Talk:List of metro systems/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Hamburg S-Bahn again.. (sorry)

I understand the reasons why mr Kildor now has erased the Hamburg S-Bahn from the list. But still doesn't agree in the overall quustion. First about the photo - I cannot see any third current track at the photo, but yet both sides of the platsform seems to be in use. And the picture must be rather old dued to the red "S". Anyway this is rather far out on the country side - but the considerations clearly satues that it's whats inside the city that matters. If looking for weak points You often can find them. My suggestion is to put the S-Bahn back on the list, but as in the case of Rotterdam, not include the two parts we have discussed here. (i.o 50 km ? and 9-10 stations less - unless there are no problem in the central and urban HH-Hamburg. I can also tell You that In Copenhagen the S-line to Frederikssund were single tracked from day one it opened, all the way to Ballerup (I belive it was). It took ten years to build the second track. And as I said several stations in the London underground has far more strange solutions then at S-Bhf Sülldorf. It's not only tracksharing at Metropolitan line. (OK I've not been to London for 10 years) But as it was at Hammersmith I assumed that it would be easy to change from what's today is called "Hammersmith & City line" (pink) to Piccadilly or District line at Hammersmith. But here You had to exit the closed system and cross a buissey street by foot and then enter Piccadilly/District line platforms again. I think Hammersmith&City Line was a part of Bakerloo line then. Perhaps that has been changed ? But who can guarantee that f.i. all the chineese systems are OK ? In Chicago there is a track/street crossing (mention before this Haburg issue). Hereby I think I've written enough. Thanks to mr Kildor and to Carol and others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.41.18 (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Have You read the main article ? The primary way to distinguish metro sysytem from non metro system is wheather the system is urban or not, if the system is used for city transportaion of passengers or if the main purpose is to transport passengers in and out to the city. Not small details. In case og Hamburg most far-suburbs seems to be covered by the "A-banh system". (see official site of Hamburg transport). And the major part of the S-bahn must be concidered as a metro system. Perhaps the Hamburg U-Bahn makes it more difficult to accept another system in the same city aswell ?? /non member "Coffetime". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.82.54.9 (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I have spent way too much time editing and discussing this article in the last couple of years. If you take some time to look through the archives of this talk page, you will see that there has been a lot of discussion about several entries in this list. Many systems are on the border between different modes of public transport. The London Underground has some parts that would be better described as suburban railway. But as a whole system, I think everyone consider the London Underground to be a metro system. For Hamburg S-Bahn there are more exceptions, and I believe that the system is better described as a suburban railway system rather than a metro (of many reasons, mentioned above). I guess that the fact that it is officially classified as a S-Bahn in Germany makes it even more difficult to describe as a metro. In the book Urban Transit Systems and Technology by prof. Vukan R Vuchic, chapter 10 "Characteristics and comparisons of transit modes", there are sections about light rail, rail rapid transit/metro, commuter rail, regional rail and more. From the section Regional rail: "Typical regional rail networks are the S-Bahn systems in Berlin and Hamburg, JR lines in Tokyo and other Japanese cities and RER in Paris." I believe that book is a very good external reference on this subject, and a good argument for not including the Hamburg S-Bahn. --Kildor (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to write again , mr Kildor. I did not know much of what You are telling "Coffecup". Are You a Hamburg recident aswell, if may I ask ? Perhaps You were little too fast with the erasing ? (Please note the question mark) - Even if You have had points wich I simply have to accept. Thow I strongly dislike the use of "book experts" in matters of opinion. An other professor may have a different point of view, can't he ? One level road-crossings are simply not up to the list standard (at present, but still) So only by mercy the Hamburg S-Bahn could had remained on the list. And since mr Kildor didn't show mercy, he is now responsible for the erasing of the HH-Hamburg S-Bahn of the list. But I stand behind his decition.

But not because the S-bahn is surburban rather then urban. My point of view is that in the central and urban parts of Hamburg (f.i. Altstadt, Neustadt, St Pauli, St Georg, Altona, around Binnen- and Außenalster and also Harburg south of Elbe.) the S-Bahn is of full standard. But unfortuneatly there are too large errors in some of the perifer parts of the system. (It could easally be corrected thow) I think mr Coffecup must accept the decision, specially since mr Kildor seems to know much more of the S-Bahn ten I first assumed. Hamburg is thow still an interesting city, very different from both Munich and Berlin. Best reguards to mr Kildor and others /John from southern Sweden (about 300-350 km from Hamburg) PS - To Carol if You read this - today the sun actually is shining a bit north of Malmö (if You might heard of this ex-danish city). Perhaps I will take a pleasant swim in the Öresund sea... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.41.18 (talk) 08:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Carol reads and Carol knows Malmö, of cause. I have been there several times and enjoyed it allways (of cause). Please don't be angry about that erasing of the Hamburg S-Bahn from that list. That's no catastrophy, isn't it? I'm still sure that it's more usefull to give customers a fast and easy lift to the town, even if we do this on two rails instead of four, and even if there are level-crossings, than to get a label as metrosystem. :-) I'm a bit of pragmatic, you know. Whenever you come to Hamburg, please give me a hint, so I can invite you for a beer, a coffee, an applejuice or whatever you want. Thank you very much for your intense tries. Kind regards to all of you from Hamburg, --Carol.Christiansen (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Shanghai Metro

There are some edits related to the Shanghai Metro. Most of them is about the length and number of stations, and therefore I would like to explain the numbers. I have searched and looked through many pages, and the most reliable source I have found is a page on the official website of Shanghai Metro. According to that page, the Shangai Metro network was 410 kilometers by 30th June 2010. This seems to be the most recent and up-to-date page regarding the network length. However, it is clear that 410 kilometers is calculated as the sum of the length for each line on the network. But since line 3 and 4 share a part of the network, that part has been double counted. From UrbanRail.net (currently unavailable), we learn that the shared part is 11.9 kilometers long. Thus, the route length is 410-11.9=~398 kilometers. The number of stations also need to be adjusted in order to be comparable with other systems. As specified in the "legend" section, we present the number of stations with transfer stations counted only once. The number of stations on the official website (267) clearly counts transfer stations more than once. The number on ExploreShanghai.com (232) seems to be more accurate. --Kildor (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that 420km was the original announced distance wouldn't 410km already include the double counting being subtracted? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. The official page lists the length of each individual line. The sum of these values is 410.08 km. So I don't see how they can have subtracted the shared part. My guess is that the originally announced 420 km included some depot tracks, or was some kind of miscalculation. --Kildor (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the 420km included the Expo line, which has now closed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a probable source of confusion. Transfer stations are always tricky, too, especially if they weren't built as transfer stations but were later made into them (like the numerous cases in New York).
That said, as a point of order, Kildor, in English we use a dot, not a comma, to separate decimals. So that should be 11.9 km, not 11,9 km. Just so there's no confusion. oknazevad (talk) 03:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I always forget about that. Thanks for reminding me! (my post above is now corrected). --Kildor (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

line 10 extension just opened, I am not sure whether it beat London as of yet. mathwise the shanghai metro is at 425.7km (according to the shanghai metro wikipage without maglev) - 11.9 (interline of line 3 and 4) - ~4km (expo line shutdown) which beings it to about 409.8km. but I am not sure if this is correct. -- Steve Chiu 11:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't imagine it was much longer now, but I'd assume the current Shanghai metro figures would exclude the expo line that has been closed. So its now 425.7 - 11.9. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

so it's 413.8 km but on this page its says 398 km. where did 15.8 km go? either way the London network is only 402Km so based on this information it should be the longest, but I noticed actual the measurements for the shanghai metro is very uncertain. -- Steve Chiu 19:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Official numbers have not been updated yet. The numbers in the Shanghai Metro article are confusing. First of all, there is no source at all in that article regarding the length of the system. And the sum in the table is not correct. Adding the length for line 1 to 11 (excluding Maglev), the sum is 404 kilometers. But in the table, the sum is given as 425.7 kilometers. The edit comment for this edit indicates that the numbers are not reliable. So I think we stick to the official numbers, and wait for them to be updated. Unless there is a reliable source on the length of the line 10 extension to be found somewhere... --Kildor (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Can Mecca Metro qualify?

It opened on November 13 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sega31098 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason not to add it, presuming there's no other objections. From the article it seems that it is completely elevated, and therefore grade separated, it is electric and higher capacity than what would be considered light rail. oknazevad (talk) 03:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it to the list. Ravendrop (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

the reason it is called light rail is because a Chinese company was involved in building it. In Chinese elevated rail (轻轨) (think Chicago or New York "els") when translated directly literally means "light rail". so Mecca adopted the Chinese terminology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve chiu (talk • contribs) 00:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Can more agglomerations systems qualify?

