The spur once had three stations that weren't served by ordinary Broad Street Line trains, but now it's down to two, 8th & Market and Chinatown. Spring Garden station (not to be confused with the OTHER Spring Garden on the Broad Street Line), by then exit-only, was closed on September 10, 1989, due to safety concerns.
The MTR's South Island Line in Hong Kong was purpose-built with 5 stations, and the Disneyland Resort Line only has 2. When it first opened, the Tung Chung Line, one of the longest on the system, only had 7 stops.
Probably because much of Tung Chung Line runs in the more rural Lantau island, while its stretch in Kowloon behaves like an express version of Tseun Wan Line
In Madrid, both L11 and L8 are short in purpose, because they connect such important places like Carabanchel (a residential neighbourhood) and Barajas Airport. However, the first line felt more like a stub rather than a useful line. Nowadays, it's use to connect 2 important shopping malls and there are plans in future to connect with Atocha (the main train station of Madrid)
Interesting in Madrid is Line 10 where at Tres Olivos line 10 from Puerta del Sur ends and you have to transfer to continue on the shorter northern section of the same named line 10. 😎👍
@@TheMexxodus he mentioned this in Madrid Metro video! I take Line 10 every day to go to Uni but i get off at Begoña so i never use the northern section :)
Another reason is technical differences, Lyon line C uses rack railway which limits its speed and its capacity, so it is purposely not extended to avoid it becoming overcrowded. That is why its northen extension to Rilleux will be built as part of line B (standard driverless metro line). Fortunately, line C is planned to close and be replaced by a standard metro line with a new deeper tunnel in 2030-2035
Improved motor technology and lightweight carriage construction has also allowed for standard steel-on-steel metro systems to deal with steeper gradients, so tyres or racks are less necessary.
@@transitspace4366 Perhaps that is still the case for line C, but I've seen conventional metro and light rail lines deal with increasingly steeper gradients over the years.
The extension to Rilleux and the line C closure are planned ? I don't have any information about these projects, and I'm surprised that the city has these projects while inhabitants struggled to have the new line E because municipality prefered less expensive tram lines...
@@sylvainldgo7361 line C closure and line B extension are still planned for after 2030, they aren’t currently discussed as the city is focused on short term tram projects
One nice thing about short lines is it easier to use single track. Because the train will "bounce back" so soon, you don't need additional trains/tracks for suitable frequency. But all things being equal, you really do want longer transit routes. Part of what makes a train efficient are its ability to service many diverse routes along just one line. One passenger may go from B>C, while another from A>G, and another D>G. The longer the transit route is, the more possible station combinations it can serve, and thus mathematically the more popular it can become.
London's East London Line is an exception to this "short lines stay short" rule! Originally built in 1869, it became a branch line on the London Underground in 1933, before being severed to become a "stub" operating between Whitechapel/Shoreditch and New Cross. But in 2010 it was linked up with some other (both existing & disused) lines via some new sections of track & tunnels, greatly extending it, and transferred to London Overground. It's now one of the more important lines in Central London with several key interchanges. It now gets far more passengers and better service frequency than it ever did as a "stub", and even operates 24 hours at weekends!
Since you mentioned testing out new tech on short lines: Berlin's U4 (a pretty short one) was used as a test bed for SelTrac automatic train operation from 1981 to 1985 and then was operated automatically from 1985 to 1993 (with a safety driver on board).
Singapore actually has another branch line (soon to be 2 more) that operates as a short shuttle, although admittedly one of them only does this in the offpeak. This is the Circle Line branch to Marina Bay, which ends at Stadium (5 stops) in the offpeak. The Cross Island Line branch to Punggol will also be quite short, although it's currently unclear how short it will be as it hasn't been announced where the services will end. Another short stub subway worth mentioning is the Nagoya Subway's Kamiida Line which has 2 stations and was built to connect the Meitetsu Komaki Line station at Kamiida station with the Nagoya Subway at Heian-dori station when the Nagoya trams were ripped out. Like the Tokyo subway, this line interoperates with the Komaki line, which means its really only a short stub when seen on the subway map, but it is still technically separate from the Komaki line. The Nagoya region has a lot of really interesting railway lines and gadgetbahns despite being the birthplace of the Japanese car, and would make for a great video!
How is the flow on the Singapore Circle Line going to change when they complete the circle? Will it actually run as a circle, or as a spiral with distinct ends, like London's Circle Line has become in recent years?
@@MattMcIrvin i think there are 2 modes: CC1 - CC6 (Shuttle) looping service or like the Circle Line in London does, but mainly their tracks are together when they reach Promenade (CC4).
@Matt McIrvin this is still unclear as the Land Transport Authority in Singapore hasn't said anything about the service pattern. However, it's more likely that it'll be a shuttle service, as a spiral service would needlessly complicate the scheduling. Since if a spiral service ran, then the service pattern might be like Paris Metro Line 15?
The Skokie Swift, now the Yellow line, in Chicago is a fascinating example of a rail transit shuttle. Built by salvaging about five miles of former North Shore interurban track, the Swift was once the fastest rail transit line in the USA. For years it was powered by overhead wire, and it relied upon a one-off articulated train that wasn't successful enough to be adopted on a mass scale. Today, the Yellow is third rail and has three stations, but it is still a remarkable piece of railroad history providing valuable service today.
Taipei’s Xinbeitou Branch is actually not a depot branch. In fact, it was actually built with the intention of being one of the terminuses for the Red Line. However, its close proximity to residential blocks sparked enormous protests along the line for the noise it creates when using the six cars train. It was so intense that residents along the line were throwing televisions onto the track in protest. Therefore, Xinbeitou Branch was forced to be operating as a branch line with three cars train and a reduced speed limit before Red Line was officially opened with it in 1999.
I think it would make sense to extend Montreal’s yellow line in Longueuil at least to Cégep Édouard-Montpetit, a college with over 7000 students. But high construction costs have unfortunately made such an extension politically impossible, at least for the time being. I also remember hearing that there were concerns that extending the yellow line further into Longueuil would possibly lead to capacity issues at Berri-UQÀM station, which would make it necessary to extend the yellow line further into downtown Montréal (possibly to McGill station), so that not everyone gets off at Berri-UQÀM. Needless to say, building another metro extension in the densest part of the city would be very expensive.
@@RMTransit It would be awesome! But I don’t expect it to happen any time soon given how it’s already so difficult and expensive for the STM to extend the blue line to Anjou, in a much less dense urban environment.
Isn't the Montreal end of the yellow line too deep for an extension to be practical? It's quite an escalator ride down from the green line platforms. That's possibly also why they never built an Old Port Metro station on the yellow line between Berri-UQAM Station and Île Sainte-Hélène Station (now Parc Jean-Drapeau Station): it would've been too much of a downward journey from ground level to platform level even if a hypothetical station there would be more convenient than walking a thousand plus yards to Champ-des-Mars station.
One thing to add about the Taipei Metro is that some of those stub lines have value as leisure attractions. The two-stop Xinbeitou Line takes passengers from the trunk line to a hot spring destination at the foot of a mountain. Having that location on the main line would have been impractical, but having a stub line makes the journey to the hot springs part of the tourist experience.
In Philadelphia, SEPTA (The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority) has the Broad-Ridge Spur. It was a stub line that originally was designed as part of a loop line that would have circled around the central core of downtown Philadelphia. When money was lacking for the full design to be built it only had four stations then was truncated to three. I had always thought that the line was a waste of resources but it luckily provided a redundant link to another line (the Market-Frankford Subway Elevated) for being 2.5 miles long and still in use today.
Seattle will open the West Seattle extension much sooner than the Ballard extension, meaning that for the first 7 years, we will have a West Seattle shuttle which only serves 4 stations but connects with the 1 line in SODO.
A really cool example of repurposed rail infrastructure is the Johnsonville Line in Wellington, New Zealand. It uses the historical alignment of the North Island Main Trunk line, it was repurposed for local service after the completion of the Tawa Flat Deviation. It is a twisty, fairly steep line which is single tracked with 3 passing loops along its 10.5 km length. And coincidentally, it was used in 2021 to trial the usage of the new tag-on/tag-off proof of payment system to replace paper tickets on all the Wellington suburban rail lines.
The concept of short lines is very evident in the San Francisco Bay Area’s BART system. Oakland is a major transfer point, but also has a short line to the airport. Where as San Francisco goes directly to the airport at the end of the line. Had BART circled the bay as originally planned, the situation would have probably been different. Now there is a third major airport in San Jose. Due to the way the BART system was developed and the changing population densities, it is turning into an amalgam of different connecting systems around the bay.
Correction on the Taipei MRT: only the Xiaobitan Line is at a depot. Xinbeitou was the intended terminus of the shortened service to Daan (and previously Nanshijiao in the interlined era), but noise complaints from neighbors to the viaduct mean the slow shuttle service runs instead. Thats why its double tracked and has the goofiest platform screen doors on the newtork. The Beitou depot is actually on the main line, and Xinbeitou is a relic of the old TRA alignment to the hot spring resorts. My hope is for a Tucheng Depot extension on the Blue Line sometime in the future!
Just want to add some supplement information about those 2 stubs in Taipei Metro: - The Xiaobitan Line (light green, due to the spelling, they are a bit confusing in English, so I call them with color here) was indeed as you said - by the local petition, reusing the depot line to serv the depot area, and has a shorter platform (3 cars' length). - But the Xinbeitou Stn.(light red) was already there when the former railroad was torn down and rebuilt as a metro line, so it got replaced along with the rest of the main line. And it was clearly intend for some kind of branch operation of the main line (you can tell that by the track crossover viaduct before Beitou Stn., the full-length (6 cars) platform, and that the branch is fully double tracked). But the idea was given up and it stay as a shuttle due to the noise complains (and switched to a shorter 3-car train). As of that stub branch in the former railroad, it was built in 1916 for the tourist development of the hot-spring area, so if you want to categorize the reason, I guess it was intended to build it that short, but just as a connection for the area to an existing railroad.
The 42nd St Shuttle was actually home to one of the first automated lines in the world. Track 4 used a dedicated set of R21 subway cars that could run automated service. The union was not happy about this, and the trains ended up being fully crewed anyway. Even so, that shuttle train and the automated infrastructure was destroyed in a suspicious fire at Grand Central which also heavily damaged the station. The shuttle is set to receive new R262 subway cars and CBTC along with it. However, full automation of the shuttle will be difficult to get past the union as it was in the past.
