From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tünel article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate. Happy editing!
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	To-do list for Tünel:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category

	Rapid transit Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rapid transit, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rapid transit on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Comments

[edit] 2nd oldest subway?

Both this page and the page on the Budapest metro make the claim that they are the second oldest subway systems in the world (after the London Underground). Can anyone verify which one is correct and make the necessary edit? -- Hux 17:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If the dates in both articles are correct, than the Tunel's claim is the correct one. According to the articles, the Tunel started operating in January 1875, while construction of the Budapest metro wasn't even started until 1894 and finished in 1896, making the Budapest metro 21 years younger than the Tunel. According to the articles, both metros were "conceived" around the same time (1867-1870), but these dates are irrelevant, since it is obvious that every large city in the world was impressed by the new London invention (opened on 1863), and made some sort of plan to copy this idea. Incidentally, if you don't consider the Tunel a "real" metro (e.g., because it has only two stations, today used mostly as a tourist attraction, and so on), then all sorts of "world records" open up, making the Carmelit the smallest metro in the world and the Budapest metro the second oldest. But if you do accept that the Tunel is (or at least was) a metro, then you got to give it these "records". Nyh

That was my original assumption as well. However, according to the article, the Tünel was a horse-drawn funicular until 1910, whereas the Budapest metro was probably electrically powered from the start (at least I'm assuming it was since the contractor was Siemens & Halske). Then again, the London Underground wasn't electrcially powered in its infancy either. So I guess the bottom line is: does a funicular count as a subway? -- Hux 16:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion the fact that it is a funicular (pulled by a cable) doesn't say much, except that the tunnel is uphill. It is still underground, and still a train, so I would call it a "subway". The bigger question is whether you can call service between just two stations a real metro. Nowadays you obviously can't, and Istanbul has a much bigger and separate metro system. I don't know how people viewed it when the Tunel opened. I have a hunch that when the Tunel opened, its builders thought they were building the first "underground" since London's. By the way, if the Tunel is not a metro/subway/underground, what is the situation with the Carmelit? It is a slightly larger system, but still has just one short line, is a funicular, and is rarely used in practice today (the Tunel and the Carmelit both like to claim the dubious record of being shortest subway in the world...). Nyh 06:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh, some good points. I think I agree with you about the funicular argument but personally I don't think the number of stations or the length of the line is particularly relevant - as you say, it's a train and it's underground, hence it's a subway. So, I'm going with the Tünel as the second oldest. Now the only problem is: if I edit out that part of the Budapest page will Hungarian wiki readers descend on me in a wave of furious anger? ;) -- Hux 07:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Haha, no furious anger :-) But I try to convince you. Well, I was a bit surprised when the Tünel was considered as a metro. I looked up the wiki definition for "rapid transit" (metro redirects here): a railway system, usually in an urban area, with a high capacity and frequency of service, and grade separation from other traffic (so being under the ground is not mentioned in this definition!). The London metro, as well as the Budapest metro are supposed to serve rapid mass transportation with many stations, and - despite their age - still serve as such and they're connected to and important part of the public transportation system. Well, though it is a cable railway under the ground, I don't think the Tünel fits into the idea (or the upper definition) of the metro - neither in the times after opening the London underground, nor now.Timur lenk 09:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is another contender for the 2nd subway line in the world: Atlantic Avenue Tunnel Nyh 10:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)