More near urban rapid transit systems of Liverpool (Merseyrail), Hong Kong (Kowloon-Canton Rail), Paris (RER), Guarenas-Guatire, Great Mumbai (Mumbai-Thane and Thane-Vashi/Panvel lines), German S-Bahns, Australian systems serves the one-, bi-, multi- nucleous agglomerations just like counted there PATH, BART, Dubai Metro, Mecca Metro, Los Teques Metro, Tyne & Wear Metro, Foshan-Guangzhou 1st line of Foshan Metro, Berlin S-Bahn, S-Train, some of Brasilian metros, future London Crossrail, and so on. MetroDreams (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Many of these have been discussed numerous times; I'd recommend checking the archives for why they aren't listed. As for the future systems, we'll figure those out when they open. The list doesn't include unopened systems. oknazevad (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yea, some of them were discussed, but some - not.

What if some doubtful systems, that has no consensus there and counts as metros in other sources, include to the table by italic ? Or may they be listed after table? MetroDreams (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

If there is no consensus on certain systems, then they should be discussed here (that's the purpose of the talk page). -Multivariable (talk) 08:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I also just realized what you were asking. Having one or more lines extend outside the political boundaries of the system's principal city varies from system to system. Some do; in fact, among the systems in the northeastern US, the New York City Subway is the only one that doesn't. That doesn't mean that a commuter system that runs through the central business district of a city is automatically a metro; there are the other considerations. Those considerations have to be discussed for borderline systems. Including them in italics doesnt serve the readers well at all. oknazevad (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Staten Island Railway

Hey guys,

Could we discuss the Staten Island Railway again? I'm on the fence a little bit about its status is of question but it seems to fulfill several major criteria:

• It's entirely crossing-free (own right of way) - very large separator from regional rail
• It's electric (third rail)
• It operates on the same payment collection method as the New York City Subway
• It uses only slightly modified subway cars
• It's on the same map and fare union and under the jurisdiction of the New York City Transit Authority, which runs the NYC Subway
• 24-hour service
• Relatively short station distances
• Aside from train interval it seems to be equal to PATH

What it has going against it:

• Non-peak intervals at 30 minutes
• Has a theoretical connection to the national railroad (although this would require a tow)
• Free outside the two stations offering a decent connection to the Staten Island Ferry (might change)

-newkai t-c 03:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The theoretical connection would require more than just a tow, it would require rebuilding the railroad. That said, I agree with the assessment that SIR is a rapid transit/metro operation. Yes, the off-peak headways are long, but it fits in every other criteria. That to me makes it a rapid transit/metro operation.

Also of note: the legal name of the unit is "Staten Island Rapid Transit Operating Authority". While not definitive, that's another thing to consider.

Most importantly, I've actually ridden the line. It is definitely a metro. This is readily apparent from riding. Just as the Chicago 'L' doesn't quite fulfill every criteria (as it has grade crossings), the lack of one criteria (and only during off-peak times) doesn't automatically disqualify it. oknazevad (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Not even a single station meets the critera of having "high frequency". It is 30 minutes intervals during normal daytime service for the whole of the line. And during rush hours, only a handful of stations have anything better than a train every 15-20 minutes. I have also ridden the line, and I think it has a typical commuter rail service and travel pattern (with nice subway cars, though :) Other oddities include some flag stops and single car platforms.

We do have some exceptions from criteria on this list. But these are only minor or apply only to a small part of the system. Including a system with 30 minutes daytime train intervals would, in my opinion, be a major exception. --Kildor (talk) 21:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely clear that it is urban rapid transit system according to corresponding for basic and extra criterias and according to consideration by inhabitants and officials. Lonely objection about 30 minutes in rush-out time is no essential because similar situation presents in some other urban metros that listed there, and, as opposite, many suburban systems has more frequent service but no counts as metro. While SIR de facto is one of the lines of rapid transit of NYC, the PATH, BART, MeccaMetro and other suburban systems has significantly more contradictions for being in this list. MetroDreams (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Belgrade's BG:VOZ

BG:VOZ, new urban rapid transit system, separate from regional-suburban Beovoz, was not discussed there. IMHO, more criterias evidents "pro" for including one to the list (probably by italic). Line has underground stations builded for conventional metro, has no level crossings and not shares tracks with long distance trains at all. Half of line - west part - taked earlier free tracks and stations. Low level of central station is separate from other rail traffic. Can any clear whether BG:VOZ shares this station and other tracks and stations in north part with suburban trains? Even if so, at most parameters BG:VOZ is urban rapid transit system like some other in this list. MetroDreams (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

London Overground

Surprisingly, London Overground still was not discussed there. Although it operates as part of national railways, it is frequent urban mass transit, dislike to suburban systems - counted PATH, BART, Mecca, Tyne-Wear, etc and non-counted RER, S-Bahns, etc. As it seems, majority of network of LOg not shares stations and tracks with regional trains. If this is right, we may include LOg (probably by italic). MetroDreams (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The Overground is listed at the List of commuter rail systems. That's the best descriptor of it; it's similar to the Long Island Rail Road and Metro-North, for two well-known examples. oknazevad (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The overground is shared with freight. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ottawa's O-train

I think Ottawa's O-train should qualify. Although it only has five stops, it is a completely dedicated line with no interaction with pedestrians or traffic. I have ridden it many times and it an above ground metro line in every sense.--CaperBill (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC). Contrary to the O-train Wikipedia article, it does not share the track with other users or freight. I lived on the campus of Carleton University for four years and could see the train from my room. Never once saw a freight train. I suspect what the article meant is that on extremely rare occasions, after hours, a over-sized piece of equipment is delivered on the track to the the National research council. I suspect this has happened only a handful of times in the history of the O-train, and should therefore not disqualify it.--CaperBill (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC. The O-train has much more in common with Vancouver's Skytrain (listed as a metro system), than Calgary's C-train (listed as light rail).--CaperBill (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It's diesel. By definition metros are electric. oknazevad (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Search the archive, it was already discussed before. Main problem is shared track with other passenger and cargo trains. --Jklamo (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The London Underground was initially steam and it counts... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's been electric for over a century. And Ottawa's still diesel, now. This list is for systems that meet the current definitions. While some discussion can occur as to whether frequencies are sufficient, or variations on track exclusivity (such as Chicago's grade crossings or the below-mentioned shared segments in London) are enough to exclude, no modern definition will accept anything not electric. The O-Train is diesel; it's out. oknazevad (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It does NOT share track with other passenger and cargo trains! If you have ever seen the system in operation you would realize that it is impossible to have other trains operating on the line while the 0-trains are in service. The track is therefore never shared. As i said, maybe one time in two or three years a single special delivery is made in the middle of the night (when the O-train is not running) to the NRC.--CaperBill (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC). Because there are only five stops, there are only two trains running at any time. They run back and forth on the same track all day making any other traffic impossible.--CaperBill (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

And actually the London Underground does share track on the Metropolitan line. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Houston?

Why is Houston, Texas mentioned in this article. The system is a light rail system and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.125.113.3 (talk) 02:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Valencia have no metro service

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valencia_Metro_(Spain)

The Valencian narrow gauge railway, or metrovalencia, is a modern amalgamation of former FEVE diesel operated suburban/regional railways. It is a large suburban network that crosses the city of Valencia, with all trains continuing out to far-flung suburbs. It also has destinations on lines that make it more closely resemble commuter trains. There is no street running, although a tramway system north of the Túria riverbed park is considered Line 4 of the MetroValencia.

This network consists of more than 134 kilometres (83 mi) of track, of which around 19 kilometres (12 mi) is below ground.

The system authority Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat Valenciana uses bilingual signage in Valencian and Spanish.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discusi%C3%B3n:MetroValencia

He sido el autor principal del artículo MetroValencia, y del de Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat Valenciana. Soy usuario DIARIO de Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat Valenciana, y conozco de sobra la explotación y toda la red, la cual NO puede ser de Ferrocarril Metropolitano porque no está concebida para ello, además es una red inaugurada antes de 1891, nacida como ferrocarril suburbano o lo que ahora se conoce como "Ferrocarril de Cercanías".

Para ver que NO es una red de Ferrocarril Metropolitano basta con:

1. No todo MetroValencia es subterráneo (no llega a 15 de los 143 km de la red total).

2. Las líneas 1,3 y 5 tienen trenes de Cercanías o de servicio suburbano (...seguramente la UT 3600 será mucho 'metro' cuando está concebida junto a la UT 3500 de Feve y Euskotren para servicios de cercanías o servicios regionales).

3. La longitud de la línea 1 de FGV NO es propia de "metro", sino más bien de suburbano o de cercanías.

4. La concesión para el servicio es de Ferrocarril Suburbano, como el que explotaba FEVE, explotó CTFV y la SVT ¿a caso pensaban en "metro" en 1891 (apertura línea València-Marxalenes-Bétera?

5. Las frecuencias de paso de TODAS las líneas NO son propias de ningún servicio de "metro", sino más bien de cercanías.

6. La empresa explotadora se llama MetroValencia todo junto, nada de Metro de València, ni otra cosas similares.

7. La empresa MetroValencia apareció el 18 de Septiembre de 1998, justo cuando se inauguró el tramo de Alameda a Avinguda del Cid de la línea 3.

