Jump to content

Talk:List of tram and light rail transit systems/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

What about

What about the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) and MetroNorth? --Ed Poor 12 Jan 2005

LIRR and MetroNorth (near New York City do not qualify as light rail. They are commuter railroads and are therefore heavy rail. 129.177.61.124 08:48, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Malaysia?

What about Malaysia, we have PUTRA LRT, STAR LRT, and Monorail? - 8 Apr 2005

If you know of a true Light-Rail system that should be listed but isn't, you know what to do: be bold! Make the change!
Atlant 11:16, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If I am not wrong, they were removed because they are only "LRT"s by name. Putra and Star actually has capacities and rail guages comparable to full metro systems. The monorail might barely qualify, but again, its capacity is just unusually enormous.--Huaiwei 12:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That is my belief too. Both PUTRA and STAR are already listed in the List of metro systems, so unless that is incorrect, they should not be listed here as well. Monorails are a different mode altogether and the KL Monorail is listed in the list in the Monorail article. (The KL Monorail is also listed under List of metro systems, which I think is an error). -- Chris j wood 14:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of historic systems

I just created a Wellington tramway system article, describing the tram network that existed in Wellington, New Zealand, up until the 1950s. However, this page doesn't seem to include former light rail systems, and I can't seem to find any page that does. Is there anywhere for such things to be listed? If there isn't, is it worth creating one? (I suspect it would be rather long). -- Vardion 05:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

See List of town tramway systems.

Updates

Little Rock, Arkansas' system was duplicated under both heritage streetcar and Light Rail, the Light Rail reference was removed. The Charlotte, North Carolina system was moved from proposed to existing due to its pending opening, and the Atlanta, Georgia heritage streetcar system was marked proposed. --Kardous 23:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You know what would make me happy?

A list of light rail systems in the US ranked by ridership. With a title of something like:

Busiest Light Rail systems in the United States

--Loodog 04:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"Consensus method" - and deletions

Assuming that this list is what it says - a "List of light-rail transit systems" - might we use the "consensus method" to determine what belongs on this list - and what does not ?

A handy "rule of thumb" with reference to certain systems is to ask whether the line, as built, is compatible with "in-street" operation. If it isn't, then it isn't "light rail." Re. Manila, the Yellow Line of the Light Rail Transit System (LRT-1) and Metro Rail (MRT-3) are in principle compatible with in-street operation - but the Purple Line of the LRT system (LRT-3) is not.

1.) Street tramways, even modern street tramways, are not necessarily "light rail" and should not automatically be "categorized" as such (although the U.S. Federal Transit Administration, among others, does this).

2.) "Heriage tramways" should be spun off into a separate article. They are not "light rail" (although some "heritage" operations are associated with light rail, as in San Jose).

3.) The various automated guideway transit (AGT) and monorail lines should not get listed here (except perhaps with redirect links). They are not "light rail" - although the label is sometimes applied.

4.) Deletions I suggest, and why:

Asia Mainland China

--Anshan: This was a conventional street tramway (operation now suspended), although one with significant amount of reserved track.

India

--Kolkata: This is a conventional street tramway.

Japan

--All EXCEPT Hiroshima, Kitakyushu, Toyama Light Rail, and possibly Fujisawa - Enoshima Electric Railway.

The lines listed here are conventional street tramways, with few "light rail" characteristics ("reserved track" in itself - even 100 percent reserved track - does not determine whether an operation is "light rail").

Fukui Railway is not an "interurban streetcar" line. It is instead an electric light railway that enters central Fukui on a (relatively short) length of street track. This segment is "licensed" as a "tramway," while the remainder of the line is licensed as a "railway." Very much a borderline case. However, I can think of several other Japanese local railways that - except for the street track - are very similar. I would not want to label these as "light rail."

The Hiroshima suburban line (to Miyajima) is a borderline case. I would say this system has evolved into something reasonably described as "light rail."

The Enoshima Electric Railway is another borderline case - but it has more "railway" characteristics than Hiroshima does.

The Otsu lines were put there, I suspect, to drive people who think in rigid categories to distraction.

For several years, the Keishin Line has been worked by trains of KYOTO METRO cars (!). OK, they're "small-profile" metro cars, and the maximum train length is four cars - but metro cars they are. This line includes a relatively short segment of street track in Otsu - where you can see "subway" cars operating "down the street." Is this "light rail" ?

The "other" Otsu line, the "Ishiyama-Sakamoto Line," is not an "urban" tramway, but is licensed as a "tramway." It has a character similar to a number of electric local railways in Japan.

Malaysia

--Kuala Lumpur - Kelana Jaya Line and Ampang Line: Although called "light rail," these are better described as "light metros." They are not compatible with in-street operation (third-rail current collection, driverless operation).

North Korea

--Cheongjin and Pyongyang: These are conventional street tramways.

Africa Egypt

--Cairo trams and Alexandria trams: These are conventional street tramways.

Nigeria

--Calabar: Monorails are not "light rail," and are not compatible with "in-street" operation.