The commentary so far is very interesting! I am British, but I forgot the Waterloo and City Line! I did think of the two 'Bis' lines in Paris! They are separate because it is more sensible for the Metro to run all the trains on the main line to the main terminus and have a shuttle service on the branch. Berlin commentators have helpfully explained their U4. It was (in effect) a branch from the U1, but has for a long time been in effect a (rather long) 'Bis' line. Lausanne is a case where a short line of less than 2 kms. from Ouchy to Flon has become a fully blown metro of nearly 6 kms. (Lausanne and Glasgow are both special cases, but very different from each other.)
Here in Yerevan, Armenia there is a similar situation to Taipei: the yard is not on the main line, so they built a one-track station adjacent to the yard. The shuttle serivce runs ONE-car trains which look very strange and probably shouldn't be even called trains, but they are modified versions of the main-line trains
For that matter, if a rail vehicle consist of only a single car, it's called a railcar. Informally, though, everyone still would call that a train unless running on streets in which case it's probably called a tram.
And here I was knowing that these lines existed, but never giving much thought to them. And then to think that there is a common thing in all of them that they never extend. To think that all of these lines extending would be super useful!
Line 3bis in Paris was created when the RATP extended line 3 to Gallieni. Instead of having two branches, one going to Gallieni and one to Porte des Lilas, and the fact that the original Gambetta station wasn't set up to branch off in a different direction, The RATP decided to build a new Gambetta station, effectively closing the nearby Martin Nadaud station in 1969. And in 1971, they closed off the part of the tunnel which went to the original Gambetta station and made a passageway to switch between line 3 and line 3bis. Line 7bis was created in 1967 because of the difference in ridership with the Porte de la Villette branch of line 7. from 1921 to 1939 there was a connecting shuttle between lines 3 and 7 between Porte des Lilas and Pré St-Gervais and there's talk of merging both lines 3bis and 7bis by way of that former shuttle route, where trackage is still present because they send some metro trains to the Porte des Lilas - Cinéma ghost station to do some filming for movies and TV shows sometimes. Maybe they'll call it line 19. Lines 15 through 18 are part of the Grand Paris Express project.
I'm surprised you didn't mention the saga of the Purple/D Line in LA. It was meant to go through the Westside which was deeply skeptical about transit; that and an explosion blamed on tunnelling led to it being stopped at Wilshire/Western two stops west of where it branched off the Red/B Line and operated as a stubway for 30 years with phase 1 of the extension (to Wilshire/La Cienega) slated to open next year and construction to begin on phase 2 all the way to the huge VA campus in Westwood.
While I do think the 42nd Street Shuttle is a unique and convenient service that does not need to be changed, the Sheppard Line must be extended to be useful. It could be eastward to Scarborough and the Agincourt train station or westward to the other part of Line 1.
Line 4 should end up as a major part of a northern crosstown corridor, running from Finch West (or further north) in an interline with Line 1, splitting off just past Downsview Park to remain on Sheppard, and going all the way east to McCowan.
@@sblack53 Line 4 trains can't run on Finch West as they're two different track gauges and Sheppard uses third rail power while Finch West uses overhead power. But I agree that a northern crosstown corridor is needed.
@@pauly5418 that’s not what I’m referring to. I mean interline with Line 1 from Downsview Park to at least Finch West, and possibly extend as far NORTH as Vaughan along the existing TYSSE, not WEST along Finch. The northern crosstown would be split between Lines 4 and 6 in this case.
I am thinking of the Blue Line in Boston. The Blue line started off as a streetcar subway between Maverick Square in East Boston and Downtown Boston, through an under harbor tunnel. It was extended one stop to a station with a turnaround loop and a ramp to street level for through routing of surface cars downtown, in 1916. Through routing did not work out and the streetcar tunnel to Maverick was turned into a stub metro in 1924. The needed subway shuttle cars were maintained at the same shops as the Cambridge-Dorchester, now Red Line, connecting via the western ramp beyond Bowdoin through surface tracks to the Longfellow Bridge and the Red line through a connection between surface and subway tracks on the bridge. Though short, that shuttle was quite busy and the Boston Elevated could now easily collect two fares, one for the surface car and one for the shuttle train In 1951, to extend the line, the surface cars were replaced by trackless trolleys which could not use the underground loop for streetcars. That line extended to Revere Beach and Wonderland, where there was a dog track. It also connected to Suffolk (S ucker) Downs, a horse track. Somewhere on UA-cam there is a video showing the busy Maverick Terminal in streetcar days.
There was that one time the 42nd Street Shuttle was automated way back in the 60s and it didn't end well. I like the idea of testing platform screen doors there but that'll probably have to wait until the R262s arrive, if the MTA can even get their stuff together by then. Instead, the L and 7 are usually the testbeds for technology.
The Aldwych branch is interesting as it was originally planned as part of a much longer route which never happened and so it ended up as a stub before eventually being closed completely.
In Hamburg, U1 forks at Volksdorf and both branches are alternatively operated, naming their respective terminals all along the line. However, the Großhansdorf trains used to end at Volksdorf and people changed into a stubway, while the Ohlsdorf trains ran through. Today, this is partly done on the Ohlsdorf branch. The few locals along the stubways do know, and to others it is irrelevant. Saves the complexity of naming additional lines. But I was much surprised when exploring the line decades ago and suddenly all passengers left the train.
Hmm, like the Glasgow Subway? (Still a single circular route -- operating in both directions -- after 126 years.) It also has _really_ small-diameter trains and tunnels.
I would also mention the M1 line in Budapest here. While it has 11 stops, they are very close together and the whole line is only about 4.4 km long. The line has a relatively low capacity, but it sort of acts like a tourist shuttle for several important sightseeing destinations and is a tourist attraction in itself (first opened in 1896).
I say go all the way to Finch West (or further) on an interline from Downsview Park. There’s already reduced frequency on the TYSSE compared to South of St Clair West during peak hours so the line can handle the capacity, plus you create more network effect at Downsview GO and Finch West.
The Yellow line in Montreal has huge potential for growing, there is very high demand in Longueuil, but North American costs are as always prohibiting, so here is a solution: we could benefit from the low ridership and short length of the line to close it for a few years (replacing it by high frequency buses) to retrofit it with steel-wheeled operation (and btw make it driverless with PSDs,) then reopen it, and then build the extension elevated !
The yellow line actually gets quite a lot of ridership, especially given that it’s so short. Replacing it with buses for a few years probably wouldn’t make sense since buses have much lower capacity and would be significantly slower (and probably less reliable) than the grade-separated yellow line. I think a cut-and-cover extension of the yellow line in Longueuil would make more sense as it wouldn’t be as disruptive to current yellow line users. However, there’s then the question of whether it would be necessary to extend the yellow line past Berri-UQÀM, further into downtown (I’ve seen proposals to extend it to McGill station), so that not all of the new users from Longueuil get off at Berri-UQÀM and potentially cause overcrowding at that station. Such a downtown extension would probably be very expensive as you would have to bore the tunnels under the most densely built part of the city.
I agree with Ethan's take below - there's tonnes of potential to extend the Yellow Line into Longueuil. Re. cut-n-cover to accomplish this, today tunnel boring is nearly the same in terms of cost and much less disruptive so I see this as the approach planners would take. Also, you cannot refit the line with steel wheel trains as the grades between Berri-UQAM - Jean Drapeau - Longueuil stations are WAY to steep. Finally, I use the Yellow line on the daily and the ridership is going through the roof - even with train frequencies at four minutes during peak hours, there's still a lot of people on the quay waiting for the next train. This is a good thing and indicative that we could expand the Yellow by three to five stations. Here's hoping.
@@NorthernDG blue line extension would disagree, cut & cover saves a ton of money but it’s not a panacea, it is still very expensive compared to elevated transit. Steel-wheeled trains can climb up to 6% slopes, so they could easily handle the yellow line. Closing it completely may be excessive (trains could still run during the conversion work, that happened in Paris ie) though not impossible, Paris often replaces its super busy RER A like by high-frequency buses services for work.
@@NorthernDG @Transit space I honestly think that if any rail project further into Longueuil gets built, it’ll probably be either an orbital REM line or an orbital tramway line connecting Cégep Édouard-Montpetit to the Panama REM station in Brossard, passing through Longueuil-U.-de-Sherbrooke. The STM and ARTM don’t seem interested in extending the yellow line since it would be expensive, even though it’s the ideal option as it wouldn’t force people coming from the Cégep to transfer at Longueuil-U.-de-Sherbrooke to get to Montreal. Local politicians in Longueuil, who for years supported extending the yellow line, are now betting on an orbital tram or REM line, as even they realize the political infeasibility of extending the yellow line.
The yellow line in montreal is very useful. That being said, it needs some love. There are a lot of water leaks through the ceiling and the station has been under renovation for a lot of years now. Azur trains would also be nice and since the line is only three stations long it wouldn’t take a while before the whole line didn’t have any MR-73s left
There's a reason that, when our local city services (which include buses) do their more-or-less regular (yearly?) passenger surveys, they ask where people are going, not just count where they find them and which kind of ticket they use - that's how you can figure out which changes could improve the network, not just single lines. In fact, I believe that they've now included surveying cars, as well, though I haven't seen how that part works.
Funfact: Both the 42nd St Shuttle and Franklin Shuttle were used as test beds in the past for technology they used or never used. Franklin Shuttle was the first line to the BMT Bluebirds. The 42nd St had a Automatic train test for a few month that sadly ended in a fire
I'm glad you mentioned Line 4A in Santiago. I still can't figure out why the government here is spending billions of dollars to build entire new lines and extend some of the other lines - all expensive and underground of course, while they refuse to finish this easy line. Line 4A sits in a freeway median on the surface, and when they built the orbital freeway, they left room to continue the line from its current terminus at La Cisterna to either Del Sol on line 5, or even keep going towards the airport in Pudahuel. It would be the cheapest way to connect an entire section of the city to the metro system, as well as providing alternate routes from Maipu in case of a fault on one line, increasing the resilience of the entire system.
Xinbeitou branch is actually the remnant of Imperial Taiwan Railway's Xinbeitou(Shin-Hokuto) branch line. It was made to be a hot spring tourist line, and was kept even after the Tamsui Railway Line upgraded into a metro line in 1997.
I just read that Atlanta will spend 75 MILLION (pinky externded) dollars to lengthen Bankhead platform from 2 to 8 cars. Bankhead is a one station stub enabling extra service in the core of the East West line. The Bowling Green - South Ferry shuttle (closed in 1977) is another oddity worth remembering. A useless 2 or 3 block line that suddenly became essential if you forgot your umbrella on a rainy day.
In Toronto, the University line was a bit of a subway until continued as the Spadina line. First, the Univ line was meant to offer a seamless transfer between the e-w Bloor line, but that didn't work out.