8. Lo que ahora es la red de Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat Valenciana en València es la unión de varias líneas de ferrocarril SUBURBANO, que NUNCA han sido de METRO.

9. Los sistemas de señalización (FAP en la línea 1, y ATP en la línea 3/5) no son aptos para la explotación de un ferrocarril metropolitano.

10. Los políticos han intentado hacer creer a la gente que cogen un metro, cuando en realidad lo único que cogen es un servicio de cercanías. ¿Los vascos llaman "metro" a Euskotren?, to. ¿FGC es un "metro"?, no. Los únicos metros que existen en España son el Ferrocarril Metropolitano de Barcelona, y el Ferrocarril Metropolitano de Madrid, ninguno más. En "metro" no caben conceptos inventados recientemente como "MetroLigero" (MetroSevilla no es más que un tranvía), ni que a una línea de tranvía se le llame metro (ver TRAM de Alacant). Las líneas de Euskotren Bideak de Bilbao que pasaron a lo que hoy es MetroBilbao, fueron, son y serán de cercanías, al igual que las líneas de Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat de Catalunya.

11. Por utilizar vía métrica NO se llama metro.

Dicho esto, es totalmente incorrecto llamar "metro" a la red de MetroValencia propiedad de Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat Valenciana de vía métrica, sólo puede ser una red de Ferrocarril de Cercanías o Suburbano.

Si eres valenciano de la València española, date una vuelta desde Villanueva de Castellón a Bétera en el tren (todo el trayecto seguido), y podrás comprobar como NO tiene ningún parecido con una red de metro. ¿Dónde se ha visto que una línea de metro alcance la longitud de 70 km? ¿y que tenga varios ramales? ¿y destinos intermedios?

¿Alguien es capaz de decirme que Villanueva de Castellón, Alberic, Carlet, Llíria, Bétera o Benaguasil son pueblos del aéra metropolitana de València? ¡Pero si están lejos, y además en otras comarcas diferentes!

"En el RAE: metro2. (Acort.). 1. m. metropolitano (‖ tren subterráneo)." Como he dicho, MetroValencia no es exclusivamente un ferrocarril subterráneo. "València. 5 lineas(3 de cercanías y 2 de Tranvías). 128 estaciones. 143 kilometros. Año de inicio 1888", y no debería estar ahí incluida. Además, es pura propaganda política. A riesgo de equivocarme yo, ¿conocéis bien las instalaciones, redes y trenes de Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat Valenciana? ¿Cuántas veces habéis viajado en FGV para saber que es una red de "Metro"? (yo probablemente pase ya de los 9000 viajes en trenes de FGV (haciendo una media de casi 1000 viajes al año en FGV) ). Me abstengo de editar artículos sobre los que no sé nada, pero en éste caso y en muchos otros, he realizado y mejorado muchísimos artículos de ferrocarriles en la wikipedia en castellano. Cuando busques alguna definición sobre algo de ferrocarriles no lo hagas en el diccionario general de la RAE, hazlo en el del organismo mundial que normaliza todos los ferrocarriles del planeta, la Union Internationale des Chemins de Fer, ellos marcan las normas y definiciones sobre todo lo que es ferrocarril.

Propietario de la infraestructura: Generalitat Valenciana Empresa explotadora de la red: Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat Valenciana Marca comercial para la explotación de la red de FGV en la ciudad de Valencia: MetroValencia Empresa propietaria de todos los vehículos ferroviarios: Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat Valenciana Características de explotación de las líneas de ferrocarril (sin incluír tranvías): Ferrocarril suburbano o de cercanías Características de explotación de las líneas de ferrocarril tranviario : Tranvía Sistemas de seguridad utilizados:

--85.55.30.82 08:40 19 ene 2008 (UTC)

Estimada Ip anónima 85.55.6.148: En primer lugar gracias por apropiarte del trabajo, no solo mío, sino de toda la comunidad al decir que eres el autor principal del artículo obviando todo el trabajo que, yo entre otros, hemos efectuado antes de tu llegada. Tal vez por eso sigas ahora tratando de imponer tu opinión pensando que es la única y absoluta verdad sin escuchar a los demás y sin darte cuenta de tus propios errores. Primero, el hecho de que el Metro de Valencia solo sea un una pequeña parte subterráneo (más de 20 km, no los 15 que dices tú) no influye para que sea considerado metro. Date una vuelta por otros mundos y comprobarás como sistemas de metro que nadie pone en duda como el de Londres o París tienen también tramos exteriores. Que en 1881 cuando empezó la construcción del trenet no pensaban en metro es obvio, pero también irrelevante. ¿Acaso las trece colonias inglesas que originaron los EEUU pensaron cuando se independizaron que acabarían siendo una potencia mundial? No importa lo que fueron, sino lo que son ahora. Dices que los sistemas de control (FAP y ATP) no son válidos para un metro. Siendo esto falso ya que el segundo es utilizado en los metros de Madrid y Barcelona e incluso es al que tienen pensado actualizarse en el metro de Londres . De todas maneras como este sistema apareción en los años 80 es evidente que antes no hubo ningún metro en todo el mundo ¿no? Pero sobre todo tu principal error es obviar la propia wikipedia. Si miras en la defininición de metro verás que no hay ninguna característica que MetroValencia no cumpla.--Embolat 13:11 19 ene 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.105.186.51 (talk)

Anyone have a translation of this? If I'm understanding correctly, the IP is claiming that the Valencia Metro (in Spain), despite its name, is actually commuter rail and doesn't belong on this list. Hasn't this one been discussed before?oknazevad (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it has been discussed before. And it was decided that it should be removed from the list. And I think it is clear from this picture that it is not a metro. --Kildor (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

No it wasn't decided. We have a reference in the article for what a metro is: reference number 3, the Schwandl site, urbanrail.net, so we clearly consider that to be a reliable and authoritative source. In that site Schwandl has a list of metro systems here. Note that he specifically separates some of those into mixed systems with an asterix stating that those systems are those "including light rail systems with metro-style underground sections." Valencia is not one of the asterixed metro systems. So what matters here is not whether individual editors have personal beliefs that Valencia is a metro or no but whether reliable sources consider it to be a metro and one of our main sources which define what a metro is clearly does believe it to be a metro. Valenciano (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but. If you actually go to the Urbanrail webpage about the Valencia 'metro' it clearly mentions that only a very small portion of it can be considered a metro (a 3km section on line 3; and a 6.7 km section on line 1). So the question is whether or not having 9.7/175km of metro like running makes the whole thing considered to be a metro. Ravendrop (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It clearly mentions nothing of the kind. Please read it again. The only mention of 3km on line 3 is "The city section was built as a modern metro line running underground from Palmaret into the city to Alameda (1995, 3 km)." But that isn't the only section as it goes on to say: "the first stretch of what was originally planned as line 5, opened between Alameda and Avenida del Cid (3.2 km) with a branch from Colón to Jesús (2.4 km) to allow through trains between Torrent in the south and Palmaret in the north. Another section towards the west (Mislata-Almassil, 3 stations, 2.4 km)" etc etc.

The problem here (and this doesn't only apply to Valencia) is that there appears to be a bit of "I don't think it's a metro so it shouldn't go on" on this talkpage. The question is not whether individual editors consider something a metro : that approach is explicitly ruled out by WP:NOR and WP:V, the relevant section of which says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true" (italics mine.)

So mainly what we need to consider is whether it is considered a metro by reliable sources. Of these, there are two which define what a metro is and both of them have answered your question: Valencia is considered a metro by urbanrail.net which distiguishes it from other systems. If you go to the second reference, the International Association of Public Transport, then there's a list of metro systems in that which includes Valencia. So we cannot use 2 references which explicitly say that Valencia is a metro plus our own POV to say that Valencia isn't a metro!