5.) Deletions I have made, and why:

Asia Mainland China

--Chongqing: This is a monorail, despite the "light rail" label used by (some) news sources.

--Tianjin, Wuhan: These are elevated metro lines (despite the "light rail" label used by (some) news sources)

India

--New Delhi - Delhi Metro: This is a full-scale metro system (which by no stretch of imagination is "light rail.")

Singapore

Singapore - Bukit Panjang LRT Line, Sengkang LRT Line and Punggol LRT Line: These are "Automated Guideway Transport" (AGT) systems (and by no stretch of imagination are compatible with "in-street" operation).

Europe Abkhazia

--New Athos: The New Athos Cave Railway is not "light rail" despite the small size of the vehicles, and is not compatible with in-street operation (some form of ground-level current collection).

Ldemery 19:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Europe

I suggest we distinguish between 1.) light rail, 2.) conventional street-based tramways, and 3.) electric light railways. This won't be "straightforward." Reserved track ("private right of way") and tunnels, by themselves, do not make a tramway system into "light rail." There are other important characteristics, in particular, operation of multiple-car trains by a single driver. However, this particular characteristic is also not sufficient - by itself - to make a tramway system into "light rail." In other words, it's a judgement call. I think we could proceed quite quickly if we accept this.

As stated before, I suggest that we not follow the practice of the U.S. Federal Transit Administration (among others) and label "all" operating tramways as "light rail."

One question that will need to be thrashed out: is the presense of city-center tram subways alone sufficient to make a tramway system into "light rail" ? (Well . . . maybe . . .)

Please note that "conventional street-based tramway" does not mean "run-down," "life-expired" or "old-fashioned."

Absent some compelling reason(s), I suggest that we resist the temptation to label "electric light railways" as "light rail." There are perhaps 50 (or more) lines in Japan that would then (arguably) be candidates for this list.

--Austria: By no stretch of imagination is the Gmunden tramway "light rail." Even the Graz and Innsbruck systems are "borderline" cases. On the other hand, Wien (and, as I recall, Linz) each have at least one line that has many, if not all, of the characteristics brought to mind by the term "light rail."

The other systems listed are "electric light railways."

--Belarus: Mazyr and Novopolotsk are described as "express tramways" and are therefore "borderline" cases. The others are conventional street-based tramways.

--Belgium: Here begins the fun (so to speak).

Ghent has a conventional street-based tramway. This is also true of Antwerp - except for those tunnels. Brussels is closer to the "borderline" - and its tramway tunnel system is significantly longer.

Charleroi is clearly "light rail" - but the Coastal Tram is a borderline case.

--Bosnia-Herzegovina: Sarajevo has a conventional street-based tramway.

--Bulgaria: Sofia, same as above.

--Croatia: Osijek and Zagreb, same as above.

--Czech Republic: Of the systems here, only Prague has one or two lines that have many, but not "all," of the characteristics implied by the term "light rail.

--Estonia: Tallinn has a conventional street-based tramway.

--Finland: Helsinki has a conventional street-based tramway - although a very modern and highly-efficient one.

--France: The fun (so to speak) continues.

First, I have deleted Caen, CLermont-Ferrand and Nancy because by no stretch of imagination are these systems "light rail." ("Trams on tyres" maybe, but certainly not "light rail".)

Second: The new French tramways are not "light rail" because they lack certain "light rail" characteristics. For example: in 2003, all systems in operation had no provision for operation of anything but single cars (vehicles might have had couplers, but that's beside the point). If it's desired to list these among "light rail" systems, I'd suggest doing so in a separate section,

--Germany: More fun, At least the German term "Stadtbahn" gives a reasonable clue as to what might reasonably be labeled "light rail."

I would delete Baden-Baden, Heilbronn and Pforzheim because these do not have systems "separate" from Karlsruhe. (Heilbronn might go in as a footnote because it has a new section of street track used by the trains from Karlsruhe.)

Herne does not belong on this list for similar reasons.

Krefeld has a conventional street-based tramway.

Siegburg does not have a system "separate" from Bonn-Koln.

Kassell (. . . which I haven't visited in a long time . . .) is a borderline case.

Some of those "tram" cities have systems with "some" light-rail characteristics. Examples that pop out include Gelsenkirchen. Other than these, I'd suggest deleting everything under the "tram" heading.

--Hungary: With the qualified - and possible - exception of Budapest, all cities listed have conventional street-based tramways. The Budapest tram network (BKV) does not have "stand-out" LRT characteristics. The HEV suburban lines "might" be considered as "light rail" - but I don't think that's reasonable. No one would think to call them "light rail" if they were operated as part of the national rail network.

--Ireland: Dublin - Luas is another "judgement call." Photos suggest the lines are more "modern conventional tramway" than "light rail."

--Isle of Man: By no stretch of imagination doees the Douglas Horse Tram belong on this list. The other two do not really belong, either.

Italy: None of the systems listed are "unambigiuously" light rail. Genova has a "light metro." The Milano tramway system has one or two lines with many "light rail" characteristics, so this is a "borderline" case. The ther systems are either conventional street-based tramways (the one in Messina is nice and new), or electric light railways.