For all its faults, the metro in Boston (now part of the MBTA, but back then it was the MTA) did expand a short line to a full-length line. This was the East Boston Tunnel (which had been converted from a streetcar tunnel to a metro in 1924 by the Boston Elevated Railway under the Boston Transit Commission), from Bowdoin Square downtown to Maverick Square in East Boston, where it was fed by streetcars. In 1952 - 1954, it was extended out onto the surface over the right of way of the abandoned Boston, Revere Beach and Lynn Railroad, first toOrient Heights (where the new shops/yard were located), and then to Wonderland in Revere. Plans have been made from time to time to extend it further along the same right of way as far as Lynn, but unfortunately nothing ever came of them, or of the plans for extension on an alternate right of way further inland (along the Newburyport/Rockport Commuter Rail Line), or of the plans to extend the other end to Charles/MGB to connect to the Red Line.
Funny I went on line 7Bis today. Plans exist to link 7b and 3b together, which they already are physically speaking but would require to rework a track connection and perhaps renew the tracks a little to work (ans also take off the rubber tyre prototype track that was used to test the rubber tyre trains in the 50s) Line 3b used to be part of Line 3 until 1971 when the line was extended to Bagnolet instead, leaving the low traffic part to Porte des Lilas to a shuttle service instead of a branch. Line 7b was one of the two Northern branches of Line 7 but the other branch to La Villette got so much more traffic and a new branch was gonna be added in the South to potentially serve Orly airport, so to simplify things, they decided to cut the St Gervais branch and make a spur out of it in 1967. They used that line and unused attached infrastructure to try out prototypes such a rubber tyre trains, or the new trains with integral gangways between carriages, electric doors, new electronic tampering of motors, new on board computers, etc... and the failed orientable trucks intead of bogeys that is more cumbersome in a straight line than it is in a curve.
@RMTransit Your video reminded me of Seoul's examples. On Line 2, there are the Sinjeong and Seongsu branches, with the former being a purpose-built depot branch and the latter formerly composing its main line before its full circle was completed. Both branches have had plans to extend them, but the Seongsu Branch's plan was replaced by a light metro line due to conflicts with the link to Line 1. Regarding Line 1, the shuttle between Yeongdeungpo and Gwangmyeong bullet train station can be counted in.
The 42 st shuttle isn't the only one we have, we also have the franklin av shuttle and the rockaway shuttle. Edit: both born from similar circumstances (though with those 2 there are plans and proposals to have them become part of full lines or be extended)
I mean the Rockaway shuttle is just for times of day when the A only serves one branch of the Rockaways, right? Doesn’t the A run both branches at late night?
C line on Buenos Aires comes to mind. Connects the two more busy rail stations on the country, and while it can be extended, it would be reckless to do it as it runs at capacity as it is and would still do it if headway goes as down as 60 seconds
The Yellow Line i Montreal may be short but it brings transit to the Jean-Drapeau Island which has a lot of tourist attractions and also connects to a major bus terminal and university in longeuil, where a lot of bus lines shuttle people into the station and the Yellow Line to bring them further into Montreal.
green line in atlanta technically has 9 stops, but only one stop isnt on the adjacent blue line. its very interesting to see a single stop branch out and stop.
Interestingly, the Green Line (formerly called the Proctor Creek Line) was originally planned to extend further north with another station near Perry Blvd. Combined with the unbuilt Tucker-North DeKalb branch which would have split from the Blue Line just west of East Lake station with planned stops at Emory/CDC and North Druid Hills, the Green Line would’ve had four stations exclusive to it had it been fully built out.
Fun fact on the Times Square Shuttle, NY did in fact test automation back in the 50s or 60s there, and apparently it was fairly successful until there was a “mysterious” fire that destroyed the prototype train. Suffice to say, the NYC transit union is very against full automation, and the MTA hasn’t attempted it since. Theres been various scheme’s to replace the Shuttle throughout its history as well, such as moving walkways and a weird rotating circulator system with benches.
Interested to see an explainer on Melbourne's new rail projects, including the suburban rail loop, the metro tunnel, the airport line and the proposal of a second metro tunnel eventually.
In the yellow line's case extending it on either end is problematic since on the Montreal side extending it into downtown would be so difficult to maneuver it around things that are too important to demolish or divert would be more expensive then building an entire new line (which we almost did) while on the South Shore side there isn't enough demand for it to justify the cost which is why a new REM line is going to go there instead. Sometimes a line's idea size isn't particularly large.
Probably the craziest set of short lines currently in operation is in Baki, Azerbaijan. They have a new line 3 of 4 stations that is growing (slowly), an unfinished Line 2 with 2 stations in operation served by two shuttle trains but one of the stations is single track, and a Line 1 branch to the depot with 1 station that is only served by irregular shuttles.
That line of two stations used to be called salad line (light green colour) and they've been digging that tonnel from there for as long as I can remmember. But the issue was that, the whole area in that direction (previously known as Black City) has been demolished and the White City project that was built on its place is only being properly settled now. So, in the media they say that the next station to open should be the Salad line White City station. You can already see a roadsign leading to it.
The two cases in Taipei are actually good examples of how NOT to run a shuttle line. The Xiaobitan line trains stop at platforms on the main (Xindian) line, therefore lowering the capacity of the main line. The Xinbeitou line was designed as a branch but now run as a shuttle due to local opposition, lowering its capacity / potential usefulness.
The opposite direction can be seen in the ongoing construction of a Stockholm stub line originally intended to have four stops in total - with one terminus at a big interchange and the other at an arena that's already served by commuter rail. Now it's being included as a branch of the green line, and they're even using an old section of tunnel, some 5-10 metres, that was built with this in mind seventy years ago.
@@magnushultgrenhtc Ah, that one. There are a few projects. In that case, the green line would be better with another northern branch, along with the 19 branch being rebuilt to the blue line. The 1-3 branching of the green line has been a little bit of a problem. And I know the Älvsjö stub is also being built to accommodate expansion as well. Maybe we'll get that Älvsjö-Hagsätra connection people have been wanting since the mid 1900's, although from the other direction. Either way, it's nice that things are happening.
@@AnotherDuck I'd even say that the colours can be the source of some confusion. It's in fact three green lines, two blue lines, and two red lines. They just share some tracks in the centre, then they go their separate ways. Not like the commuter trains that connect both the northern end points to both of the southern end points - so you can just wait for the right one and go from end to end. While in the metro, to achieve this, you need to get off and change.
In Nagoya, Japan, there is a municipal subway line that only has two stations and only 800 meters long called Kami-iida Line. However, this is a little different as it acts like an extension to Meitetsu Komaki Line.
Dnepropetrovsk subway. It's a legend in post-soviet transit-lovers communities. Like 6km and has 5 stops (I guess) One is on the main railroad station, one is in a small district, others are in dead industries. They tried to extend but for some decades it's just a big build-ground which makes movement around the city impossible. (My friend's words, he's living there).
Warsaw Metro almost ended up like this. The construction started in the 80s, when the government was already running out of money. The works were proceeding at snail's pace and there was a serious debate whether to ditch the project entirely, as if completed, the first phase of the line would end 1.5 km before reaching the downtown. Who would use it? Well, as it turned out, quite a lot of people and the completion of line 1 was approved. As of 2024, Warsaw Metro has 2 lines and 3 more in various planning stages.
An interesting case would be Shanghai line 2's easternmost section. When it first opened, the section east of Guanglan Rd was operated with a 4 car shuttle and there was a forced cross-platform transfer with the rest of the line which uses 8 car trains. It eventually got retrofitted with infrastructure to allow 8 car trains and trains now thru run the entire line
The line that I can think of is the 0.8 km Kamiida Line of Nagoya Subway. The line has only 2 stations and serves as an extension of Meitetsu Komaki Line. As such, the two lines have through services. The reason behind this very short line is because of the abolishment of Nagoya Municipal Tramway in the 1970s, Kamiiida Station, the terminus of Meitetsu Komaki Line, lost its connection to other railway lines. So, they needed to built a connection for their passengers to connect to the rest of the train system. There is also a plan to extend this line furthermore, but that's just a plan because nothing was progress since then.
Short spurs of an existing line are, I suppose, another category. Boston's Green Line Extension includes a strange single-station spur connecting Lechmere to Union Square, but it's not a separate line; it's now operated as the north end of the D branch (E branch trains instead take the longer extension to Medford).
A problem with branches, is that it is hard to match services to passenger demand that isn't evenly split between branches with a proportionate but even interval service to each branch. Say one branch has twice the passenger numbers of the other branch, a 30 trains per hour service might want to be split between the branches in 20 to 10 ratio. So while the intervals to the less busy branch will be a consistent 6 minutes, the busier branch will get intervals of 2 minutes then 4 minutes alternating and its trains will be less busy then more busy, potentially exaggerating the already uneven passenger loading across the line created by the uneven split in passenger numbers, with busier trains tending to have longer dwells at stations across the section shared by both branches.
The yellow (4) line of the Montréal métro is planned to get 3 or 4 more stations on the South Shore. It was made to handle a LOT of traffic as it was meant to deserve the 1967 Universal Exposition of Terre des Homes, carrying several thousands of peoples daily.
I feel it should have been mentioned that some - like the Waterloo & City line in London - were not given much, if any room to expand... Bank station on it literally has the way out in the way of the track
Interestingly, the 42nd St. Shuttle in New York has historically been where new tech has been tested. For example, it was where automation was tested on the system from 1962 until 1964, when one of the trains derailed, and then 5 days later the equipment for automatic operation at Grand Central was destroyed in a fire. Unfortunately, these two events prevented the automation of the IRT Flushing Line (7), and the BMT Myrtle Avenue El (M), Canarsie Line (L), and the Franklin Avenue and the now demolished Culver Shuttles; this probably set the subway back decades in terms of tech. Today, the line is also where new Vignelli-style maps are being tested for customer response, as well as standing-room only cars due to the line's short length and occasional congestion during rush hour
Nice. I don't have the energy to scroll through 221 comments. But here in Italy we have a short metro that even calls itself that: Perugia's Minimetrò. It's a small city of 170,000 or so people, and the metro goes from a large parking lot on the outskirts up to the historic center. It's a people mover using tech fro Leitner, and the modern stations were designed by French architect Jean Nouvel. It's partially crippled by limited evening operating hours. All the same it's kind of weird and interesting.
Excellent Video! I know I've been asking a lot but I would really like to see an explainer video on the transit system in thwe La Paz/Ela Alto metrpolitan area. It is such a unique system and I feel like we could really learn a lot from it.
