Talk:List of premetro systems

== Premetro or premetro? ==

Should the letter P of the title be capitalised? 116.48.155.127 (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Article moved to "List of premetro systems" as per WP:AT on 10 April 2014. --IJBall (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

POV fork? Questionable inclusion content?

Discussions over the original premetro article concluded that no rapid transit system should be called a "premetro" system unless at least one verifiable authoritative source called it a "premetro" system.

For several years the original premetro article listed dozens of rapid rapid transit systems on highly questionable grounds. Often their inclusion was pure WP:Original research -- ie, their inclusion was based purely on the private theories of wikipedia contributors. That is counter-policy, as the wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.

Rapid transit systems, like Boston's Green Line, were included. The green line apparently because one small section of tunnel was built large enough for heavy rail. That was a BS reason for inclusion, and the tunnel was built more than half a century before the term "premetro" was coined.

From my reading, the idea of a premetro, if a premetro is a rapid transit line, initially built using only light rail of dedicated bus lanes, but built to include features that would be useful for expansion to use heavy rail, is an idea whose time has come and gone.

Why are there so many lines called "premetro" lines in Belgium? Narrow political reasons, not technical reasons.

From my reading, fans and proponents of the "premetro" idea overlook some serious hidden costs of converting a light rail line to heavy rail:

• When heavy rail requires stronger bridges, more robust rail beds, wider and longer stations and station platforms, and station passageways, but a line's ridership never rises to a level where a heavy rail upgrade would be required, the extra expense of wider tunnels, more robust bridges, was wasted.
• If the transit authorities waits until the initial light rail line's ridership seems about to exceed the line's capacity then they have to take the line out of service, and inconvenience hundreds of thousands of passengers every day, for years, while the upgrade takes place. Under the premetro model the light rail line has to be taken out of service, for years of reconstruction, right when it is at its maximum ridership.

From my reading, if anticipated ridership is expected to require heavy rail capacity in the near future, then a heavy rail line should be built. But, if anticipated ridership is only at the light rail level, it is more cost effective to build a cheaper light rail line. And then, if the ridership of that line starts to rise to the point where planners anticipate it will be over capacity it is more cost effective for them to plan to extend rapid transit service onto a new, relatively nearby parallel line.

If a new nearby line's ridership overlaps the ridership of the old line nearing its capacity, then the new line will unload some of that ridership. Building the new line won't require taking the busy existing line out of service. Finally, when the new line is complete, twice as many potential riders will be within walking distance of a station. Geo Swan (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The above opinion about why the concept of premetro does/did/will not work, while possibly true, also contain some degree of original research. Also, @Geo Swan: I just saw a source calling (part of) the Boston Green Line being premetro. C933103 (talk) 01:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• C933103 wrote "I just saw a source calling (part of) the Boston Green Line being premetro." Hmmm. Was the link you provided to the page of that document which you thought substantiated your statement?
• Well, it doesn't substantiate your statement. I looked into the early history of the Green Line. A very short segment of it was built for heavy rail, over one hundred years ago. My recollection was that this segment was only hundreds of yards long. I repeat my objection that nothing should be called a premetro system when built prior to that term coming in to use.
• Your document is a Lulu book. Lulu authors are self-published. Lulu books get challenged for not measuring up to our RS standards, as Lulu doesn't employ editors. They will publish anything.
• You paraphrased this passage

"Many light rail lines, such as Shaker Heights in Cleveland, parts of the Green Line in Boston, and San Francisco's Twin Peaks Tunnel, were originally built to pre-metro standards."

You claimed your ref called the "Boston Green Line being premetro". What author Bob Edwards probably should have said was that these early streetcar lines contained portions "built to heavy-rail standards".

• WRT your claim my comment "contain[s] some degree of original research"... As per WP:Original research, the wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. What is disallowed is including our own unreferenced opinions and interpretations, in article space. WP:NOR does not bar discussions on talk pages, or other fora, from discussing the meaning of what RS said, or didn't say. Sometimes talk page comments have to discuss what RS actually meant, when some good faith contributor has naively included material they thought was either "obvious", blue sky obvious, so not requiring an explicit supporting refeference, or they thought they were offering an obvious clear paraphrase of RS, that was unfortunately based on naive misconceptions.