--Latvia: The three systems are conventional street-based tramways.

--Netherlands: Here, for once, there are no issues (!). All the systems listed are either unambiguously "light rail," or have some lines that are.

--Norway: Oslo "tramway" is not really "light rail." The western lines that could once be described as "light rail" have been rebuilt and incorporated into the metro (T-Bane) system. Trondheim is a borderline case that is a modern tramway, but not really "light rail."

--Poland: With the exception of the "Poznański Szybki Tramwaj," there's little here that is unambiguously "light rail." Most of the systems are (to very large extent) conventional street-based tramways.

--Portugal: Metro do Porto and Metro Sul do Tejo, yes. Lisboa, no,

--Romania: Same generally as Poland, except possibly for new extension(s) in Bucharest. Most of the systems in this country are, to very large extent, conventional street-based tramways.

--Russia: I would delete everything that was not (or did not have) an "express tramway" or "metrotram" line.

--Spain: Alicante, Sevilla and Valencia, yes.

Ldemery 20:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to comment on a few systems mentioned, in Paris both the T2 and the T4 run mainly on completely separate railway lines, making them similar to Stadtbahn. I think the Green Line of the Luas in Dublin would also fall into this category, not only is it mostly on separate railway tracks, it is also elevated above street level for a good part of its journey. Kitchenerite 15:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Flags

The flags on this article seem to breach the guidance given at WP:MOSFLAG. They are un-needed here, I believe. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think they are useful. It is easier to find a particular country in the list if the flags are present. This use is also described at WP:MOSFLAG as appropriate: They can aid navigation in long lists or tables of countries as many readers can more quickly scan a series of flag icons due to the visual differences between flags. -- Kildor (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


Light rail: too big and unwieldy a category

Light rail includes such things as heritage streetcars, what used to be called interurbans, urban streetcar and cable car systems, and commuter oriented railways on which run LRVs, streetcars, and trams. It started out as the horsecar and evolved into the cable car and the trolley. Perhaps we need a better typology distinguishing lines and systems as "urban", "interurban", "heritage", etc. 204.52.215.14 (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No one that I know considers the term light rail as including heritage streetcars, horsecars, cable cars, etc, and neither does Wikipedia's article on light rail. And several streetcar/tram systems using modern cars are not also considered light rail, although these cases are often more difficult to classify. But not always - Portland has both a light rail system (MAX) and a modern-streetcar system, and the two have many distinct differences. The same is the case in Seattle, with Link light rail and the South Lake Union Streetcar line. The term tram or tramway has been used to refer to light rail systems, but rarely the other way around (your contention). I dislike use of tram to refer to light rail systems, because it is beneficial (if not always easy) to distinguish between the two types of systems in some discussions, comparisons, studies, lists. (Grouping them together is sometimes fine, but not always.)
On a related topic, systems that are not compatible with street running (cannot even potentially follow city streets at grade), cannot be considered light rail, in my view. This applies to all third-rail current collection systems, including London's Docklands, which calls itself a Light Railway; the DLR may be a "light railway", but it's not light rail (light rail transit, or LRT). SJ Morg (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Malaysia RapidKL is not Light Rail, it is a light metro.

I will remove it from the list. It is not a light rail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sega31098 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Philippines (Manila LRT-MRT)

I decided to remove the Philippines from the list because Manila's metro system like the yellow and blue lines are more classified as light-metro than light-rail.

On the other hand, the new 3G trains on the yellow line is more a full metro because of its car configuration plus the number of passengers it can take.

The purple line on the other hand is a heavy rail, full metro system but is under the LRTA.

Themanilaxperience (talk) 08:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Not everything here is light rail

Removed Washington, DC from the list. METRO is a heavy rail, fully grade seperated metro. MARC is commuter heavy rail.

A lot of the stuff listed here is streetcar systems. Those should be broken off into their own list. --SPUI (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

How would you differentiate them? David Arthur 14:40, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
Probably by the vehicles. If it's not split, this should be renamed, though no one's succeeded in finding a term that describes both light rail and streetcar. --SPUI (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
How do you differentiate a light-rail vehicle from a streetcar, then? In many cases they refer to the same thing - the current model of streetcar used in Toronto is the 'Canadian Light Rail Vehicle', and for a more modern example, the Flexity Swift is used as 'light rail' in Minneapolis and as a tram (ie. streetcar) in London. Or do you consider 'light rail' to apply only to the more metro-style vehicles in places like Edmonton? David Arthur 20:50, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
Many european light rail systems have clearly different different rolling stock (high floor, adapted to tunnel running, ATO in tunnel sections (an american example would San Francisco's MUNI system), generally heavier construction, some systems can running on railroad sections like interurbans). Light rails look to me like systems designed to do things conventional streetcar/trolley/tram systems can't do but without the costs of constructing a metro system. Granted, sometimes the name is used by mayors who wished their city had better tram system but that way they can at least make sound better. Many german light rail systems use the blue U-Bahn "U" symbol (first used by Berlin's Untergrundbahn which is a full metro although it's oldest lines have significant elevated sections and used to be called Hochbahn) to show they are practically as good as a full metro - only two cities (Munich and Nuremberg) constructed new metro systems in the seventies, some wanted to upgrade their systems later but they were working very well the way they were and the costs weren't justified. The german version of the Stadtbahn Stuttgart article shows an old metre gauge tramway stopping at a light rail station, by now it has been upgraded but the dual gauge rails and mixed high floor and loor floor platforms can still be seen on many tunnel stations of Stuttgart's Stadtbahn. This should give an example of the differences because it provides a system where streetcar and light rail operated on parts of the same track until recently. 87.182.221.243 (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
It appears "tram" encompasses both light rail and streetcar (or a lot of the terminology used on the British articles is wrong). --SPUI (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
'Tram' certainly covers many of the systems which seem to be within your definition of 'light rail' - in Toronto at least, the same is true of the word 'streetcar', though U.S. planners don't seem to like using it for serious modern systems. There just isn't one overriding definition of 'light rail' that you can depend upon. David Arthur 22:53, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