Looking bck at this there's a connection shuttle with the Linea Plateada connecting Plaza 16 de Julio, Faro Murillo, and Ciudad satelite which provides acess between four different Teleferico lines. Intresting right?
Berlin's U4 is quite peculiar, because it was built, back in the day, interely by Schöneberg 'district' within its bounderies. Berlin is a land (a 'state' of Federal Germany) and the districts of Berlin are actually municipalities. Some way it works like Greater London, oversimplifying. At the begginning of 20th century Schöneberg wanted to build its own metro line. That's why it's that short. As it interchange with Berlin's U-bahn network at its Northern terminus and with S-bahn ring at Southern one, it works just fine and wasn't extended further.
Was thinking that too, considering it's the oldest example in the world of an underground shuttle service (counting the time when it wasn't part of the Underground proper)
Half-size I think, at least if you consider the length of the trains. Basically half of a Central Line train with the grab poles painted a different colour. But yes.
And you missed off what may be the smallest of the lot - London's 2-station Waterloo & City Line (although it may not count as it was built as a 'mainline' Railway, just with Underground-style rolling stock).
There's also one of these smaller versions of the real system in San Francisco Bay on the Pittsburg Baypoint line, there's a two station shuttle from the transfer Station to Antioch. I have not been on it but from what I understand there's literally a station that is only used to transfer from one of the main BART trains to the shuttle train with no entrance or exit for the public to the surrounding area. Just a transfer point which is kind of interesting on its own. From my understanding there is plenty of available room if they decide to extend the mainline further out in the right of way, but it was a cheaper option than extending the main line train service to go with the short shuttle for two stations.
London Underground's East London Line seems to be the only major example to have bucked the trend with regard to short stub lines, being removed from the Underground and linked up with underused local National Rail lines to create the London Overground in 2010.
I have commented about this before, but it would be very interesting to hear your input on this. The metro of the city of Quito in Ecuador is ready and should be operational but it is just sitting there collecting dust due to beaurocracy and government issues. The construction process was super weird also for the topography of the city and the city center that is super old and very fragile. I would love to hear your opinion :) It was built by a Spanish company so it's similar to the Madrid metro
A well-known example are Paris's lines 3bis and 7bis. Despite a project to merge them into one line by refurbishing existing tracks, it will probably never happen because the benefits will never justify the cost.
Line 4 in Mexico City is the shortest of the system and has the lowest ridership, despite having more transfers than standalone stations. On the other hand, line 2 of Guadalajara Light Rail is the shortest line with just 10 km of service track, but it's the most used of the three, despite never being completed to its full planned length
Fuse line 3bis and 7bis in Paris sometimes come back as an Idea to make a little more bigger line, that could also potentially make a new link between some parts of Paris and Gare de l'Est, but for now there is nothing planned before 2030, and I doubt that any fuse project come again before a long time
as someone who regularly uses M6 in istanbul to go to the uni, i always thought that the reason the line is so short is the distance has too much traffic to use the bus during rush hours but when i thought about it again, i feel like it had potential to grow westward. of course, it has single track between the stations, so it is impossible now. and the single track causes not being able to increase the frequency when needed. as reece said, it mostly serves to a bigger line, M2 but it also means that if you don't live on M2 line, you have to use at least 3 different vehicles to reach your destination (or 4 vehicles in my case)
Interesting. I use almost all of Istanbuls lines frequently when I visit, but used M6 only once to get to Akmerkez mall. The transfer between M2 and M6 is kind of lengthy which undermines the usefulness of the line. Have you used the funicular on the other end and did you notice an increase in ridership?
Berlin was mentioned twice, but not really explained :
U4 was a line of the then-independent city of Schöneberg in the 1910s. Extension further south was originally planned, but eventually prevented for good in the 1970s when shortsightedly a freeway was built close to its terminus whose foundations block extension of U4. But it's perfectly possible to operate U4 as a branch of U1, thus effectively extending it north-east. It's not currently operated that way but could, and has been decades ago.
U55 was never planned as a separate line. It was built as a western extension of U5, but mid construction money ran out so it existed as a stub for years. Construction has meanwhile completed, it is now part of U5 as planned.
You are wrong in one part: For operation of U3 using Nollendorfplatz turnaround tracks they had to flip the pair of switches that allowed trains from U4 going towards Warschauer Straße. Maybe it would be possible to have both, but in the current configuration U4 trains only reach the turnaround tracks.
Thanks, that's exactly right. So: sometimes short metro line just have their own history, with things happening, while history just takes another turn - or while you are busy making other plans ;)
I rode on U55 back in 2016 and was confused on why it only went for 3 stops, thanks for the info!
Berlin had a line, that was comparable to U55. It was the initial line 5 from Deutsche Oper to Richard Wagner Platz. The reason for its existence is, initially the subway ended Richard Wagner Platz. They kept it, till they expanded the subway line 7, so the initial subway station was abounded, the track was used to have a connection between the narrower system and the broader one.
Historically, the U4 went beyond its current Southern terminus during its very early years to reach the depot which became obsolete once it was fully connected to the other subway lines at its Northern terminus at Nollendorfplatz.
Keeping in mind that at that time also (Western) Berlin and Schöneberg had extensive tram services, the U4 had been a bit of a folly built by the master-planned new neighborhoods of Schöneberg, targeting solely at affluent, upper middle class people. More a "yes, we can burn that much money cause we have it" project than one to offer cheap public transport for the working classes.
Ending the line where it still ends at Innsbrucker Platz did make sense as that part of the city of Schöneberg was still pretty much an undeveloped wasteland at that time - and the connection to the ring S-Bahn had been what mattered.
While any extension further South is now not possible due to the freeway tunnel, the plans (and in Berlin there were always lots of plans, though not much action ;-) ) called for the U10 to do the job to connect densely populated neighborhood all the way South to Steglitz - especially since the S-Bahn which runs parallel to the planned U10 in that area was deemed politically unfeasible to use (between 1961 and, I think, 1984, when the S-Bahn was no longer unter control of the East German railways).... lots of confusing and contraticting plans altogether.
If you take the Waterloo and City Line in London for example, that was built by the South Western Railway, who run most of the mainline services out of Waterloo Station. It didn't become part of the Underground network until 1994. The South Western Railway wanted something to take their passengers from their terminus which was at that time in a rural location just outside of London into the City, and it was cheaper to have an underground line than take all of the mainline tracks into a central location.
Two stations and 5x 4car trains, plus being completely underground including the depot, is doing "short" properly. The trains are modified versions of stock used elsewhere, but when the line was last refurbished, the works locos didn't have numbers, just names - they were Walter, Lou, Ann & Kitty.
The line is the second oldest deep level tube in London, dating back to the 1890s.
I find it odd that despite the Waterloo & City line passing directly underneath Blackfriars station, every time the idea of adding platforms is looked at, the cost:benefit analysis comes out against it. There are no good connections from Waterloo to King's Cross/St. Pancras, only to Euston. Surely allowing passengers heading between 2 such important rail hubs - and more to the point, the through Thameslink services offered from Blackfriars beyond St. Pancras - would make for a better network overall? Maybe it could even justify the W&C running at weekends. Even with the line as-is, I find it strange that TfL reckon there's not enough demand from day trippers who might want to travel from Dorset, Hampshire or Surrey to the City of London itself - it's not just office blocks after all!
Yep! Its kind of the most classic example of this!
@@peeky44 In the Network South East era, British Rail looked very seriously at adding an intermediate W&C stop at Blackfriars to complement the early development of the Thameslink service. The site was found to be impossibly difficult and costly however so the idea was dropped. Until 1994, the line had been owned by the national rail operator and its predecessors rather than London Underground and had been developed specifically to connect the major main line terminus to the heart of the financial district. Privatisation brought a transfer to LU following a major refurbishment, including new trains based on those running in longer form on the Central Line. A link between Waterloo and Blackfriars would be very useful, but it might better be accomplished by a new dedicated surface shuttle link built alongside/above existing railway viaducts. The Holborn line that serves Blackfriars passes within 300m of Waterloo East's platforms but there's never been an easy transfer available between these major corridors. A modern shuttle link with Waterloo could terminate at the south bank entrance at Blackfriars rather than the transit link having to cross the Thames itself. Recent remodelling provided new long platforms located on the bridge deck, with public entrances on both banks.
There's an interesting phenomenon in Europe of turning small metros into commuter rail systems such as the S-Bahn in Vienna or the Northern City line in London. Basically you take the tunnel sections and link them to a larger surface rail network to create an S-Bahn style system, its an interesting concept
The Northern City Line was originally intended to be what it is now. It just took them about 80 years from opening the first section of it to actually completing the project.
Well the Northern City line was purpose built for that. It just ended up as a tube line and part of the underground because it's previous owner was the Metropolitan Railway.
@Katrina Bryce Yeah I understand I just meant more integrating short metro systems with commuter and national rail
In Tokyo they connect "commuter" lines to a subway lines so that "commuter" trains can run into the city center and subway trains can run out to the suburbs
TIL the northern city line is NOT part of the tube???
In Osaka, the Yumesaki line to Sakurajima in Konohana has only 4 stations, but has surprisingly high ridership since it connects Universal Studios Japan to the rest of the network at Nishi-Kujō Station. Since so many people use the train to get around the city, even this baby line to a tourist destination makes sense.
Yep! That's a great example of the type of line I am talking about!
@@RMTransit Not really a "short stub subway" because the Sakurajima line it was born as a freight line and it still is, however the history of passenger service on the line is not too different from stub subways as in that when the Osaka Loop line was completed shuttle service began on the section that didn't become part of the Loop line. By the way when USJ opened through service to the Loop line started therefore there are now trains passenger trains that do travel the entire lenght of the original Sakurajima line when it still was the Nishinari line.
@@Flamethrower2579 Yeah right, it ain't a subway lol
What I find interesting about japanese lines is, a lot of them are much longer than they appear on the map. I don't know about the one you mentioned, but Rinkai in Tokyo for example has like 8 stations on the map, but when you actually use it, you often can just stay on the train and it will continue on another line, turning from Rinkai line into another at Osaki station.
I've used trains that switched lines like 3 times, but never had to leave the train.
This is of course because different companies operate different sections of the tracks.
@@HDreamer I've certainly noticed that. A lot of Japanese lines have 'through-service' which means they change to a different line after the terminus. Even without that, Japanese lines are just... super long, especially a lot of the JR lines in places like Tokyo and Osaka. Makes a little baby line like the Yurikamome stand out more.