  Yes, good faith contributors are encouraged to use their best judgment, and draft what they think are fair, neutral and accurate paraphrases of RS. And, when someone else thinks one good faith contributor's good faith efforts to offer fair, neutral, accurate paraphrasing of RS falls short, due to misconceptions, their explanation of what went wrong may very well contain passages that could not be included in article space, due to WP:NOR. Geo Swan (talk) 11:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Is the Porto Metro a "premetro"?

First, since the local transit authorities call the system a "Metro" system, why would we contradict them and call it a "premetro" system? Second, the Porto Metro article does not contain a single hint that they ever plan to install heavier rail. The Porto article says the population of the Greater Porto area is 1.4 million -- ie too small to justify fully heavy rail lines.

If no one can provide at least one good reference that says Porto planned to convert any of its existing lines to heavy rail, or that it ever said it subscribed to the "premetro" model, I will remove Porto Metro from this list. Geo Swan (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• [1]  Done Geo Swan (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Is the Metrovalencia a "premetro"?

I see nothing in the Metrovalencia article that hints that anyone ever planned to replace existing infrastructure with heavier rail. So why should this system be listed as a premetro?

If no one can provide at least one good reference that says Valencia planned to convert any of its existing lines to heavy rail, or that it ever said it subscribed to the "premetro" model, I will remove this system from this list. Geo Swan (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• [2]  Done Geo Swan (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Is the Kiev Light Rail a "premetro"?

I see nothing in the Kiev Light Rail article that hints that anyone ever planned to replace existing infrastructure with heavier rail. So why should this system be listed as a premetro?

If no one can provide at least one good reference that says Kiev planned to convert any of its existing lines to heavy rail, or that it ever said it subscribed to the "premetro" model, I will remove this system from this list. Geo Swan (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Livoberezhna Line (Kiev Light Rail) was planned for conversion into a full metro line (Livoberezhna Line (Kiev Metro)), see sources in both articles. I don't know if this is enough — NickK (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@NickK: But was that proposed metro line suppose to use the right of way of the LRT system or will it be reconstructed underground? C933103 (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@C933103: In 2008 the city administration decided to close the tram line in order to convert it into full metro, and it was supposed that metro will use existing tram tracks. In December 2008 they officially issued an executive order to transfer tram infrastructure from Kyivpastrans to Kyiv Metro and suspended tram service since 1 January 2009. In November 2009 they announced a call for bids, announcing that the new metro line will use the existing tram tracks between Myloslavska and Horodna (the latter being in projects as an extension from Vatutina and was ultimately built at a different site as Troieschyna-2). It was supposed to have seven at grade and one underground station (Dniprovska). However, in 2010 it was decided to stop all works, with tram traffic already suspended and metro works not yet started, and in 2012 this project was ultimately abandoned in favour of resumption of tram traffic and extension to Troieschyna-2 (source, last four paragraphs) — NickK (talk) 10:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• NickK, do planners ever include heavy rail elements on a light rail line, so that line could be converted to heavy rail, when ridership rises? What elements could they include?

1. Heavy rail requires more gradual curves. Planners might require a right of way that allowed all curves to be gradual enough for conversion to heavy rail.
2. Heavy rail stations are longer, to allow for longer trainsets. Theoretical premetro lines have to leave room to expand the stations.
3. Heavy rail bridges and embankments have to be stronger, to accommodate heavier trainsets
4. You mention that authorities were going to include (most of) the existing track. The track is the cheapest feature.

• If the track and the right of way were the only elements being re-used I question whether to characterize Livoberezhna Line (Kiev Light Rail) as a pre-metro route. Geo Swan (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Geo Swan: I would be quite confident that all conditions were filled. Looking at the map you can see that curves are reasonable and should be good for heavy rail standards. Platforms were particularly long with 85 metres being a common standard, although such length would be never used by a tram, plus some additional room to expand stations is available (you can check that by looking at Kashtanova (Kiev Light Rail) on a satellite map. There is only one bridge at Henerala Vatutina (Kiev Light Rail) (couldn't find any sources on it so far), on all other crossings the line goes below street level — NickK (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• NickK, I added a remarks field to the table. I added it so that contributors, like yourself, could include a brief explanation of how the line was a "pre-metro" line.