If there are concerns about length etc, that can be dealt with simply with footnotes mentioning that "system x (also) includes y kilometres of tram lines and z kilometres of light rail." That would deal with your concern about length / "non metro" aspects while still meeting our policies. Valenciano (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The page on Urban Rail clearly states that Line 1 is broken into 4 sections, of which only 1 portion is a metro-like service (the rest being suburban service). I'll admit though, it does not say that line 3 or 5 are not metro service (but it also doesn't clearly say that it is either). However, the UITP link you added is much more authoritative in my opinion (an international organization that uses the exact same standards as this page claims to use, rather than a person writing a book), and its inclusion of Valencia definitely makes it verifiable. Long rambling answer short: you've swayed me and I know support including the Valencia Metro. However, I still have concerns as to exactly what extent of it is a 'metro' as opposed to 'suburban rail', 'light rail' or 'tram'. Clearly the whole 175km network is not all metro, and anything that isn't needs to be excluded from the stats (as is convention for other mixed systems as well). Do you have any sources that may be able to shed some light on that for us?Ravendrop (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, on an aside, I propose we switch the reference for what a metro is from Urbanrail to the UITP site. It seems much more credible in my eyes. Ravendrop (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I've no problem with trimming down the route info to exclude the tram bits if that's what's being done for other articles. I had a look round and unfortunately there aren't any reliable sources in English, Spanish or Catalan which give this info: they just give the network length. Just for the record (as I'm not a reliable source) line 5 is almost entirely a metro, the exception would be a small section in the east from maritim serreria to neptu. Line 3 is a metro as far as Alboraia. Valenciano (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

And where on the UITP site is there a list of metros? I am also here to argue that the Valencia "metro" should be largely reduced in length. At best 40km of it is true metro, the rest should fall under light rail and commuter rail. Thanks to the narrow gauge used, speed is extremely low. Some stations have 15-20 minute intervals during peak hours and that doesn't inspire a lot of confidence. This page claims Valencia has 32.8km of metro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 28havoc (talk • contribs) 17:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a question related to this that I wanted to ask and kept forgetting: how are the trains on the Valencia Metro operated. Do the heavy metro portions have completely separate services, or do trains start in the heavy metro tunnels and then continue directly on to the surface running, tram-like tracks. If the latter, then wouldn't this be more a subway-surface light rail operation, like the SEPTA Subway-Surface Trolley Lines, Green Line (MBTA), Newark Light Rail or Frankfurt U-Bahn? oknazevad (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

St Louis MetroLINK

Why is the MetroLink system in St. Louis considered light rail? It is grade separated, electrified, and has intervals as low as 5min.

It seems to be a three-fold reason. 

Firstly, the vehicles used are of the same make and model as the ones in Pittsburgh, which is a system with non-grade separated sections, and is descended from historical trolleys. So to some extent MetroLink is strongly similar to an unambiguous light rail system. 

Secondly, the American Public Transportation Association classifies MetroLink as light rail. (see p 32 of this PDF of their 2011 fact book, which lists Metro St Louis with the light rail operators.) They're certainly the most authoritative source we can have.  

Well, except for Metro St Louis themselves, who also unmistakably call MetroLink light rail, such as at the system history page here. That seems pretty definitive to me. It is true that MetroLink is at "heavy" end of light rail, but it is universally known as such. oknazevad (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

And besides, it is not grade separated (as can be seen in this image...). --Kildor (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd be wary passing judgement based on one photo; if a single grade crossing disqualified a system, Chicago would be out. The documentation is more than sufficient to list it as light rail. oknazevad (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't you worry. There are several.... --Kildor (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't be included here. As low as every 5 minutes doesn't inspire confidence that its midday schedule is every 10-12 minutes on most of the outer sections of the line. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Seoul Subway Korail sector

Currently, the length of Seoul Subway in this article excludes the entire Korail sector. There is good reason to exclude some parts of the Korail sector such as Jungang Line, which shares track with conventional rail. However, there are also some parts such as Lines 3&4, which are completely independent with conventional rail. There are no significant differences between the section of Lines 3&4 operated by Seoul Metro and by Korail. I think there should be a discussion on which parts of Korail sector contribute to the length of the metro system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.25.57 (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see why it shouldn't be included. Quite frankly, I don't see why much, if not all, of Line 1 shouldn't be included. I've taken it as far as Suwon, and it felt like a metro system, and not terribly different than the other lines. It might share some track with regular rail - but every station I saw had it's own platforms that were subway only. I don't see how this differs with some parts of the London tube lines. I also don't see any reason to not to include Inchon either ... really ... it's seamless for the rider. Nfitz (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• I disagree. They should fall under commuter rail, or we should start adding a whole bunch of other similar lines around the world (eg: some of São Paulo's CPTM lines, JR East in Tokyo, etc.) 28havoc (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

28havoc, you haven't provided any reason why they should all fall under commuter rail. I agree that some of them, such as Jungang Line, may reasonably fall under this category. However, the story of Line 3&4 is quite different. They are (i) mostly underground, (ii) completely separated with other rail traffic, and (iii) operating at similar frequency as the section operated by Seoul Metro. I think these characteristics are sufficient to make them metro lines.218.215.25.57 (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know much about the Seoul system, but the authors of the Seoul Metropolitan Subway article seem to have had reasons to divide the system into "urban transit" (Seoul Subway) and "metropolitan transit" (Korail). The network length according to the Wikipedia article is 314 km (including line 2, 5-9 and parts of line 1, 3 and 4). --Kildor (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The Seoul Metropolitan Subway article divides the system purely based on operator. However, on Line 3&4, there are no structural differences between the section operated by Korail and that by Seoul Metro.218.215.25.57 (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

This edit warring is getting silly. I think we should apply for semi-protection. BsBsBs (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked.] BsBsBs (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

CPTM (São Paulo) and SuperVia (Rio de Janeiro)

So I was looking and I found in São Paulo's Wikipedia page it states two metros. The actual metro of São Paulo and another rail service known as CPTM which as I read on is actually regional rail HOWEVER it looks like some kind of hybrid of a metro and a commuter rail. It actually really depends on how far away you are from the central station. Since São Paulo is such a large metropolitan region, one must not only think of the urban area as only the core city. Depending on definition it may be just on the border line between metro and commuter rail but either way, I think it deserves a mention on this list, don't you agree? Along with all other systems that are also on the borderline definition. Though I think that it must be pointed out with an asterisk their special situation.

P.S. The locals call it a metro too. The trains look a metro's, the tracks look like a commuter rail's, and the stations are either. Just check out the page for yourself. CPTM

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ThisguyYEAH (talk • contribs) 02:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Previous consensus, see Talk:List of metro systems/Archive 2#Brazil rail systems is that it is a commuter rail network. Mainly, I believe, because it isn't fully grade separated and off-peak service is infrequent. I'm sure someone can provide more info though. Ravendrop (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually most lines, if not all, are fully grade separated. I bigger issue would be the fact some of them share tracks with freight rail. But IIRC Lines 9 and 11 don't; and off-peak service is not that infrequent (7-10 minutes). 28havoc (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

CPTM has the same operation as the "Metrô São Paulo" lines: 9 and 11. SuperVia has the same operation as "Metrô Rio" in "Ramal Deodoro". The other lines of those systems have the same operation as Paris RER. Both are rapid transit systems. So either withdraws from the Paris RER , or the SuperVia and CPTM must be included to the same list.

SuperVia Headway

UrbanRails said about CPTM:

Line 9: "fully converted to metro standard in April 2001; previously referred to as line C. The 3-car-trains built by CAF (Spain) run on 1600 mm tracks (formerly metre gauge) with catenary at 3000 V. Since December 2001 the definitive 10 Siemens 4-car trains have been running there, although still blended with CAFs and the 1979 Cobrasma-Francorails."

Line 11: "27 May 2000 - former Line E operating from Brás to Guaianases, with three new stations in eastern S.P.: Dom Bosco, José Bonifácio and Guaianazes. 8 stations along the former suburban line were closed to create an express metro line running parallel to line 3 (red). From 10 Nov 2003, trains have been running through to Luz."

Urbanrail

Rodrjgw (talk) 13:34, 08 September 2011 (UTC)

Why the title "should" be "List of metro systems" instead of "List of the rapid transit system"?

Well, the better name to describe that kind of system is rapid transit. That name may solve any doubt about metro, subway, underground, overground, "trem urbano" (portuguese to "urban train", a rapid transit or light rail usually supersedes the old railroad in urban area in Brazilian metropolis), S-Bahn an U-Bahn. Hence we may change "List of metro systems" to "List of the rapid transit system".Rodrjgw : User talk:Rodrjgw (reply on my talk) 13:00, 08 Setember 2011 (UTC)

I moved this down here as new comments go on the bottom. As for the article title, this has been discussed numerous times. I advise looking at the archives. Long and short: the problem with "rapid transit" is it's a broad term that can (though somewhat incorrectly) include bus rapid transit and other modes. The issue with "metro" is it's less commonly used in English (where "subway", "elevated" and "underground" are more common, though those have their own issues with being misnomers at times). There's no perfect choice, no one right answer. I think the current title is fine; it makes it pretty clear what the article covers. That's the main thing for an article title. oknazevad (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Xian Metro

Xian Metro Line 2 is open to public on September 9, 2011. The Chinese western city of Xian is the latest to have a rapid transit system in mainland China. The first phase of Line 2 has 17 stations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.41.21.143 (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Be bold. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The longest metro network in the world is...