The 42nd Street Shuttle is more famous, but the Franklin Ave Shuttle is the most interesting of the NYC shuttles considering unlike the other NYC shuttles, it has a station that's only served by a shuttle service, Park Place (also the only station to have a single-track that's NOT a terminal station). Its original purpose was as part of a line to Coney Island, but extending the D to Coney Island ultimately made it a shuttle. The line was home to the deadliest crash in NYC subway history in November 1918 when, as over 90 people lost their lives because a speeding train derailed in a sharply curved tunnel when it approached Prospect Park. Basically there was a labor strike and they got a dispatcher with NO experience operating the line.
But my favorite of the stub subway lines is the MTR's Disneyland Resort Line. Not only because it has special cute rolling stock with Mickey windows and Mickey handholds, but also the designs of the two stations are meant to be like a time machine, as in you're going from the futuristic city of Hong Kong at Sunny Bay, to the fantasy world of the Disneyland Resort (with Victorian-themed Disneyland Resort station). Because taking a trip to a theme park is like going back to your childhood. And not to mention, the line had the first automated MTR trains before the South Island Line.
The 42nd St Shuttle actually was automated back in the early 60s and there were plans to automate several other lines, including the now defunct Culver Shuttle. Unfortunately, the test train was destroyed in a fire and it never came to anything.
The Pyongyang Metro doesn't have a shuttle service, but our tram network does! You see, the Kumsusan Palace of the Sun in Pyongyang is currently a mausoleum though it wasn't built as such (it was built as the residence of Kim Il-sung). Kwangmyong on the Metro's Hyoksin Line served the area of the palace. But when it was decided to turn the palace into a mausoleum, the site became sacred grounds and thus the station was shut down in 1995. To replace the station, a tram shuttle service was built above ground, which connects Samhung station (also on the Metro's Hyoksin Line) to the palace. Unlike the rest of the network, the tram on the Kumsusan shuttle is actually a 1950s Zurich tram that was purchased in 1995 for it.
Another interesting shuttle is SEPTA's Broad-Ridge Spur. It was originally designed as part of a loop line that would have circled around the Center City of Philadelphia. They act like express trains, with Broad-Ridge Spur trains currently skipping Logan, Wyoming, Hunting Park, Allegheny, Susquehanna-Dauphin, and Cecil B. Moore. The spur once had three stations that weren't served by ordinary Broad Street Line trains, but now it's down to two, 8th & Market and Chinatown. Spring Garden station (not to be confused with the OTHER Spring Garden on the Broad Street Line), by then exit-only, was closed on September 10, 1989, due to safety concerns.
congrats on the 19 holes in 1 playing 1 round of golf and being the 1st man to walk on the moon without a helmet or was that the other supreme leader
@@davidrenton based
@@davidrenton I think that was dad and grand dad supreme leader, respectively.
@@davidrenton Don't forget he's also the first man to set foot on the Sun by ingeniously going at night
The MTR's South Island Line in Hong Kong was purpose-built with 5 stations, and the Disneyland Resort Line only has 2. When it first opened, the Tung Chung Line, one of the longest on the system, only had 7 stops.
Whats funny is that I was going to mention the South Island Line, the DRL is a bit interesting because it uses refurbed / seriously rebuilt stock
@@RMTransit the South Island Line feels a bit like London's DLR.
Probably because much of Tung Chung Line runs in the more rural Lantau island, while its stretch in Kowloon behaves like an express version of Tseun Wan Line
In Madrid, both L11 and L8 are short in purpose, because they connect such important places like Carabanchel (a residential neighbourhood) and Barajas Airport. However, the first line felt more like a stub rather than a useful line. Nowadays, it's use to connect 2 important shopping malls and there are plans in future to connect with Atocha (the main train station of Madrid)
L11 is going to be expanded though! It's going to become one of the longest lines on the system and connect to every other line except L12 I think
Yep, building a line to make a key connection absolutely is not unheard of
Interesting in Madrid is Line 10 where at Tres Olivos line 10 from Puerta del Sur ends and you have to transfer to continue on the shorter northern section of the same named line 10. 😎👍
@@TheMexxodus he mentioned this in Madrid Metro video! I take Line 10 every day to go to Uni but i get off at Begoña so i never use the northern section :)
As cited on the video, let's not forget the mysterious 2-stations-long-and impossible-to-expand Line R in Madrid.
Another reason is technical differences, Lyon line C uses rack railway which limits its speed and its capacity, so it is purposely not extended to avoid it becoming overcrowded. That is why its northen extension to Rilleux will be built as part of line B (standard driverless metro line). Fortunately, line C is planned to close and be replaced by a standard metro line with a new deeper tunnel in 2030-2035
Improved motor technology and lightweight carriage construction has also allowed for standard steel-on-steel metro systems to deal with steeper gradients, so tyres or racks are less necessary.
@@Croz89 Line C is the steepest in the world, even the best engines can’t handle it, in fact, even rubber tyres can’t, that’s why it uses rack railway
@@transitspace4366 Perhaps that is still the case for line C, but I've seen conventional metro and light rail lines deal with increasingly steeper gradients over the years.
The extension to Rilleux and the line C closure are planned ? I don't have any information about these projects, and I'm surprised that the city has these projects while inhabitants struggled to have the new line E because municipality prefered less expensive tram lines...
@@sylvainldgo7361 line C closure and line B extension are still planned for after 2030, they aren’t currently discussed as the city is focused on short term tram projects
One nice thing about short lines is it easier to use single track. Because the train will "bounce back" so soon, you don't need additional trains/tracks for suitable frequency. But all things being equal, you really do want longer transit routes. Part of what makes a train efficient are its ability to service many diverse routes along just one line. One passenger may go from B>C, while another from A>G, and another D>G. The longer the transit route is, the more possible station combinations it can serve, and thus mathematically the more popular it can become.
London's East London Line is an exception to this "short lines stay short" rule! Originally built in 1869, it became a branch line on the London Underground in 1933, before being severed to become a "stub" operating between Whitechapel/Shoreditch and New Cross. But in 2010 it was linked up with some other (both existing & disused) lines via some new sections of track & tunnels, greatly extending it, and transferred to London Overground. It's now one of the more important lines in Central London with several key interchanges. It now gets far more passengers and better service frequency than it ever did as a "stub", and even operates 24 hours at weekends!
Since you mentioned testing out new tech on short lines: Berlin's U4 (a pretty short one) was used as a test bed for SelTrac automatic train operation from 1981 to 1985 and then was operated automatically from 1985 to 1993 (with a safety driver on board).
Can we start calling them stubways?
Stubways
W idea
YES
Reasonable proposal
@@LaxMarch2022 😂
Singapore actually has another branch line (soon to be 2 more) that operates as a short shuttle, although admittedly one of them only does this in the offpeak. This is the Circle Line branch to Marina Bay, which ends at Stadium (5 stops) in the offpeak. The Cross Island Line branch to Punggol will also be quite short, although it's currently unclear how short it will be as it hasn't been announced where the services will end.
Another short stub subway worth mentioning is the Nagoya Subway's Kamiida Line which has 2 stations and was built to connect the Meitetsu Komaki Line station at Kamiida station with the Nagoya Subway at Heian-dori station when the Nagoya trams were ripped out. Like the Tokyo subway, this line interoperates with the Komaki line, which means its really only a short stub when seen on the subway map, but it is still technically separate from the Komaki line. The Nagoya region has a lot of really interesting railway lines and gadgetbahns despite being the birthplace of the Japanese car, and would make for a great video!
Haha, I am not sure if I would say Nagoyas railway wackiness is despite it being car central!
How is the flow on the Singapore Circle Line going to change when they complete the circle? Will it actually run as a circle, or as a spiral with distinct ends, like London's Circle Line has become in recent years?
@@MattMcIrvin i think there are 2 modes:
CC1 - CC6 (Shuttle)
looping service
or like the Circle Line in London does, but mainly their tracks are together when they reach Promenade (CC4).
@Matt McIrvin this is still unclear as the Land Transport Authority in Singapore hasn't said anything about the service pattern. However, it's more likely that it'll be a shuttle service, as a spiral service would needlessly complicate the scheduling. Since if a spiral service ran, then the service pattern might be like Paris Metro Line 15?
They're planning to extend the Nagoya one I believe, though from I've read, it's currently suspended.
The Skokie Swift, now the Yellow line, in Chicago is a fascinating example of a rail transit shuttle. Built by salvaging about five miles of former North Shore interurban track, the Swift was once the fastest rail transit line in the USA. For years it was powered by overhead wire, and it relied upon a one-off articulated train that wasn't successful enough to be adopted on a mass scale. Today, the Yellow is third rail and has three stations, but it is still a remarkable piece of railroad history providing valuable service today.
Taipei’s Xinbeitou Branch is actually not a depot branch. In fact, it was actually built with the intention of being one of the terminuses for the Red Line. However, its close proximity to residential blocks sparked enormous protests along the line for the noise it creates when using the six cars train. It was so intense that residents along the line were throwing televisions onto the track in protest. Therefore, Xinbeitou Branch was forced to be operating as a branch line with three cars train and a reduced speed limit before Red Line was officially opened with it in 1999.
It is a hot spring access line and is an upgrade of Japanese period railway
I think it would make sense to extend Montreal’s yellow line in Longueuil at least to Cégep Édouard-Montpetit, a college with over 7000 students. But high construction costs have unfortunately made such an extension politically impossible, at least for the time being.
I also remember hearing that there were concerns that extending the yellow line further into Longueuil would possibly lead to capacity issues at Berri-UQÀM station, which would make it necessary to extend the yellow line further into downtown Montréal (possibly to McGill station), so that not everyone gets off at Berri-UQÀM. Needless to say, building another metro extension in the densest part of the city would be very expensive.
I still think it would be pretty awesome to have a second 3 line interchange at McGill!
@@RMTransit It would be awesome! But I don’t expect it to happen any time soon given how it’s already so difficult and expensive for the STM to extend the blue line to Anjou, in a much less dense urban environment.
Use CN Massena spur to make a REM loop.
Isn't the Montreal end of the yellow line too deep for an extension to be practical? It's quite an escalator ride down from the green line platforms.
That's possibly also why they never built an Old Port Metro station on the yellow line between Berri-UQAM Station and Île Sainte-Hélène Station (now Parc Jean-Drapeau Station): it would've been too much of a downward journey from ground level to platform level even if a hypothetical station there would be more convenient than walking a thousand plus yards to Champ-des-Mars station.
One thing to add about the Taipei Metro is that some of those stub lines have value as leisure attractions. The two-stop Xinbeitou Line takes passengers from the trunk line to a hot spring destination at the foot of a mountain. Having that location on the main line would have been impractical, but having a stub line makes the journey to the hot springs part of the tourist experience.
mostly because the Xinbeitou Line existed as a railway branch line (built in 1916) before it was rebuilt as a metro line
@@lostintamsui I didn't know that. Thanks for sharing!