---

Current usage (and this is from my personal experience in the industry) is that streetcars tend to operate in mixed traffic (in the same place as cars and responding to stop lights, etc.), and serve a circulatory role within a particular neighborhood/area. Light Rail tends to operate primarily in an exclusive lane, and are more oriented to distance travel. This "distance travel" v "circulator" function will be expressed, in part, by the distance between the stations. Light rail will often operate with stations an average of 1 mile apart. Streetcars will stop every couple of city blocks. Consequently, light rail systems have higher operating speeds. Another telling characteristic is that streetcars are almost never operated as trains (multiple cars with a single driver), preferring to increase capacity through an increase in frequency rather than increasing capacity by linking vehicles. I have a document right here in my hand entitled "Spokane Streetcar Feasibility Study" which has a list of characteristics which differentiates streetcars from light rail (plus explanation which I have omitted) written by an engineering company which has designed both:
  1. Streetcars are pedestrian and auto compatible;
  2. Streetcars fit well within urban environments;
  3. Streetcars generally operate as single cars and are not considered as high capacity transit;
  4. Streetcars are generally focused on serving distinations within a neighborhood versus just moving through it rapidly;
  5. Streetcar capital costs are higher than bus infrastructure but less than light rail.
Well, I guess I should have written that first.  :) Brian Sayrs 00:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That definition does seem to reflect how the terms are used now and in the United States, but they don’t have any particular bearing on usage elsewhere in the world, or usage in North America prior to the disappearance of streetcars from many cities. To return to Toronto as an example, streetcars ran on reserved rights-of-way in the 1920s, and as multiple-unit trains until the 1960s, but no-one ever thought that either caused them to stop being streetcars. More recently, when those in charge tried to marked the new reserved-lane Spadina line as ‘light rail’, that only caused confusion; to most people’s eyes, it remained quite clearly a streetcar. As for serving ‘a particular neighbourhood’ in a ‘circulatory role’, the 501 Queen route runs nearly 25 km, almost as far as the Bloor-Danforth subway. David Arthur 15:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, and that's why I said "Currently."  :) The term that people use to describe a system is a marketing consideration, not an engineering one. This is why I couch my comments with "tend" and "more oriented" because it's entirely up to the community in question. For instance, in Spokane, the term "trolley" was the term used by the engineer until the Downtown Spokane Partnership objected, saying that they didn't want a trolley, they wanted a streetcar. These are not engineering distinctions, so the engineers just stopped calling it that. With Toronto, there's a continuity of terms which is understandable. Perhaps the approach we're looking for is to talk about fixed guideway systems (which is an engineering term, and easily defined), and then talk about different types and styles, the names of which are community-specific. Brian Sayrs 15:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
And what to do with the Metrotram system in Volgograd for example, where tram (streetcar) is used underground with stations constructed with all metro standards?--Nixer 15:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
That's a light-rail system, as it's separated from traffic through a central tunnel; Volgograd is a fairly unusual system, comparable in some ways to the light metros of places like Düsseldorf (on-street tram system in the outer suburbs, turning into underground railway in the center).
The problem here is there's a certain amount of overlap between the terms a) light rail and b) tram/streetcar/trolley/tramway. Single-unit running isn't a defining characteristic of trams; most European and Japanese tram systems run multiple units if required. The main criterion is segregation of the track; while light rail can, and usually does, run on streets for part of its route, it tends to be segregated from other traffic elsewhere for faster running. A tram/trolley/streetcar, on the other hand, runs (almost) entirely on public roadways.
In this sense, light rail was (in many cases) devised to produce a system with capacity approaching that of a subway system but at a lower cost. By using on-street running in central areas it runs more slowly but avoids the expense of tunneling (and has the benefits of being more visible and accessible); outside such areas segregated rail lines are preferred, but the system is flexible enough so that tunnels, bridges, or further on-street running can be used as required. Power usually comes from overhead lines (however, there are a couple of diesel light-rail systems), whereas heavy rail (subways, etc) can be powered by a third rail instead (although many also use overhead lines).  ProhibitOnions  (T) 22:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Docklands Light Railway doesn't really fit the typical light rail criteria apart from it's name. It is called like that because it was meant as a lighter and less costly system than London Underground with smaller stations and smaller rolling stock that was originally designed for german Stadtbahn systems (sort of high-floor light rail with a few street running sections) but otherwise built like an elevated metro system in every way. Newer rolling stock and stations aren't that "light" anymore because they ridiculously underestimated passenger numbers - let's built a couple of office skyscrapers with a minuscule "light" metro station, there won't anyone who uses it anyway. But it is definitely not a classical light rail system in the technical sense. 87.182.221.243 (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The newer Bombardier rolling stock however are just trams with a different bodyshell, no different mechanically from Bombardiers other tram products and built by their light rail division. WatcherZero (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes and the original P86 and P89 rolling stock runs now on Essen's Stadtbahn - a light rail with tram-like sections. I don't disagree that it's a lighter system but in many ways it has the characteristics associated with a metro system (especially the completely separated with no level-grade crossings part, third rail probably doesn't count in the UK because the full railways in southern England use third rail electrification and they aren't metro systems in any way). But i think it's state somewhere in between should be clearlyoutlined not only by just putting it in the metro and the light rail list like it is done now - without explanation this would seem confusing to people who don't know the DLR. The same is probably true for many other examples on the list because light rail is a "brigde technology" between tram and metro - to me the DLR seems to be more on the metro end, typical light rail systems should found somewhere in the middle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.182.221.243 (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Turkey is not Europe