...the Paris RER! At least if you use this article as a source. Sort the systems by length, and the RER is the winner. This is the rather absurd consequence of adding suburban railway systems to this list. Since the RER is not fully grade separated, it shares tracks at some outer parts, and has low frequency of trains (up to 60 minutes on some branches), it should be removed from the list. It is by all means better described as a suburban railway system rather than a metro system. --Kildor (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree this is confusing. Since part of the RER does operate underground within Paris (similar to a metro rail system), it is appropriate to keep it in this list. For clarity, a note has been added explaining that RER is mostly regional commuter rail. Truthanado (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The presence of a few miles of lines in tunnels that are heavily travelled (because it carries traffic from multiple branches) does not a metro make. I think RER should be removed outright. It's a commuter system, not a metro. It's been a contentious inclusion for some time, largely included because of a misinterpreted comment. I'm removing it. oknazevad (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC) PS, these no source that would ever claim the RER is the world's longest metro, so it's inclusion here is clear OR. oknazevad (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that there’s already a “metro” in Paris and it seems weird to recognise possibly a second. The second problem is that RER is a “regional” system but serving nonetheless almost only in the urban area, recognised as a rapid transit system and fits with the definition, knowing that the difference between "rapid transit system" and "metro system" is not clearly defined :

• To serve in urban area :  Done. Only few stations are outside

• High capacity :  Done. 800 million journeys per year / 55,000 passengers per hour in each direction on Line A, the highest figure in the world outside of East Asia.

• High frequency :  Done. The most frequent, during pick hour and intra-muros : from 1 train every 2,5 minutes on lines A and C (sometimes more than the metro...) to 1 train every 5 minutes on line E. On every lines, that's more than a lot of metro systems / The less frequent, late at night and on terminal stations : generally 1 train every 15 minutes to 1 train every 30 minutes, which fits with frequency during off-peak hours of many other metro systems, though there’s actually some less used branches on lines C and D with only 1 train per hour after 21 pm.

• Grade separation :  Done. The exceptions are negligible and mostly technical (precisely like Paris metro or London underground).

We could add that the system is completly integrated with the Paris metro, that the authorities differentiate RER and suburban trains (8 other lines from major Paris stations, considered as regional commuter rail), that the two systems have the same ticket (for the same zone), the same counters and the same transport cards, that the number of stations per km is not so different from many other metro systems (Shangaï, Beijing, Washington, Hong Kong…), that people use indistinctly metro or RER.

On the other side, the RER is partially based on former commuter rails (with large rails consequently). Some lines (C and D), in some parts, seem more like classic suburban lines (a bit less frequent and more branched) but almost entirely included in the urban area and coexisting with lines which operate exactly like other metro systems (A, B and E). That’s also true that the Paris urban area is very scrappy, with a suburb much bigger than the main city.

Kildor is ironic when he says that the longest metro network in the world is Paris RER, but in fact, that’s true : there’s no other examples of such an extensive rapid transit system network in any urban area in the world. So what to do ? We include U-Bahns, S-train, PATH... We could refer indistinctly to our subjective impressions or to the objective definition, they are not more or less metros either. Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hiwever, Kildor is also quite correct in that frequencies during of leak times are well below metro standards. That frequencies increase greatly during peak periods is a feature common to suburban commuter systems, not metros. And as I said, no source will list the RER as the world's longest metro, which is why we can't include it here. Integrated fare structures used by both metro and suburban services are actually pretty common around the world; RER is hardly unique in that regard. In short, while the RER is certainly more robust than some suburban systems, it's still not a metro. oknazevad (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

If it meets, or nearly meets, the criteria then it should be in the list. If it misses them significantly remove it. Let's not forget that the London Underground doesnt meet the letter of the criteria. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The frequencies during off-peak hours (early in the morning, lunchtime) are important. Late at night is a very off-peak hour and the service is still strong (7 minutes in Paris, 15 to 30 minutes on the distal main branches, less on some far branches of two lines, which are not representative of the system). No source consider RER as a "metro", cause there's already a "Paris métro". The RER is however clearly separated from Paris suburban trains, which are not considered as rapid transit systems but commuter rail systems. The problem is that we have only two lists on Wikipedia which don't complete each other. The RER has either to be classified in the list of "metro system" or in the list of "suburban and commuter rail systems" "which operate on main line tracks unsegregated from other rail traffic".

Rapid transit system and metro system are quite the same in the classification (even the main criterion for distinction of a metro (mostly underground) is not fulfiled by many metro systems), so we have to be coherent. Maybe should we go back to the former title "List of rapid transit system" to include the systems which fit the definition but not identified literally as "metro", not as commuter rail either. This classification would answer clearly to the second list, with no empty case, and it could include other minor rapid transit systems (like airport rail shuttles). If a system fits the definition, case done. Another solution is to create another list of rapid transit systems which include metro systems in its large definition, and keep this one with only metro systems in its strict definition (i.e. a system officially named metro, underground, subway or unanimously recognised as "the one" of the city (no PATH, U-Bahns, DLR...), it would be clearer for users who may be just interested by comparing the metros from the cultural point of view of the term. Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The RER has been included in the list of suburban and commuter rail systems for quite a while now, and no one has challenged its inclusion there. The RER has low mid-day frequencies in outer parts, it travels long distances out from the city, runs on tracks operated and maintained by the national railway operator, and it is not grade separated. And there is no reliable source claiming the RER to be the world's longest metro system. Feel free to create another list with different contents. But the RER should not be included in a list of metro systems. --Kildor (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not OK with your point of view and I already explained why, you qualify a whole system on few negligible exceptions and quite subjective impressions, but a lot of other systems have also exceptions and specificities. In the RER case, the system could be seen as a commuter rail system (serving mainly outside of the city limits, on large rails (from a former suburban system) and with globally lower frequencies than the Paris metro) but also as a rapid transit system : it fits the definition and has been designed and organised for that by the authorities, the RER is not the Transilien. Maybe you didn't see my proposition of systematisation underneath. Clearer encyclopaedic classification, no more ambiguous cases or confusions between "metro system" and "heavy rail rapid transit system", and not only for the RER. Your point of view would be welcomed. Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not only my point of view. Reliable sources claim that either London Underground or the Shanghai Metro is the longest metro in the world. I have not yet seen a single source claiming the RER to be the longest. If we do, it would be original research... --Kildor (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If it's the problem, we should have a definition which exclude RER from other metro systems. Like I said, I think the better solution is to have a list which only represent systems officially named metro, subway, underground or clearly recognised as "the" metro of the city by many sources (no small or additional systems) : it wouldn't be a "list of metro systems" but a "list of metros". Shanghaï Metro and London Underground would still be recognised as the most extensive. What do you think about that ? Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 11:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The name of a system isn't, and shouldn't be, a criterion for inclusion. And there is no simple and crystal clear definition of metro to be used. As example: The definition used by the International Association of Public Transport (UITP) is [1]:

Metropolitan railways are urban, electric transport systems with high capacity and a high frequency of service.

Metros are totally independent from other traffic, road or pedestrians. They are consequently designed in tunnel, viaducts or on surface level but with physical separation. Metropolitan railways are the optimal public transport mode for a high capacity line or network service.

Some systems run on rubber-tyres but are based on the same control-command principles as steel-wheel systems.

The problem is that we have to figure out what urban means and what high frequency of service means. Exceptions to the rules clearly exist, but how many exceptions can be allowed? We discuss these questions here on the talk page, and we use external references as help in judging if a system should be included or not. In this case, it is pretty clear that there are no sources considering the RER to be a metro system. Furthermore, a report from the UITP and the European Rail Research Advisory Council (ERRAC) clearly puts the RER in the suburban railway category. In my point of view, the RER fails the "urban", "frequency" and "independant" criteria. Obviously, you believe that the RER fulfills these criteria. But then you need to find sources that support your point of view.

Any suggestion on making the "considerations" section clearer is appreciated. I have now added the word "suburban" in addition to "commuter" and "regional" regarding systems that are not included. Hopefully, that will help in the future. --Kildor (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

For RER, I don't know if we will agree. It's almost entirely independant (like many other systems). For frequency, we can argue about the lower service on some distal branches at off-peak hours but globally, it still a very high frequency system (RATP even ordered new double-stack trains for line A cause with one train every two minutes in pick-hours it was simply impossible to increase frequency...). Lastly, it's almost entirely included in the urban area, there's no continuity breaks, and I don't think it's relevant either to consider a "suburban area" of 8 million people, which is a simple "urban area" from a demographic point of view. When the fr:Grand Paris Express will be constructed (175 km of automatic lines, mostly underground and almost entirely outside the city of Paris) won't it fit the urban area criterion ? will it be consider as a commuter or a suburban train ? I just think that some city-integrated mass rapid transit systems like RER or some S-Bahns can't be consider like some suburban non rapid transit rail systems, rolling from a selected peripherical station (generally national), crossing the urban area to join outer cities, on plural tracks, with clearly lower frequencies. The RER is by far closer to the Paris metro than the Transilien.