Chicago’s CTA yellow line is an example of and extension/repurposing old lines
In Philadelphia, SEPTA (The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority) has the Broad-Ridge Spur. It was a stub line that originally was designed as part of a loop line that would have circled around the central core of downtown Philadelphia. When money was lacking for the full design to be built it only had four stations then was truncated to three. I had always thought that the line was a waste of resources but it luckily provided a redundant link to another line (the Market-Frankford Subway Elevated) for being 2.5 miles long and still in use today.
I had the exact same thought. If memory serves me it also used to serve the bridge line that was taken over by Patco.
Seattle will open the West Seattle extension much sooner than the Ballard extension, meaning that for the first 7 years, we will have a West Seattle shuttle which only serves 4 stations but connects with the 1 line in SODO.
A really cool example of repurposed rail infrastructure is the Johnsonville Line in Wellington, New Zealand. It uses the historical alignment of the North Island Main Trunk line, it was repurposed for local service after the completion of the Tawa Flat Deviation. It is a twisty, fairly steep line which is single tracked with 3 passing loops along its 10.5 km length.
And coincidentally, it was used in 2021 to trial the usage of the new tag-on/tag-off proof of payment system to replace paper tickets on all the Wellington suburban rail lines.
The concept of short lines is very evident in the San Francisco Bay Area’s BART system. Oakland is a major transfer point, but also has a short line to the airport. Where as San Francisco goes directly to the airport at the end of the line. Had BART circled the bay as originally planned, the situation would have probably been different. Now there is a third major airport in San Jose. Due to the way the BART system was developed and the changing population densities, it is turning into an amalgam of different connecting systems around the bay.
Correction on the Taipei MRT: only the Xiaobitan Line is at a depot. Xinbeitou was the intended terminus of the shortened service to Daan (and previously Nanshijiao in the interlined era), but noise complaints from neighbors to the viaduct mean the slow shuttle service runs instead. Thats why its double tracked and has the goofiest platform screen doors on the newtork. The Beitou depot is actually on the main line, and Xinbeitou is a relic of the old TRA alignment to the hot spring resorts.
My hope is for a Tucheng Depot extension on the Blue Line sometime in the future!
Ah yes now I recall. I should have rewatched ua-cam.com/video/1dBk7lq8o1Y/v-deo.html
Just want to add some supplement information about those 2 stubs in Taipei Metro:
- The Xiaobitan Line (light green, due to the spelling, they are a bit confusing in English, so I call them with color here) was indeed as you said - by the local petition, reusing the depot line to serv the depot area, and has a shorter platform (3 cars' length).
- But the Xinbeitou Stn.(light red) was already there when the former railroad was torn down and rebuilt as a metro line, so it got replaced along with the rest of the main line. And it was clearly intend for some kind of branch operation of the main line (you can tell that by the track crossover viaduct before Beitou Stn., the full-length (6 cars) platform, and that the branch is fully double tracked). But the idea was given up and it stay as a shuttle due to the noise complains (and switched to a shorter 3-car train). As of that stub branch in the former railroad, it was built in 1916 for the tourist development of the hot-spring area, so if you want to categorize the reason, I guess it was intended to build it that short, but just as a connection for the area to an existing railroad.
The 42nd St Shuttle was actually home to one of the first automated lines in the world. Track 4 used a dedicated set of R21 subway cars that could run automated service. The union was not happy about this, and the trains ended up being fully crewed anyway. Even so, that shuttle train and the automated infrastructure was destroyed in a suspicious fire at Grand Central which also heavily damaged the station. The shuttle is set to receive new R262 subway cars and CBTC along with it. However, full automation of the shuttle will be difficult to get past the union as it was in the past.
Still a good idea! NYCT needs to get with the times haha
The commentary so far is very interesting! I am British, but I forgot the Waterloo and City Line! I did think of the two 'Bis' lines in Paris! They are separate because it is more sensible for the Metro to run all the trains on the main line to the main terminus and have a shuttle service on the branch. Berlin commentators have helpfully explained their U4. It was (in effect) a branch from the U1, but has for a long time been in effect a (rather long) 'Bis' line. Lausanne is a case where a short line of less than 2 kms. from Ouchy to Flon has become a fully blown metro of nearly 6 kms. (Lausanne and Glasgow are both special cases, but very different from each other.)
Here in Yerevan, Armenia there is a similar situation to Taipei: the yard is not on the main line, so they built a one-track station adjacent to the yard. The shuttle serivce runs ONE-car trains which look very strange and probably shouldn't be even called trains, but they are modified versions of the main-line trains
Haha, thats super wacky indeed!
For that matter, if a rail vehicle consist of only a single car, it's called a railcar. Informally, though, everyone still would call that a train unless running on streets in which case it's probably called a tram.
And here I was knowing that these lines existed, but never giving much thought to them. And then to think that there is a common thing in all of them that they never extend. To think that all of these lines extending would be super useful!
Haha, makes me happy that this made you consider them more!
Line 3bis in Paris was created when the RATP extended line 3 to Gallieni. Instead of having two branches, one going to Gallieni and one to Porte des Lilas, and the fact that the original Gambetta station wasn't set up to branch off in a different direction, The RATP decided to build a new Gambetta station, effectively closing the nearby Martin Nadaud station in 1969. And in 1971, they closed off the part of the tunnel which went to the original Gambetta station and made a passageway to switch between line 3 and line 3bis.
Line 7bis was created in 1967 because of the difference in ridership with the Porte de la Villette branch of line 7.
from 1921 to 1939 there was a connecting shuttle between lines 3 and 7 between Porte des Lilas and Pré St-Gervais and there's talk of merging both lines 3bis and 7bis by way of that former shuttle route, where trackage is still present because they send some metro trains to the Porte des Lilas - Cinéma ghost station to do some filming for movies and TV shows sometimes. Maybe they'll call it line 19. Lines 15 through 18 are part of the Grand Paris Express project.
I'm surprised you didn't mention the saga of the Purple/D Line in LA. It was meant to go through the Westside which was deeply skeptical about transit; that and an explosion blamed on tunnelling led to it being stopped at Wilshire/Western two stops west of where it branched off the Red/B Line and operated as a stubway for 30 years with phase 1 of the extension (to Wilshire/La Cienega) slated to open next year and construction to begin on phase 2 all the way to the huge VA campus in Westwood.
While I do think the 42nd Street Shuttle is a unique and convenient service that does not need to be changed, the Sheppard Line must be extended to be useful. It could be eastward to Scarborough and the Agincourt train station or westward to the other part of Line 1.
Line 4 should end up as a major part of a northern crosstown corridor, running from Finch West (or further north) in an interline with Line 1, splitting off just past Downsview Park to remain on Sheppard, and going all the way east to McCowan.
It's getting cbtc in the second half of the decade and open gangways with the r262.
@@sblack53 Line 4 trains can't run on Finch West as they're two different track gauges and Sheppard uses third rail power while Finch West uses overhead power. But I agree that a northern crosstown corridor is needed.
Line 4 Extension all the way!
@@pauly5418 that’s not what I’m referring to. I mean interline with Line 1 from Downsview Park to at least Finch West, and possibly extend as far NORTH as Vaughan along the existing TYSSE, not WEST along Finch. The northern crosstown would be split between Lines 4 and 6 in this case.
I am thinking of the Blue Line in Boston. The Blue line started off as a streetcar subway between Maverick Square in East Boston and Downtown Boston, through an under harbor tunnel. It was extended one stop to a station with a turnaround loop and a ramp to street level for through routing of surface cars downtown, in 1916. Through routing did not work out and the streetcar tunnel to Maverick was turned into a stub metro in 1924. The needed subway shuttle cars were maintained at the same shops as the Cambridge-Dorchester, now Red Line, connecting via the western ramp beyond Bowdoin through surface tracks to the Longfellow Bridge and the Red line through a connection between surface and subway tracks on the bridge. Though short, that shuttle was quite busy and the Boston Elevated could now easily collect two fares, one for the surface car and one for the shuttle train In 1951, to extend the line, the surface cars were replaced by trackless trolleys which could not use the underground loop for streetcars. That line extended to Revere Beach and Wonderland, where there was a dog track. It also connected to Suffolk (S
ucker) Downs, a horse track. Somewhere on UA-cam there is a video showing the busy Maverick Terminal in streetcar days.
There was that one time the 42nd Street Shuttle was automated way back in the 60s and it didn't end well. I like the idea of testing platform screen doors there but that'll probably have to wait until the R262s arrive, if the MTA can even get their stuff together by then. Instead, the L and 7 are usually the testbeds for technology.
the automation worked fine. The mysterious suspicious fire that destroyed the automated train ended it poorly.
Always think of the Waterloo and City as being the quintessential short metro. The Aldwych Shuttle was also a good example.
The Aldwych branch is interesting as it was originally planned as part of a much longer route which never happened and so it ended up as a stub before eventually being closed completely.
In Hamburg, U1 forks at Volksdorf and both branches are alternatively operated, naming their respective terminals all along the line. However, the Großhansdorf trains used to end at Volksdorf and people changed into a stubway, while the Ohlsdorf trains ran through. Today, this is partly done on the Ohlsdorf branch. The few locals along the stubways do know, and to others it is irrelevant. Saves the complexity of naming additional lines. But I was much surprised when exploring the line decades ago and suddenly all passengers left the train.
Hamburg has a great history to its system, its super interesting
Nice video! Another idea would be to explore the smallest subway systems and the reasons why they weren’t expanded
Hmm, like the Glasgow Subway? (Still a single circular route -- operating in both directions -- after 126 years.) It also has _really_ small-diameter trains and tunnels.
2 words: Glasgow Subway.
The LAX and Inglewood People Movers were originally going to be light rail stubs that would've expanded into larger lines.
I would also mention the M1 line in Budapest here. While it has 11 stops, they are very close together and the whole line is only about 4.4 km long. The line has a relatively low capacity, but it sort of acts like a tourist shuttle for several important sightseeing destinations and is a tourist attraction in itself (first opened in 1896).
The Tseung Kwan O line in the Hong Kong MTR is a branch line during rush hour but one of the branches turns into a shuttle at other times.
This is actually not all that uncommon!
Extend Sheppard to Bathurst or Sheppard West, cant be that hard?
That is a no brainer .. should be done ASAP
*politics has entered the chat*
I say go all the way to Finch West (or further) on an interline from Downsview Park. There’s already reduced frequency on the TYSSE compared to South of St Clair West during peak hours so the line can handle the capacity, plus you create more network effect at Downsview GO and Finch West.