Turkey is not Europe and any references must be deleted from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.33.251.173 (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

No, Turkey is mostly in Asia but is partly in Europe. However, the vast majority of the tram and light-rail systems currently existing in Turkey are in the Asian part, so I have corrected the recent error by User:Subtropical-man and moved those back to the Asian section of this list. I also re-added cross-references between the two parts of the list, for Turkey, which I previously added last year but was incorrectly deleted last month by an anonymous editor. SJ Morg (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Focus

I think this article would be better if it included only currently functioning tram and light rail transit systems. As it stands it is full of "under construction" and "planning stages". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I do not mind a separate article for Future tram and light rail systems if others think that has value. But as it stands, it's really a mishmash. Any opposition to removing the potential future systems from this list? Mattximus (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Another idea: perhaps we can have a separate page for heritage trams? The list is rather long as it is, and it would be nice to separate them somehow. Probably better to do it this way, then to do it by continent? Mattximus (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

All statistics relating to size should be excluded

The altered format of this list – gradually being shifted into a table from a simple list since March – contains way too much detail that doesn't cite any sources. In particular, all of statistics on number of stations and system length should be removed, and I intend to remove it soon. Per Wikipedia standards, every single one of those figures must cite a source (and not just one source for each country), and yet currently almost none of them does. Even if someone can, and does, add a source for some of those figures, they should still be removed from this article, which was supposed to be a simple list – and has been for many years – with good reason. Actually, there are many reasons for omitting statistics (other than year of opening, which is something that remains stable):

  • Even if reliable sources are added for every single length and number-of-stations figure (which is very unlikely to happen), those figures will become out-of-date within a few months, and more and more out-of-date as years pass, and it's just not realistic to think that there will always be editors keeping the data up-to-date for every country. We may have editors who are interested in updating figures over time for one particular country, but do not have the interest – or access to the needed information – to update the figures for other countries.
  • Number of stations is not useful for conventional tram/streetcar systems – as opposed to light rail – because those systems don't have "stations" by conventional definitions; they typically have simple stops (like a bus stop), which are placed much closer together, and don't have nearly as great a (potential) impact on surrounding development as even a light-rail station does. Number of routes might be more useful for tram systems, but that, too, can be misleading, as some systems have numerous overlapping routes and some that run in peak periods only, etc., while others do not. Anyway, that information would still need to cite reliable sources (enthusiast websites don't quality) and will still become badly out of date in a year or two, if it's ever accurate and consistent to begin with, so it should not be included here.
  • Also, editors come and go, and although Mattximus and others are currently willing to spend a lot of time adding data to the table (albeit without any sources, so far), those editors may have left Wikipedia a year from now, or two years from now, and judging from my experience monitoring this article over the past four years, I'd say it's very unlikely other editors will come forward to take their place, and the table's data will just become more and more stale and inaccurate.
  • Different systems often use different definitions of "length", making this multicountry table misleading or inaccurate. Some use route length, some track length, and – even more problematic – in some countries (such as Italy and those in Latin America) it is the norm for route length figures to be round trip lengths, which is contrary to common practice in predominantly English-speaking countries such as the US and UK. Readers comparing those statistics in this table between countries may well be 'comparing apples to oranges' without realizing it.
  • When long lists such as this one include hundreds of stats as this one would if those columns are filled in for every country, anyone who has kept an eye on edits to this kind of article knows that there will be many instances in which an editor changes one number without substituting a new source for the revised detail, making the revised number appear to be sourced, when in reality the inline citation only supported the old number. It's impossible for the few editors who really care about keeping lists like this accurate and well-sourced to keep on top of those (bad) edits.