It would be better to use a strict definition of "metro" but, like you said, it doesn't exist : if we check the list, even a lot of suburban non rapid transit systems are called metros : Metrorail in South Africa, Metrorail in Austin, Metrolink in LA, Metro-North Railroad in NYC, MetroTrain in Leeds, MetroFor in Brazil, Metrotrain in Santiago, Metro in Baghdad, Metro Trains in Melbourne... Without mentionning all the suburban "metropolitan systems" (which is by the way the real name of the Paris metro). That's why I suggest, not to create a new list, but to convert the list into a "heavy rail rapid transit systems" list : we would have clearly defined conditions (dedicated-tracks serving mainly a urban area, not a metropolitan area). Now, if it's a problem, Shanghai and London systems could be considered as the most extensive "metros" and I personnaly am OK with this perception, like many sources on the Internet. (I'm convinced that the main difference between, for exemple, RER and Shanghai metro, is the size of the trains.) Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Please don't mix the topics. This topic is about if the RER should be included in this list (with it's current name and definition). If you like to change the name or definition of the list, please discuss it in the section below. --Kildor (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Merseyrail and Manchester Metrolink (again)

These two systems have been discussed before - they are not metros. Please consult the archives, and if you disagree consult here before adding them. Bagunceiro (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Manchester Metrolink tram only indeed but Merseyrail is rapid transit absolutely equal to many urban+suburban systems listed there (PATH, PATCO, BART, S-Tog, etc) MetroDreams (talk) 06:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The Merseyrail shares tracks, have several level crossings and has services as far as Manchester. It is better described as suburban/commuter/regional rail. --Kildor (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Mashhad Metro

Mashhad Metro is 100% rapid transit and more such than some others in this list like French, Spanish and other light systems in small cities, Binhai, Frankfurt, Manila LR, DLR, other metrotram and sky/monorail systems etc. It is meet for all conditions of rapid transit absolutely.MetroDreams (talk) 05:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide references to this. Checking on Urbanrail, it calls it a light rail as it is not fully grade separated. Ravendrop 16:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I would call these "grade-separated", though: [2] [3] [4] Perhaps I'm looking at the wrong photos. By the way, monorail systems are listed separately. -Multivariable (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems like light rail to me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Tokyo in two

Why Tokyo subway was splitted in two?! Its were just two different companies that managed the lines... but why its were separated? This is not as in Berlin or Paris with S-Bahn e U-Ban or Metro and RER. Both are underground metropolitan services. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.105.186.51 (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Tokyo Metro and the Toei Subway are separately operated networks. So we list them separately, allowing the reader the most direct links to the individual articles. oknazevad (talk) 03:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

By that standard, shouldn't the Seoul Subway be broken into 4 entries then - 1 for each of the Seoul Metro, Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit Corporation, Seoul Metro Line 9 Corporation, and Korail? Nfitz (talk) 04:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget São Paulo metro, where one of its line is operated by ViaQuatro.

I believe we should list metro systems here rather than metro operators. We could list Tokyo subway instead, but it seems that Tokyo Metro and Toei Subway often are described as separate systems. And therefore it make sense to list them as separate entries in this list. I am not very familiar with the Seoul system, but it seems to me that Seoul Metropolitan Subway is known as a system, while the others mentioned above are operators... --Kildor (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. And while the Tokyo solution seems pretty simple, the single system that covers Seoul and Inchon has 2 entries - even though the systems are integrated - and become increasingly more connected with the current extensions under construction. You also start to get into the question of London Tube vs London DLR ... which is no different than Toronto subway vs Toronto SRT which has a single entry. Nfitz (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

If we are talking about metro systems, then the current entries for Tokyo scratch only the surface. Tokyo's metro system consists of a high number of separately owned (this is the land of the Keiretsu after all) lines and operators, which nonetheless form one large, (kind of) integrated, and highly efficient system. For instance, JR is absent from this list, and JR is the backbone of the Tokyo metro system. Transport in Greater Tokyo does a good job in explaining the situation. According to this entry, "there are 30 operators running 121 passenger rail lines in Tokyo." The Tokyo-Yokohama Suburban Rail Summary also is a good read. This document should be studied closely and compared to the line length claims. The latter document gives the greater Tokyo system 2,863 route km, it gives London 3,673 km, and New York 1,575 km. This makes claims that Shanghai has the largest network by route km at least worthy of another look. BsBsBs (talk) 08:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

No because most of those aren't metro lines as they don't meet the criteria. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Citation please. I live in Tokyo. Not just in the Tokyo Metro, but in the Ku area. From my house to my client, I use three different lines belonging to three different companies. I use my SUICA card and don't even think of who owns what. How can a line that is totally within the Tokyo Metro not meet the criteria of a metro line?

Let's do a test.The first part of my journey is on the relatively obscure Tōkyū Ikegami Line.

• Grade-separated exclusive right-of-way, with no access for pedestrians and other traffic? Check.

• Primarily used for transport within a city? Check. Gotanda Station to Kamata Station, both well inside of Tokyo.

• Higher service frequency, typically not more than 10 minutes between trains during normal daytime service? Check. 5 minutes.

• Does not share tracks with freight trains or inter-city rail services? Check.

Once in Gotanda, I switch to JR's Yamanote Line. We test again:

• Grade-separated exclusive right-of-way, with no access for pedestrians and other traffic? Check.

• Primarily used for transport within a city? Check. Ring line around Tokyo's center.

• Higher service frequency, typically not more than 10 minutes between trains during normal daytime service? Check. 2.5 minutes at peak times.

• Does not share tracks with freight trains or inter-city rail services? Check.

Finally, at Shinjuku Station, I switch to the Tokyo Metro subway.

Anyway, UITP's Metropolitan Railways Divison has two members from Japan: Hisashi UMEZAKI, President of TOKYO METRO, and Ichiro TAKAHASHI, Deputy Director of the EAST JAPAN RAILWAY COMPANY, commonly referred to as JR East or in Tokyo simply as "JR". If Japan's many metros agree to be represented by a JR director then we should extend the same courtesy when it comes to membership in the august list of world metros on Wikipedia.

BsBsBs (talk) 10:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Many Tokyo lines fit the definitions of metro much better than the European and American counterparts - right of way from other railways, grade separated, high frequency, compartment designed for high occupancies, location within city centres or densely populated urban areas, etc. 218.250.156.183 (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Athens, Greece

The two rapid transit systems in Athens, Greece (ISAP and Athens Metro) now belong to the same company (STASY S.A.) but they have not been integrated yet. They even use the old logos. Integration may proceed very slowly, in the meantime separate entries are needed. Visit http://www.stasy.gr which redirects to http://www.amel.gr to see the current status of integration. SV1XV (talk) 04:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

There were two separate listings until a month ago. It appears it was changed to reflect the now common ownership. I'm not sure separate entries are really needed anymore. The existence of old logos around doesn't mean that they remain separate, it's just one of those relics that'll stick around for a bit (especially considering Greece's financial straits). And the lack of track connections isn't telling either; there's no track connections between the full metro lines in Boston or Philadelphia, either. But I'd like to get other's opinions on this. oknazevad (talk) 06:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not just the logos. They are still run as separate systems under the old management structures, only the top management (BoD and CEO) are common. There has always been a (rarely used) physical connection between the two systems at Attiki station, so this is not really an issue. The very slow pace of the integration is mainly related to trade union reactions and the special privileges of ISAP personnel (the ISAP union blocked the integration in the early 2000's as well). It seems that it is easier to integrate Athens Metro and Athens Tram, even though the systems are technically very different! SV1XV (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Reminds me of the New York City Subway, albeit at a smaller scale. The NYC systems was originally built as three separate systems, the private IRT and BMT, and later the city-owned IND. Even after the three were all brought under public ownership, they continued to run as separate divisions for a coue of decades (though transfers were now free). Even now, the former IRT lines are a separate Division A because of technical differences.

Short version is that I think in time the two should probably be listed as one, but separate for now makes sense. oknazevad (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I expect that in Athens integration shall take place in less than two years. ISAP trains now operate with one person crew, the management removed the train guards three weeks ago. SV1XV (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Lima Metro

Since a user has (re, I think)-added the dubious tag to the 2011 date of commencement of operation of the Lima Metro, yet it has not been discussed here yet, I thought I would bring it up. The English wikipedia page indicates its opening as 1990, however provides no reference for this (in fact it appears that Alan Garcia celebrated the opening of the line for political reasons to boost himself in the next election, despite the fact that it was not completed, and by all accounts I have seen, not operating commercially at this time). The Spanish wikipedia states that the inauguration was July 11, 2011, which is clearly confirmed by this reference. Further, this source clearly states that after Garcia's "opening" in 1990 the line was only used to offset transit strikes or for special events (they use the example of a wedding), and states that it was not operated commercially. Two other sites railway gazette and Urbanrail report that it has operated commercially sporadically since 2002, but its full commercial opening only happened in 2011. As such I propose that the opening date be left as 2011, but with a note (much as what we have for the Beijing Metro) saying that the line was opened by Alan Garcia in 1990 operating on special occasions, and since 2002 operating commercially sporadically. Or words to that effect. Thoughts? Ravendrop 01:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Note This discussion had also been posted at Talk:Lima Metro.