Proposed it in my previous video!
The Yellow line in Montreal has huge potential for growing, there is very high demand in Longueuil, but North American costs are as always prohibiting, so here is a solution: we could benefit from the low ridership and short length of the line to close it for a few years (replacing it by high frequency buses) to retrofit it with steel-wheeled operation (and btw make it driverless with PSDs,) then reopen it, and then build the extension elevated !
The yellow line actually gets quite a lot of ridership, especially given that it’s so short. Replacing it with buses for a few years probably wouldn’t make sense since buses have much lower capacity and would be significantly slower (and probably less reliable) than the grade-separated yellow line. I think a cut-and-cover extension of the yellow line in Longueuil would make more sense as it wouldn’t be as disruptive to current yellow line users.
However, there’s then the question of whether it would be necessary to extend the yellow line past Berri-UQÀM, further into downtown (I’ve seen proposals to extend it to McGill station), so that not all of the new users from Longueuil get off at Berri-UQÀM and potentially cause overcrowding at that station. Such a downtown extension would probably be very expensive as you would have to bore the tunnels under the most densely built part of the city.
I agree with Ethan's take below - there's tonnes of potential to extend the Yellow Line into Longueuil. Re. cut-n-cover to accomplish this, today tunnel boring is nearly the same in terms of cost and much less disruptive so I see this as the approach planners would take.
Also, you cannot refit the line with steel wheel trains as the grades between Berri-UQAM - Jean Drapeau - Longueuil stations are WAY to steep.
Finally, I use the Yellow line on the daily and the ridership is going through the roof - even with train frequencies at four minutes during peak hours, there's still a lot of people on the quay waiting for the next train. This is a good thing and indicative that we could expand the Yellow by three to five stations. Here's hoping.
@@NorthernDG blue line extension would disagree, cut & cover saves a ton of money but it’s not a panacea, it is still very expensive compared to elevated transit. Steel-wheeled trains can climb up to 6% slopes, so they could easily handle the yellow line. Closing it completely may be excessive (trains could still run during the conversion work, that happened in Paris ie) though not impossible, Paris often replaces its super busy RER A like by high-frequency buses services for work.
I think its worth remembering that it isn't "North American" some systems have got around this! Look at REM and Canada Line!
@@NorthernDG @Transit space I honestly think that if any rail project further into Longueuil gets built, it’ll probably be either an orbital REM line or an orbital tramway line connecting Cégep Édouard-Montpetit to the Panama REM station in Brossard, passing through Longueuil-U.-de-Sherbrooke. The STM and ARTM don’t seem interested in extending the yellow line since it would be expensive, even though it’s the ideal option as it wouldn’t force people coming from the Cégep to transfer at Longueuil-U.-de-Sherbrooke to get to Montreal. Local politicians in Longueuil, who for years supported extending the yellow line, are now betting on an orbital tram or REM line, as even they realize the political infeasibility of extending the yellow line.
The yellow line in montreal is very useful. That being said, it needs some love. There are a lot of water leaks through the ceiling and the station has been under renovation for a lot of years now. Azur trains would also be nice and since the line is only three stations long it wouldn’t take a while before the whole line didn’t have any MR-73s left
There's a reason that, when our local city services (which include buses) do their more-or-less regular (yearly?) passenger surveys, they ask where people are going, not just count where they find them and which kind of ticket they use - that's how you can figure out which changes could improve the network, not just single lines. In fact, I believe that they've now included surveying cars, as well, though I haven't seen how that part works.
Funfact: Both the 42nd St Shuttle and Franklin Shuttle were used as test beds in the past for technology they used or never used. Franklin Shuttle was the first line to the BMT Bluebirds. The 42nd St had a Automatic train test for a few month that sadly ended in a fire
I'm glad you mentioned Line 4A in Santiago. I still can't figure out why the government here is spending billions of dollars to build entire new lines and extend some of the other lines - all expensive and underground of course, while they refuse to finish this easy line. Line 4A sits in a freeway median on the surface, and when they built the orbital freeway, they left room to continue the line from its current terminus at La Cisterna to either Del Sol on line 5, or even keep going towards the airport in Pudahuel. It would be the cheapest way to connect an entire section of the city to the metro system, as well as providing alternate routes from Maipu in case of a fault on one line, increasing the resilience of the entire system.
Xinbeitou branch is actually the remnant of Imperial Taiwan Railway's Xinbeitou(Shin-Hokuto) branch line.
It was made to be a hot spring tourist line, and was kept even after the Tamsui Railway Line upgraded into a metro line in 1997.
Do you consider CTA's (Chicago) Yellow Line (about 5 miles with 3 stations) a "stubway"?
I just read that Atlanta will spend 75 MILLION (pinky externded) dollars to lengthen Bankhead platform from 2 to 8 cars. Bankhead is a one station stub enabling extra service in the core of the East West line. The Bowling Green - South Ferry shuttle (closed in 1977) is another oddity worth remembering. A useless 2 or 3 block line that suddenly became essential if you forgot your umbrella on a rainy day.
In Toronto, the University line was a bit of a subway until continued as the Spadina line. First, the Univ line was meant to offer a seamless transfer between the e-w Bloor line, but that didn't work out.
For all its faults, the metro in Boston (now part of the MBTA, but back then it was the MTA) did expand a short line to a full-length line. This was the East Boston Tunnel (which had been converted from a streetcar tunnel to a metro in 1924 by the Boston Elevated Railway under the Boston Transit Commission), from Bowdoin Square downtown to Maverick Square in East Boston, where it was fed by streetcars. In 1952 - 1954, it was extended out onto the surface over the right of way of the abandoned Boston, Revere Beach and Lynn Railroad, first toOrient Heights (where the new shops/yard were located), and then to Wonderland in Revere. Plans have been made from time to time to extend it further along the same right of way as far as Lynn, but unfortunately nothing ever came of them, or of the plans for extension on an alternate right of way further inland (along the Newburyport/Rockport Commuter Rail Line), or of the plans to extend the other end to Charles/MGB to connect to the Red Line.
Great presentation
RS. Canada
Funny I went on line 7Bis today. Plans exist to link 7b and 3b together, which they already are physically speaking but would require to rework a track connection and perhaps renew the tracks a little to work (ans also take off the rubber tyre prototype track that was used to test the rubber tyre trains in the 50s)
Line 3b used to be part of Line 3 until 1971 when the line was extended to Bagnolet instead, leaving the low traffic part to Porte des Lilas to a shuttle service instead of a branch.
Line 7b was one of the two Northern branches of Line 7 but the other branch to La Villette got so much more traffic and a new branch was gonna be added in the South to potentially serve Orly airport, so to simplify things, they decided to cut the St Gervais branch and make a spur out of it in 1967. They used that line and unused attached infrastructure to try out prototypes such a rubber tyre trains, or the new trains with integral gangways between carriages, electric doors, new electronic tampering of motors, new on board computers, etc... and the failed orientable trucks intead of bogeys that is more cumbersome in a straight line than it is in a curve.
@RMTransit Your video reminded me of Seoul's examples. On Line 2, there are the Sinjeong and Seongsu branches, with the former being a purpose-built depot branch and the latter formerly composing its main line before its full circle was completed. Both branches have had plans to extend them, but the Seongsu Branch's plan was replaced by a light metro line due to conflicts with the link to Line 1.
Regarding Line 1, the shuttle between Yeongdeungpo and Gwangmyeong bullet train station can be counted in.
Look at the history of the Waterloo and city line in London!
Jago Hazzard has loads of videos about the W&C!
The 42 st shuttle isn't the only one we have, we also have the franklin av shuttle and the rockaway shuttle. Edit: both born from similar circumstances (though with those 2 there are plans and proposals to have them become part of full lines or be extended)
I mean the Rockaway shuttle is just for times of day when the A only serves one branch of the Rockaways, right? Doesn’t the A run both branches at late night?
Yes it does and the Rockways shuttle is longer in the summer
Yes, I just like talking about the 42st Shuttle because more people will be familiar with it
In stockholm, we hav som stubs as well in the metro. The red line to Ropsten has only three station after the separation from the Mörby Centrum-line.
The small use, trains, station and routes is what make these so brilliant. Look at the Waterloo & City, part of my Top 3 lines on The LU
*cough* Waterloo & City Line *cough*
C line on Buenos Aires comes to mind. Connects the two more busy rail stations on the country, and while it can be extended, it would be reckless to do it as it runs at capacity as it is and would still do it if headway goes as down as 60 seconds
Berlin's U4 was opened in 1910 and was originally built as a communal subway in Schöneberg, which back then was still an independent city.
The Yellow Line i Montreal may be short but it brings transit to the Jean-Drapeau Island which has a lot of tourist attractions and also connects to a major bus terminal and university in longeuil, where a lot of bus lines shuttle people into the station and the Yellow Line to bring them further into Montreal.
1:14 what's that guy doing on the left there lol
Being curious 😂
green line in atlanta technically has 9 stops, but only one stop isnt on the adjacent blue line. its very interesting to see a single stop branch out and stop.
Interestingly, the Green Line (formerly called the Proctor Creek Line) was originally planned to extend further north with another station near Perry Blvd. Combined with the unbuilt Tucker-North DeKalb branch which would have split from the Blue Line just west of East Lake station with planned stops at Emory/CDC and North Druid Hills, the Green Line would’ve had four stations exclusive to it had it been fully built out.
Fun fact on the Times Square Shuttle, NY did in fact test automation back in the 50s or 60s there, and apparently it was fairly successful until there was a “mysterious” fire that destroyed the prototype train. Suffice to say, the NYC transit union is very against full automation, and the MTA hasn’t attempted it since.
Theres been various scheme’s to replace the Shuttle throughout its history as well, such as moving walkways and a weird rotating circulator system with benches.
Interested to see an explainer on Melbourne's new rail projects, including the suburban rail loop, the metro tunnel, the airport line and the proposal of a second metro tunnel eventually.
In the yellow line's case extending it on either end is problematic since on the Montreal side extending it into downtown would be so difficult to maneuver it around things that are too important to demolish or divert would be more expensive then building an entire new line (which we almost did) while on the South Shore side there isn't enough demand for it to justify the cost which is why a new REM line is going to go there instead. Sometimes a line's idea size isn't particularly large.
The SRT light red line in Bangkok is long about 15.26 km but it only has 4 stations.
Probably the craziest set of short lines currently in operation is in Baki, Azerbaijan. They have a new line 3 of 4 stations that is growing (slowly), an unfinished Line 2 with 2 stations in operation served by two shuttle trains but one of the stations is single track, and a Line 1 branch to the depot with 1 station that is only served by irregular shuttles.