I do agree that figures for number of stations/routes and some sort of indication of system length (if clearly defined in the text) is of interest, but they should not be in this article; that detail should not be in a list of all current tram and light rail systems in the world. It should instead be (and in many cases already is) given in the Wikipedia articles about the individual systems and, for comparison, could be added to articles listing all such systems in a given country, such as Light rail in Canada or Trams in Germany (in section listing existing systems). But those statistics should not be given in a multicountry list, because there are too many variables and differences between countries – including of definitions, level of editor interest and availability of clear and consistent info. (from reliable sources such as books and magazines) – for there to be any realistic chance that the data will be given in a consistent format for each country and be kept up to date, and always citing sources for each and every figure (except year of opening for systems that have a WP article). I've been intending to write this message for weeks, but I did not have the time until now.
I am not saying that the change from a list to a table was a bad one, but only that the three columns of statistics should be removed. SJ Morg (talk) 07:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

No, please do not do this. It is my intention once all countries have been migrated to the table, and other info such as transit 'types' are in there, to begin adding references to various systems. Most systems that I have seen seem to publish a "fact sheet" on their websites that contain info about system length and number of stations, so it's not like that data is hard to come by.
Also, the current 'build' of this table closely matches the set-up of the "List of Metro systems" page, and I see no reason why the two lists shouldn't parallel each other in content.
So please don't go deleting anything until the current 'build' of this page is closer to being finished in a few weeks. (If you do, I'll be forced to 'revert' to the previous version.)
Once the tables are complete, then we can have a wider discussion of whether there should be changes to the table. --IJBall (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Following up on this, what might be worth discussing (later), is whether this page-list should in fact be split into two separate pages - one for just "Light Rail", and the other for "Trams & Streetcars". Because most of your objections probably more directly rate to "Tram" systems (which are more like bus lines, and more often changing) than to "Light Rail" systems which are more "static" like "Metro" systems (and where stats like route-length and number of stations is much more relevant).
But, again, I'd advocate tabling any discussion of "page splitting" like this until the tables on this version of the page are actually finished. --IJBall (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I would advocate this last solution. Separating the tram systems from light rail seems logical given the criticisms above. The table from List of metro systems should work reasonable well for light rail. I agree that we should wait for the table to be complete, then divide up all rapid transit into the following:
The big problem I see is that there is a fairly ambiguous distinction between these three. I suppose Light rail could be a tram system that "operates primarily along an exclusive right of way" and has fixed stations? The list of tram systems could then do away with the length/station columns. Would this be an acceptable compromise? Mattximus (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I personally think this is a great solution - once the table is finished, split off 'Trams & Streetcar' systems from 'Light rail'. And, I agree - the difference is the "exclusive right-of-way" definition: it it operates in the same "space" as car traffic, it's a Tram or a Streetcar.
At that time, we can also revisit your earlier point about whether "Heritage" systems should have their own list. The problem I am struggling with there is there while there are plenty of basically "stand-alone" 'Heritage' systems (e.g. San Francisco cable cars, New Orleans' Streetcars, Istanbul's two Heritage systems) primarily for tourists, there are also a number of 'Heritage' systems that are directly integrated into the overall transit system (e.g. San Diego's Silver Line Trolley, San Francisco's F Market & Wharves line, I believe Philadelphia and Boston also have lines like this...) and so are not really 'Heritage systems' but 'Heritage cars' used on a specific line within the overall transit system. I haven't figured out how to handle this issue yet...
But I definitely agree that, ultimately, your suggestion is the way to move forward with this. --IJBall (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
1. Complete as much of table as possible and migrate remaining systems into table format.
2. Create List of light rail systems migrating all light rail rows from this table into a single table (no longer need tables for each continent) using the same format as List of metro systems.
3. Create List of tram systems with remaining tram systems from the current list. Delete stations/length columns. Perhaps merge into a large table depending on the total number of systems left.
4. Delete List of tram and light rail transit systems as it will now be redundant.
How does this sound for a plan of action? Mattximus (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I can't speak for SJ Morg, but I personally think:
1. Definitely - I'm going to continue to work on this for the next couple of weeks.
2. I would not get rid of the 'separating into continents' part - in fact, I floated the idea of separating the List of metro systems table by continent (because it has gotten so big), and no one has objected (yet!). (So that's another side-project I need to get to - splitting the Metros list by continent!).
3. I'm all for deleting the 'Stations' column from the 'Tram' table, but I'm not sure I favor getting rid of the 'System Length' column - most tram entries seem to actually have that information, and it seems to be a stat that you can find for most 'Tram' and 'Streetcar' systems. But I definitely agree that the 'Stations' column can and should be deleted from the (new) separate 'Trams & Streetcars' list.
4. Someone around here more knowledgeable (such as yourself) will have to do the actual Page Creation and Page Deletion parts, because I have no idea how to do that on Wiki (I'm still "new" enough that I've never either created a new page, or deleted a "bad" page, yet...).
One other consideration - the List of metro systems page has a column for date of "Last Extension" - when the "List of Light rail systems" is spun-off into its own page, I propose we replace the "Transit type" column with a "(date of) Last Extension" column to make it just like the List of metro systems table.
Also, a couple of other issues:
1) Which "list" does a "Tram-train" system belong with - "Light rail", or "Tram & Streetcar"?
2) Should we eliminate "People Mover" systems from the "Light rail" list? (I can see both sides of this question...)
Thoughts? --IJBall (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Not sure about 1 and 2, but I strongly oppose separating the metro list (and future light rail list) into continents. It prevents any sort of comparison via sorting (the oldest, longest, most stations, etc.) and continents don't make good divisions anyway (Africa vs Europe?). Also, for your idea on last extension, I feel that SJ Morg's criticism is valid here. Who will create and maintain this column? Regardless, before that column is created we need to provide sources. Mattximus (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, not splitting the Metro list means less work for me, so I'm OK with that (though that list has definitely gotten really long...). However, because there are so many Tram & Streetcar systems, I'd advising leaving that particular list divvied up by continent, even if we don't do that with the (much shorter) Light rail list.