Don't you think you should comment at the Lima Metro article? Here is a list of worldwide systems and what you are suggesting is specific to that one. Sw2nd (talk) 01:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I chose this venue as the tag had been placed on this page, plus this page is probably more viewed. I have also posted on the Lima Metro page. Ravendrop 01:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Persistent "vandalism"

First of all, thanks User:Skier Dude for semi-protecting this article to halt the fire and raise awareness.

Rather than a "vandalism", I think it's better to call it an "edit war" based on a content dispute. The edits proposed by 203.145.92.136 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) et al. can be roughly summarised as follows:

1. "Transport" (proposed by IP user) vs. "Transportation" (current edition)
2. Footnotes. Do they follow the name of the metro, or follow the number that requires clarification?
3. Sort keys. North Korea, South Korea and Taiwan are affected.
4. Dubious flag on Lima (see #Lima Metro above)
5. San Juan. Does that belong to USA, or in a separate Puerto Rico section? (The related problem of Hong Kong is also being discussed in #Hong Kong above)

Personally, I think a separate "notes" column of the table may be helpful, just to make the table less messy. The sort keys are quite useful except for Taiwan (for which the sort key doesn't actually do anything). I'll leave the other 3 problems open. Deryck C. 10:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem was not an edit-war, the problem is that that IP was used by a banned editor. See the history of the page. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

...really? Deryck C. 09:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposition of systematisation

A rapid transit system is a "rail or motorbus transit service operating completely separate from all modes of transportation on an exclusive right-of-way" (American Public Transit Association). We could add the Merriam-Webster definition : "a fast passenger transportation (as by subway) in urban areas."

→ List of rapid transit systems (Two conditions : Grade separation from other traffic ; Serving urban area)

• List of heavy rail rapid transit systems
• List of light rail and tram systems
• List of monorail systems
• List of bus rapid transit systems

→ List of commuter rail systems (General conditions, some could not be fulfiled : tracks unsegregated from other rail traffic, larger, serving suburban area, scheduled services... : S-Bahns and RER satisfy some of these condition and could also appear in this list).

→ List of underground transit systems (Specific list, one condition : mainly underground)

Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 15:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Most of those lists already exist, and are already linked in the "see also" section. As for systemization, this list already is based on a set of criteria taken from respected authors and industry standards. That we may have some disagreement as to whether a system belongs or not is why there's a talk page. Personally, I remain unconvinced on the Hamburg S-Bahn (frequent, yes, but lots of grade crossings in less dense outer areas), the Copenhagen S-train (it's also listed at the commuter list, and the high frequencies in the center are the result of all the branches being funnelled through the same tracks; numerous commuter systems have that feature, including Philadelphia and Sydney) and Valencia (seems to be a subway-surface light rail system). But I've heeded consensus here, as that's how Wikipedia works. oknazevad (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

All these lists already exist, I don't want to create them, I just suggest another organisation. To be clearer, the first proposition is to exclude list of "commuter rail systems" from the list of "rapid transit systems" : I think it has nothing to do here, most of commuter rails are generally not grade separated, while it is the almost singular condition to be consider as rapid transit (in fact, if we follow respected authors and industry standards, frequency or even capacity are not conditions to be "rapid transit"). The second, the most important, is to convert the list of "metro systems" into a list of "heavy rail rapid transit systems". We have to be rational : if we set a list of "rapid transit systems", ALL the rapid transit systems should be in one or another of the four lists. If we have for rapid transit a list of "light rail and tram system", what's more logical to have the equivalent for heavy rail ? We could easily be able to define what a "heavy rail rapid transit system" is but some people could deny that some of them are "metro systems" ; that's the problem (rapid transit but excluded from rapid transit lists) and that's why we will argue endlessly about different cases. Are PATH, DLR, some S-Bahns, S-Train, RER, or even some airport shuttles, exactly metros ? We could not argue about it with a heavy rail list. Incidentally, the underground list could find a more logical role in that way, cause this criteria is the real difference with other heavy rail rapid systems.

Considering this systematisation, the discussions may continue, but just about the fact if a system is classified "rapid transit" or not, i.e. if it serves mainly urban area, and above all, if it has separate tracks. I think the better way is to consider the main conception of the system, or we will find exceptions everywhere, including a lot of historical "metro systems". A suburban train, rolling mainly on multiple tracks, borrowed by other trains going to other destinations, is clearly not a rapid transit system. A network conceived to be borrowed only by an express system, with dedicated-rails, to serve mainly urban area, is a rapid transit system. Hamburg S-Bahn fits this definition, it may have some exceptions on distal branches, it must have some, these systems generally rest on former commuter rails, but all the conception is organised to be a "metro". Moreover, I think Hamburg S-Bahn is equally a "suburban and commuter rail system" : it fulfils the main condition (serving outside of the city limits) and I think this list should have nothing to do with "rapid transit" affairs, a system could be clearly in the two lists.

Now I'm looking for consensus, I equally think that's how Wikipedia works. ;-)

Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

We could easily be able to define what a "heavy rail rapid transit system" is... I really doubt we could. But if you think it is easy, you are welcome to create a list of heavy rail rapid transit systems as a complement to this list. --Kildor (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention that we shouldn't be defining what a "heavy rail rapid transit system" is; that strikes me as original research. Sticking with the criteria of reliable sources is the only proper course. And a separate list is unneeded; it'd be merged as a redundant fork almost instantly. oknazevad (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, we continued the discussion at the precedent topic, maybe you didn't read. But to give an answer, there's no original research by defining what a "heavy rail rapid transit system" is : that's a heavy rail / rapid transit systems : the definitions are clear. RER, Berlin S-Bahn, Hamburg S-Bahn... are clearly categorised as rapid transit and heavy rail systems. If a logical systematisation with clear (sourced) criterions is an original research, what about classify or not some systems as "metro" with no clear definition ? If we follow sources, why don't we consider as metro all the numerous world suburban systems called "metro" or "metropolitan", why not airport shuttles ? How could we find normal to set a "list of rapid transit system" and exclude some of them because they don't belong to a perception of the term metro and don't belong either of any other subcategory ? Where do you classify them ? How could we consider commuter rail systems as "rapid transit systems" ? (Thanks to answer above) Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I really don't follow you. You haven't yet provided a definition of "heavy rail rapid transit". And if you want to rely on APTA definitions, please use their current glossary: [5]. --Kildor (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh my fault, I know why you didn't understand me. I thought a heavy rail system could possibly share tracks with other transports, like most of the commuter rail systems, but that's pretty clear in this new glossary that "heavy rail rapid transit" is a pleonasm. But we may be OK now : a conversion into a "heavy rail systems" list would be enough. No original research and a place for each system.

→ List of rapid transit systems

• List of heavy rail systems
• List of light rail and tram systems
• List of monorail systems
• List of bus rapid transit systems

Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see how a list of "heavy rail" systems would be easier to define and manage. There would still be many borderline cases with light rail and commuter rail systems. And while we have at least 2-3 external lists to use as a reference for a list of "metro" systems, there is as far as I know no list of heavy rail systems which covers more than just North America. --Kildor (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"Metro" is a mix of multiple-technical and multiple-cultural considerations (numerous non rapid transit systems called "metro"), there's a lot of contradictory sources and I don't think that's easier to define and manage. "Heavy rail" has a single definition : that's already defined and consequently easier to manage : "rapid transit" has the advantage to be clear and strictly technical (external sources are easy to find and more coherent). In any case we will have borderline problems with light rail systems, and maybe less with commuter rail systems : these are generally already sourced as either rapid transit systems or as simple commuter rail systems. Finally, and once more, we could have a logical systematisation of rapid transit systems, with no rapid transit systems excluded or non rapid transit systems included. Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Heavy rail and rapid transit certainly do not have single and strictly technical definitions. Please take a look at the corrsponding articles. Heavy rail, rapid transit and metro are often seen as synonyms with equal or similar definitions (also by APTA). Renaming this article list of heavy rail systems would make no significant difference but adding confusion since heavy rail often is interpretated as any "heavy" rail system, even regional and intercity trains.

I remain convinced that metro is the better technical term to use for this article. It is a term that is globally used by organizations, manufacturers and in litterature (examples: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]), while heavy rail and rapid transit are mainly used in North America. --Kildor (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The APTA doesn't say they're synonyms, it says that heavy rail systems are "also called" metro, subway, rapid transit, or rapid rail. We should understand that if a subway is a heavy rail system, heavy rail systems are not always subways... Or if it is, it's necessary to be coherent : there's no reason to exclude some rapid transit systems from the metro list, cause they're not recognised as "metro".

Unlike you said, "heavy rail" has clearly not multiple definitions, unlike "metro" which is certainly more used to call a system, but has incidentally multiple technical and cultural definitions depending on countries. "Heavy rail" is a technical term in itself, and that's why it's less used to identify systems, just like "tram" and "light rail". I have noticed the (only ?) exception in UK, where heavy rail could be distinct from rapid transit systems (that's what I first thought). If you think that's a problem, it could be a solution to come back to my first proposition "List of heavy rail rapid transit systems" or simply refer to the APTA definition.