  Your comment≈, above, directed me to the references to Livoberezhna Line (Kiev Light Rail) and Livoberezhna Line (Kiev Metro). Well, Livoberezhna Line (Kiev Metro) says, "The plan was rejected due to the high cost of building a new metro line." If authorities determined that the heavy rail line had to be "a new metro line", then any measures to have included heavy rail features in the Livoberezhna Line (Kiev Light Rail) clearly failed. Geo Swan (talk) 11:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Geo Swan: To be more clear: this line as of 2009 was going nowhere. It was connecting one end of a suburb to another end of that suburb. Not quite useful for a metro line which has to be connected with at least one other metro line (to have access to a depot, a gate and so on). The cost of that construction happened to be prohibitive. Current plans (as of September 2018) are speaking of light metro (легке метро) which is probably another word for premetro used by authorities — NickK (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Is the Kryvyi Rih Metrotram a "premetro"?

I see the Kryvyi Rih Metrotram does assert that the system was designed to use tunnels and stations in the underground portion large enough for heavier rail. But those assertions are completely unreferenced. So why should this system be listed as a premetro?

If no one can provide at least one good reference that says Kryvyi Rih planned to convert any of its existing lines to heavy rail, or that it ever said it subscribed to the "premetro" model, I will remove this system from this list. Geo Swan (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• I think Urbanrail.net is a good reference, it says that 6.8 km is underground with 4 stations, which are built to full metro standard. This matches the definition of premetro as it is indeed a tramway or light railway which includes segments built to rapid transit standards — NickK (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

  I removed the [dubious] template, and I am adding here two more sources: this one (in Russian) states that first stations were built according to full metro standards, although conversion to heavy rail was never considered seriously due to economic reasons (ridership was just right for metrotram but a bit too low for full metro), while this one (also in Russian) classifies it as metro / metrotram, metrotram (uk:Метротрам) being a Ukrainian equivalent of premetro — NickK (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• NickK urbanrail does indeed say "The total length of the fully segregated section is 17.7 km with 11 stations. 6.8 km is underground with 4 stations, which are built to full metro standard." What it does not say is "pre-metro". Thus this is insufficient for us to write, in article space, that the line is a premetro route. Geo Swan (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Geo Swan: Looking at premetro, the definition is a tramway or light railway which includes segments built to rapid transit standards, generally as part of a process of conversion to a metro-standards railway usually by the construction of tunnels in the central city area. Kryvyi Rih Metrotram is a tramway which includes segments built to rapid transit standards. Sources explicitely naming it premetro are scare because premetro term is not used in Eastern Europe (it's more of a Romance languages term), metrotram is usually used instead. The best source I could find explicitly qualifying Kryvyi Rih as premetro is this one — NickK (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Is the Krakow system a "premetro"...

I see nothing in the Krakow article to suggest it should be in this list. If no one explains why it belongs, in a reasonable time, I will remove it. Geo Swan (talk) 13:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Frankfurt am Main

The Frankfurt U-Bahn system uses Tunnels in the central section, connecting to old tram lines outside the city centre; the same drivers are used across all lines (tram and U-Bahn) and there is a shared maintenance fleet of vehicles are used for both the trams and U-Bahn; There were five (now four) connections between the U-Bahn and tram (on-street) track networks. The Frankfurt U-Bahn is currently marked as "dubious"—something which can hopefully be removed. —Sladen (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

In the meantime all former tram-metro-vehicles of the P-type have been replaced, meaning that there will be more no vehicles available that can function both as trams and as U-Bahn. In Frankfurt there has been debated to merge the tram fully into a Stuttgart- of Colonge-like Stadtbahn system. In that sense there was no premetro, because in that system also in the long run tunnels would have been used by trams, but in the 2000 was definitively to keep a separated lowfloor tram system on the one hand and a highfloor U-Bahn system on the other hand. Both are only connected in that sense that there is track connections between both system and there overhead wires that can be used be both vehicles. The regular operation is strictly seperated. In that sense there is also no premetro, but a typical German Stadtbahn system that is fully separated by tunnels (predominantly) and viaducts (only one) in the central city, but functions like a light train with level crossings outside of the central city. The big difference with other German cities is that a seperate tram system also exists. 2003:CB:1743:A00:6940:38AF:6A12:E3B5 (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)