On the 'Last Extension' column, the reason to do it is to keep the 'Light rail' list the same format as the 'Metro' lists. Even if that idea is nixed, once the 'Light rail' list is split off, there's really no reason to keep the 'Transit type' column around - that should go (or be replaced by a 'Last Extension' column).
Once the 'Light rail' list is split off, I think 'sourcing' it will become a lot easier - the Light rail (only) list is relatively short (it looks to be populated predominantly by North American and European systems, with a few others thrown in there...).
Back to the "Light rail" definition, I'd like to amend my earlier definition - I'd go with "predominantly or overwhelming operating on an 'exclusive right-of-way'". (Some Light rail systems have short stretches "in street traffic", but are mostly "exclusive right-of-way", so I'd still consider them "Light rail" and not "Tram or Streetcar".)
Anyway, once the table is finished, I think you can plan on doing the split then. I doubt anyone is going to object to splitting this list into two. --IJBall (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I strongly oppose splitting the list into separate "tram" and "light rail" lists, and I am sure that many others interested in the subject would object as well, but most won't see this discussion because they don't check the page on a regular basis. That's a sufficiently major change that it should not be made without a more extensive discussion and giving time (weeks) for people who don't keep a watch on WP pages a chance to discover that proposal and give their opinion. People have been arguing for years about what is a "tram" system/tramway and what is "light rail" and how to define (in a list) the many systems that have elements of both – you need only look at the multiple discussions earlier on this very page, from 2005 to 2011, and similar discussions have been happening elsewhere for years and years. There's never going to be widespread agreement on how to separate tramways from LRT, especially for Europe, where the term "light rail" is not in use. And I've observed in recent years that speakers of British English writing in magazines have been increasingly using the term "tramway" when referring to light rail systems, avoiding even trying to make a distinction for new systems in Europe. (I speak American English, where we use "light rail" and "streetcar", and the latter term is rarely used for LRT, but that's just one country in this list, and even in North America people argue endlessly about whether Toronto, e.g., is a streetcar system or a light-rail system.)
There are now multiple different subjects being discussed in this thread, which will make it hard to follow. This thread was supposed to be about the idea that number-of-stations and length figures should be deleted. Neither Mattximus nor IJBall have have offered any good defense against my (multiple) arguments for deleting them, stated above. IJBall: You say your "intention" is to add citations for all of those stats when you are done. First, you shouldn't be adding any such info. to WP if you don't already have a source for it that you can cite, and you've made it clear that you have not even looked yet, you're just confident that the info. can be found. That's not good enough. I appreciate your enthusiasm to contribute, but please stop adding statistics without indicating any source (leave it blank until you have a good source and can cite it). Although I'm a fan of streetcars and LRT myself, there's already way too much railfan-generated content on WP that cites no sources or cites only poor sources (such as forums or blogs). And please go back and re-read my comments above. With a long, multicountry list, it's just not realistic to think that one or two enthusiastic editors will fill in those details for most systems, citing reliable sources, with dates, etc. (so that readers will be able tell when figures are years old), measured in a consistent way, and also continue to be around to keep it updated into the future. Are you really going to spend the hundreds of hours it would take to try to track down reliable sources (such as transit agency fact sheets) for every system – including foreign ones, which may or may not have an English webpage and may or may not even give such stats – and then continue to check all of those maybe 200+ official websites every few months to see if the data has changed? Of course not; no one has that kind of time. I used that example because that's the example source you mentioned.
In reality, probably the only good sources of such statistics covering multiple cities and countries are books and magazines, because it would take so much time to compile those 'system size' figures in a consistent format for multiple systems (and especially multiple countries) that only someone working on a print publication could justify taking the necessary time. As I wrote above, that makes those statistics available for single countries or regions, but not worldwide, and even those sources are not updated more than once every several years except possibly for the U.S. and Germany.
I reiterate my main point: This list is being made too detailed – and lacks almost any sources for the additional detail, or any stated definitions (supported consistently by the sources) to ensure that the stats are actually an 'apples-to-apples' comparison, and it will be un-maintainable over the long term. Even in the simpler format that this article had for years until now, the list still had too few references, but that was not as significant an issue previously, because it was basically just a list of cities (or rail systems), giving – where existent – a link to the Wikipedia article on the system. Adding the year of opening is OK, because at least that never changes, but adding types of data that will be continually changing over time creates a major increase in the need for citations of reliable sources, consistent definitions and other article quality and maintenance issues. SJ Morg (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
How about this - can we all agree not to make any radical changes to this list, at least in the near-term, then?
I would still like to at least have the chance to start working on the references issue. It's true that I may only be able to find references for the North American systems, or for the English-speaking systems. (I may take a stab at the German, French and Spanish systems too, though it's not like I'm very proficient in any of those three languages...) But I'd like to at least see what I can find.
At that point, if I can only find good referencing for, say, North American, then we may be able to "spin-off" just that portion of the list, exactly as it is now, as a separate "List of Light-rail and Streetcar systems in North America" page, preserving all the data that's in the list now, before we go ahead and start deleting columns of data.
In the meantime, I'd like to just work on finishing up the table as it is now, and then next look for referencing for entries over the next few weeks. --IJBall (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll hold off (for now) deleting any entire columns, which is presumably what you meant by "radical" changes, but there's no good reason to condone the continuing addition of statistical data that cites no sources. Removing such data (and leaving blank fields) – without removing any entire columns – is not radical and sends the (appropriate and useful) message to editors that they may be wasting their time if they add such information without citing any sources, as it's likely to be removed. It's worth remembering that this list has been on Wikipedia for several years, but the size-related statistical data has only been added in the last 2-3 months; even if it did cite sources, removing it and reverting the list to the simpler format it used for years wouldn't really be a radical change (a significant change, yes, but not radical). Also, lack of references was only one of several reasons I gave to support my position that size statistics should be excluded from this worldwide list. SJ Morg (talk) 07:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd have no objection to 'zeroing out' unsourced data, esp. if it doesn't get sourced soon. --IJBall (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Spinning Off The North American List?