If we integrate or exclude some systems cause a definition differs from a country to another, it makes no sense. We should refer to clear criterions which allow a coherent list by grouping what is similar and comparing what is comparable : that's the main interests of such lists.

Once more, if we list "rapid transit systems", we should have ONLY rapid transit systems and ALL rapid transit systems in one or another of the subcategories. If we have a list of "light rail transit systems", what's more normal to have a list of "heavy rail transit systems" ? It could be also a solution, if you prefer, to have a "list of heavy rail and metro systems", like we have a "list of light rail and tram systems", but think it's quite contradictory and not very relevant... Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I am still very confused by your posts. Excatly what do you refer to when you say "rapid transit"? And where do you find a definition of "rapid transit" with clearly defined sub-categories? --Kildor (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what you don't understand. A rapid transit system is a "rail or motorbus transit service operating completely separate from all modes of transportation on an exclusive right-of-way". That may be the original definition by the APTA but that's the one which has been used to define the current systematisation that you support. Would it be suddenly a problem ?

There is only four categories which answer to this definition : rail rapid transit systems (monorail, light rail and heavy rail) and bus rapid transit systems : do you find any other ? That's the present organisation with an exception : I just propose to change "metro" to "heavy rail" to be coherent and avoid some exclusions. Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

In the current glossary of APTA, rapid transit is the same thing as heavy rail. And a light rail system is almost never completetly separated from other traffic. Neither is bus rapid transit. But sometimes, rapid transit is used in a broader definition, including BRT:s and some light rail, metro and suburban railway systems. The APTA definitions works pretty well when it comes to categorize US transit systems. But it is not clear how these definitions would work for the rest of the world. Where would you put the German Stadtbahn and S-Bahn systems? Is the DLR a light or heavy rail system? Are RER and CityRail heavy or commuter rail? You say you want to avoid some exlusions - exclusions from what? It seems to me that you try hard to change the scope of this article in order to include the RER. I think that's the wrong way to go. --Kildor (talk) 06:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

So you confirm that you don't agree with the current systematisation either ?

I already answered to the questions you ask me (commuter rail/heavy rail, heavy rail/light rail, exclusion from the rapid transit list), maybe you could read again above cause I was pretty clear. And secondarily the current APTA definition is not the same as the current UITP one. But, if I follow your position, I don't understand why if, according to you, "heavy rail", "metro" and "rapid transit" are the same thing, we should exclude some "rapid transit systems" from the "metro" list cause they're not recognised as "metro"...

It seems to you that I try to change the scope of RER and some other S-Bahn-like systems. I thought it was even the main reason of this discussion. To repeat myself, that's illogical that some mass rapid transit systems, incidentally as pivotal as the "metro" of their city, are excluded from a "rapid transit" list. These systems have been clearly conceived to be the metro of their urban area, not like other suburban trains (like in Paris, the "trains de banlieue", Transilien), though, I repeat, they equally are commuter rail systems. It's not a subjective perception, it follows a definition and even your definitions agree with me, so I don't know why it's a problem to change.

Now, I'm not gonna get tired by endless discussions. I think it's not pleasant to you either. Maybe it would be better if users give their opinions (maybe BsBsBs ?) to close the debate. Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

"It's not a subjective perception, it follows a definition and even your definitions agree with me". Well - from this sentence, it is clear to me that we won't be able agree on these questions. --Kildor (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Why ? According to the definitions that you defend (metro = heavy rail = rapid transit), the S-Bahn systems should be in the metro list, so yes, these definitions are in contradiction with your position. I don't think a "metro" is exactly the same thing that a "rapid transit sytem" or a "heavy rail system", that was the purpose of the change. Maybe could you answer more precisely to my remarks. Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 10:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry. This discussion is leading nowhere. --Kildor (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

If you don't want to argue, that's sure. En-bateau (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Folks, a decision needs to be taken (and I'm fine with either)

• Are we taking an OFFICIAL difinition for the list? Then there is UITP, Schwandl, etc. The more authoritative, the better
• Are we looking for Metro SYSTEMS? Then an integrated system using varying technologies can be used. Again, UITP or Schwandl would help.
• Or are we looking just for subways, undergrounds, tubes etc? Then it will also be easy. Sure, a lot of undergrounds run above ground, and some S-Bahns, light rails etc. use tunnels, but we can keep them apart.

All it needs is a decision.BsBsBs (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I think having a simple definition is a good idea. If the RER meets our criteria it should be included and we shouldn't be obsessed about keeping it out. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

I'd like to propose the following edits:

• at line 17, at the end of the paragraph, to change transportation to transport, to match with the Commonwealth spellings throughout the article;
• to change line 185 to '| style="text-align:right" | 1981<ref group="note">Trial operation since 1969. Fully operational and open to public since 1981.</ref>';
• at line 184, to remove '<ref group="note">Trial operation since 1969. Fully operational and open to public since 1981.</ref>';
• at lines 621 and 629, to change to '! style="text-align:left" colspan=6 | {{sort|Korea, North| {{flag|North Korea}} }} <sup id=K />' and '! style="text-align:left" colspan=6 | {{sort|Korea, South| {{flag|South Korea}} }}' respectively;
• at line 891, to change to '! style="text-align:left" colspan=6 | {{sort|Taiwan|{{flag|Republic of China|name=Taiwan (Republic of China)}} }} <sup id=T />';
• at line 1,212, to add back '* [[articulated bus|List of articulated bus systems]]', which was erroneously removed earlier on; and
• to relist Puerto Rico separately.

119.237.156.46 (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• • I would support the change for the Beijing note (if a ref can be found) and to add sort tags to North and South Korea (the tags don't appear to do anything for ROC) and the addition of list of articulated bus systems to the see also (as it is another form of mass transit). However I do not support listing Puerto Rico seperately (as it is part of the US (even as a Commonwealth)) and per Hong Kong Precedent dependencies are listed with their parent country. I have not made any of these changes though, because per background to the request these need to be discussed and agreed upon first. Ravendrop 01:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Change to oppose adding of list of articulated bus systems because, as pointed out below, that article does not exist. If it's created, then it can be discussed. Ravendrop 09:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I also support sort tags for North and South Korea; and Beijing note if a reference is supplied. I don't agree with linking to articulated bus, because currently there isn't a list (I was going to argue that all the other lists are vehicles with rails, but apparently bus rapid transport isn't either). As I said before, the Taiwan sort tag does nothing and is therefore not needed. I'm neutral to both transport vs. transportation and Puerto Rico listing. Deryck C. 08:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

    I just realised that sort tags for country names doesn't actually do anything useful to the table. Deryck C. 22:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

    Ahh. I noticed that just now after reading your remarks. Right.., but it isn't because the template doesn't work. It's because of the design of this table. The country names appear in separate rows, instead of a column next to the city/locale column. 119.237.156.46 (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• • I oppose adding sort tags for North and South Korea and Taiwan. These are already sorted correctly by K and T, so there is no need for a change that will make the code more complicated. And there is no need to add "Republic of..." for Taiwan. I also oppose adding link to articulated bus and to list Puerto Rico separately. --Kildor (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment:
    • The Koreas aren't sorted under #K if the {{sort}} template isn't applied.
    • For Taiwan the matter is three-fold, first with the actual and common names of the country, second which name should come first (with the other followed in brackets), and third how it should be sorted, either #R, #C or #T.
    • As for transport, it's commonwealth spelling and it was intended to match with the commonwealth spellings used throughout the article. Transportation is basically a North American usage. This is also the pattern that Wikipedia articles around transport(ation) of country are titled.
    • The refs for Beijing's opening year are available within Beijing subway's article.
    • Listing of Puerto Rico should perhaps be discussed separately. Interestingly http://www.Lrta.org has it as a separate entry.
  • 119.237.156.46 (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose According to the page history this user is banned from editing. No one should edit in behalf of them. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

  I'm afraid I can't see that. Please trace us the exact path of evidence that shows this user is banned. Deryck C. 22:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Questions belong to those users not me. Furthermore, this user has evaaded many blocks, regardless s/he is banned or not block evasors shouldn't edit as well. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

    • This user isn't a "block evasor" - they're just behind a rotating IP range. With such significant difference between the edits Oknazevad reverted in the diff above and the edits proposed by this user, I'd be reluctant to denounce this IP user as a banned user unless Oknazevad confirms both links (from a banned user to the IP user reverted in the diff above, and from that IP user to this). Deryck C. 23:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a block evasion because it is User:Instantnood. It was obvious to me a week ago. I'm too busy to create an email with behavioral diffs to send to the CU email list. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

It certainly fits the evidence and MO that has been well established in previous dealings. I, too, would oppose for that reason. oknazevad (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Note: I'm closing the request tag out, at this time; it's clear that consensus on this talk page does not support the changes requested. Several editors are apparently available if circumstances change. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)