I remember Baki for ti's suburban rail line that IIRC is similar to the one in Helsinki
That line of two stations used to be called salad line (light green colour) and they've been digging that tonnel from there for as long as I can remmember. But the issue was that, the whole area in that direction (previously known as Black City) has been demolished and the White City project that was built on its place is only being properly settled now. So, in the media they say that the next station to open should be the Salad line White City station. You can already see a roadsign leading to it.
The two cases in Taipei are actually good examples of how NOT to run a shuttle line. The Xiaobitan line trains stop at platforms on the main (Xindian) line, therefore lowering the capacity of the main line. The Xinbeitou line was designed as a branch but now run as a shuttle due to local opposition, lowering its capacity / potential usefulness.
In Italy there is a metro line in Perugia who is called MiniMetro because it’s very short and the “trains” are extremely small… tho it’s very frequent
The opposite direction can be seen in the ongoing construction of a Stockholm stub line originally intended to have four stops in total - with one terminus at a big interchange and the other at an arena that's already served by commuter rail. Now it's being included as a branch of the green line, and they're even using an old section of tunnel, some 5-10 metres, that was built with this in mind seventy years ago.
Are you talking about the west one from Älvsjö to the north part of the city or something else?
@@AnotherDuck Odenplan to Arenastaden.
The Älvsjö stub (hopefully running automated trains) is currently only planned to terminate in the city centre at Fridhemsplan.
@@magnushultgrenhtc Ah, that one. There are a few projects. In that case, the green line would be better with another northern branch, along with the 19 branch being rebuilt to the blue line. The 1-3 branching of the green line has been a little bit of a problem.
And I know the Älvsjö stub is also being built to accommodate expansion as well. Maybe we'll get that Älvsjö-Hagsätra connection people have been wanting since the mid 1900's, although from the other direction.
Either way, it's nice that things are happening.
@@AnotherDuck I'd even say that the colours can be the source of some confusion. It's in fact three green lines, two blue lines, and two red lines. They just share some tracks in the centre, then they go their separate ways. Not like the commuter trains that connect both the northern end points to both of the southern end points - so you can just wait for the right one and go from end to end. While in the metro, to achieve this, you need to get off and change.
In Nagoya, Japan, there is a municipal subway line that only has two stations and only 800 meters long called Kami-iida Line. However, this is a little different as it acts like an extension to Meitetsu Komaki Line.
Dnepropetrovsk subway. It's a legend in post-soviet transit-lovers communities. Like 6km and has 5 stops (I guess) One is on the main railroad station, one is in a small district, others are in dead industries. They tried to extend but for some decades it's just a big build-ground which makes movement around the city impossible. (My friend's words, he's living there).
Warsaw Metro almost ended up like this. The construction started in the 80s, when the government was already running out of money. The works were proceeding at snail's pace and there was a serious debate whether to ditch the project entirely, as if completed, the first phase of the line would end 1.5 km before reaching the downtown. Who would use it? Well, as it turned out, quite a lot of people and the completion of line 1 was approved. As of 2024, Warsaw Metro has 2 lines and 3 more in various planning stages.
An interesting case would be Shanghai line 2's easternmost section. When it first opened, the section east of Guanglan Rd was operated with a 4 car shuttle and there was a forced cross-platform transfer with the rest of the line which uses 8 car trains. It eventually got retrofitted with infrastructure to allow 8 car trains and trains now thru run the entire line
The line that I can think of is the 0.8 km Kamiida Line of Nagoya Subway. The line has only 2 stations and serves as an extension of Meitetsu Komaki Line. As such, the two lines have through services. The reason behind this very short line is because of the abolishment of Nagoya Municipal Tramway in the 1970s, Kamiiida Station, the terminus of Meitetsu Komaki Line, lost its connection to other railway lines. So, they needed to built a connection for their passengers to connect to the rest of the train system. There is also a plan to extend this line furthermore, but that's just a plan because nothing was progress since then.
I guess the metro of Serfaus in Astria is definitely the most unique one when it comes to this topic.
Short spurs of an existing line are, I suppose, another category. Boston's Green Line Extension includes a strange single-station spur connecting Lechmere to Union Square, but it's not a separate line; it's now operated as the north end of the D branch (E branch trains instead take the longer extension to Medford).
A problem with branches, is that it is hard to match services to passenger demand that isn't evenly split between branches with a proportionate but even interval service to each branch. Say one branch has twice the passenger numbers of the other branch, a 30 trains per hour service might want to be split between the branches in 20 to 10 ratio. So while the intervals to the less busy branch will be a consistent 6 minutes, the busier branch will get intervals of 2 minutes then 4 minutes alternating and its trains will be less busy then more busy, potentially exaggerating the already uneven passenger loading across the line created by the uneven split in passenger numbers, with busier trains tending to have longer dwells at stations across the section shared by both branches.
The yellow (4) line of the Montréal métro is planned to get 3 or 4 more stations on the South Shore. It was made to handle a LOT of traffic as it was meant to deserve the 1967 Universal Exposition of Terre des Homes, carrying several thousands of peoples daily.
I feel it should have been mentioned that some - like the Waterloo & City line in London - were not given much, if any room to expand... Bank station on it literally has the way out in the way of the track
Interestingly, the 42nd St. Shuttle in New York has historically been where new tech has been tested. For example, it was where automation was tested on the system from 1962 until 1964, when one of the trains derailed, and then 5 days later the equipment for automatic operation at Grand Central was destroyed in a fire. Unfortunately, these two events prevented the automation of the IRT Flushing Line (7), and the BMT Myrtle Avenue El (M), Canarsie Line (L), and the Franklin Avenue and the now demolished Culver Shuttles; this probably set the subway back decades in terms of tech.
Today, the line is also where new Vignelli-style maps are being tested for customer response, as well as standing-room only cars due to the line's short length and occasional congestion during rush hour
i haven't seen anyone mention the yellow line here in chicago -- it only has 3 stations, one of which didn't open until 2012
Nice. I don't have the energy to scroll through 221 comments. But here in Italy we have a short metro that even calls itself that: Perugia's Minimetrò. It's a small city of 170,000 or so people, and the metro goes from a large parking lot on the outskirts up to the historic center. It's a people mover using tech fro Leitner, and the modern stations were designed by French architect Jean Nouvel. It's partially crippled by limited evening operating hours. All the same it's kind of weird and interesting.
Excellent Video! I know I've been asking a lot but I would really like to see an explainer video on the transit system in thwe La Paz/Ela Alto metrpolitan area. It is such a unique system and I feel like we could really learn a lot from it.
Looking bck at this there's a connection shuttle with the Linea Plateada connecting Plaza 16 de Julio, Faro Murillo, and Ciudad satelite which provides acess between four different Teleferico lines. Intresting right?
Berlin's U4 is quite peculiar, because it was built, back in the day, interely by Schöneberg 'district' within its bounderies.
Berlin is a land (a 'state' of Federal Germany) and the districts of Berlin are actually municipalities.
Some way it works like Greater London, oversimplifying.
At the begginning of 20th century Schöneberg wanted to build its own metro line. That's why it's that short.
As it interchange with Berlin's U-bahn network at its Northern terminus and with S-bahn ring at Southern one, it works just fine and wasn't extended further.
forgot to mention the waterloo and city line, which only has 2 stations and uses full-size underground trains
"full-size underground trains" lol
Was thinking that too, considering it's the oldest example in the world of an underground shuttle service (counting the time when it wasn't part of the Underground proper)
there was a mention of London in passing towards the end of the video, which may have been an allusion to the W&C
Half-size I think, at least if you consider the length of the trains. Basically half of a Central Line train with the grab poles painted a different colour. But yes.
If you ever feel useless remember the W&C trains have route maps. (okay it's handy to have the reminder of what connections there are)
And you missed off what may be the smallest of the lot - London's 2-station Waterloo & City Line (although it may not count as it was built as a 'mainline' Railway, just with Underground-style rolling stock).
They experimented with automated trains on the 42nd Street shuttle ages ago i think
Haha, I want more than an experiment
There's also one of these smaller versions of the real system in San Francisco Bay on the Pittsburg Baypoint line, there's a two station shuttle from the transfer Station to Antioch. I have not been on it but from what I understand there's literally a station that is only used to transfer from one of the main BART trains to the shuttle train with no entrance or exit for the public to the surrounding area. Just a transfer point which is kind of interesting on its own. From my understanding there is plenty of available room if they decide to extend the mainline further out in the right of way, but it was a cheaper option than extending the main line train service to go with the short shuttle for two stations.
London Underground's East London Line seems to be the only major example to have bucked the trend with regard to short stub lines, being removed from the Underground and linked up with underused local National Rail lines to create the London Overground in 2010.
I have commented about this before, but it would be very interesting to hear your input on this. The metro of the city of Quito in Ecuador is ready and should be operational but it is just sitting there collecting dust due to beaurocracy and government issues. The construction process was super weird also for the topography of the city and the city center that is super old and very fragile. I would love to hear your opinion :) It was built by a Spanish company so it's similar to the Madrid metro
1:13
That guy really lunged at the gap in the wall, there.
A well-known example are Paris's lines 3bis and 7bis. Despite a project to merge them into one line by refurbishing existing tracks, it will probably never happen because the benefits will never justify the cost.
Should call them “Stubways”
Line 4 in Mexico City is the shortest of the system and has the lowest ridership, despite having more transfers than standalone stations.
On the other hand, line 2 of Guadalajara Light Rail is the shortest line with just 10 km of service track, but it's the most used of the three, despite never being completed to its full planned length
Fuse line 3bis and 7bis in Paris sometimes come back as an Idea to make a little more bigger line, that could also potentially make a new link between some parts of Paris and Gare de l'Est, but for now there is nothing planned before 2030, and I doubt that any fuse project come again before a long time
as someone who regularly uses M6 in istanbul to go to the uni, i always thought that the reason the line is so short is the distance has too much traffic to use the bus during rush hours but when i thought about it again, i feel like it had potential to grow westward. of course, it has single track between the stations, so it is impossible now. and the single track causes not being able to increase the frequency when needed. as reece said, it mostly serves to a bigger line, M2 but it also means that if you don't live on M2 line, you have to use at least 3 different vehicles to reach your destination (or 4 vehicles in my case)
Interesting. I use almost all of Istanbuls lines frequently when I visit, but used M6 only once to get to Akmerkez mall. The transfer between M2 and M6 is kind of lengthy which undermines the usefulness of the line. Have you used the funicular on the other end and did you notice an increase in ridership?
And don't forget the Waterloo & City line in London - only 2 stops!
Thats why I made sure to mention London!