Now that the North American list is almost fully cited (the two or three that don't have citations are because I couldn't find good citations for those systems at their official websites...), would there be any objection to me 'spinning off' that section into a new "List of light rail and streetcar systems in North America" (or, possibly, just a "List of light rail systems in North America"? - I'd still include the few streetcar systems in any spun-off list, but maybe not in the article's title...)

If no one objects to that, I'd like to see if I can get such a page created in a week or two... --IJBall (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Well there is already
I'm not sure if adding another would be beneficial. Would be nice to have less of these pages by consolidating a few. Having better quality pages I feel is more important than having so much redundancy. Mattximus (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Suggestions?
I could try to integrate this table into the Light rail in North America and Light rail in the United States pages, but the former page is already so long and already has a ridership table that I'm not even sure of the best approach to tackling that.
From the looks of it, it might be easier to integrate (the American parts of) the table into the Light rail in the United States page though - that was already missing a lot of the reference sourcing I've already done.
I can probably work some of this info into the List of United States light rail systems by ridership page too (though it may involve adding and removing a column or two - I've already put in an entry at the Talk page over there about "improving" that table). (The List of streetcar systems in the United States is a mess - I don't think I even want to touch that one...)
Anyway, any suggestions will be appreciated... --IJBall (talk) 03:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for (Minor) Table Reformat: Merging 'Length' Columns

Note: I have made this same proposal over on the List of metro systems Talk page.

But I would like to propose that we merge the Length (km) and Length (mi) columns together in the various tables (where applicable) on the List of tram and light rail systems page, and instead just have one System length column that lists both km & mi together (using a simpler 'convert' template (e.g. "9.2 km (5.7 mi)"), rather than the currently used 'convert' with "disp=table" parameter).

The reasons for doing this are:

  1. The current format of the table makes 'referencing' a system's route length awkward (the reference will currently only appear with the figure in the Length (mi) column, despite the fact that most references will actually be for the kilometer figure).
  2. Having two columns is redundant - e.g. sorting by Length (km) or Length (mi) will yield exactly the same sort order.
  3. Nearly all Light-rail & Metro 'Ridership' tables that I have seen on Wiki (e.g. List of United States rapid transit systems by ridership) use the simple 'convert' template in a single column to list the System length, rather than the odd 2-coulmn Length (km) and Length (mi) format that this page copied from the List of metro systems table page.

I am not planning on doing anything about this imminently. But is there any strong objection to doing this?

If not, I'll probably get to merging the columns on this page in the next couple of weeks... --IJBall (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I see two problems, or potential problems. First, I agree it would look better, but it would have to be set up in such a way as to prevent someone from inputting Imperial units first (or at all), because Template:Convert can be set to show either metric or Imperial units first, and as far as I know, the column sorting function in tables has no idea which is which; it merely sorts by whichever number appears first. In the U.S. table you mentioned, there's consensus that imperial numbers should be given first, whereas in an international table such as this one, clearly metric numbers should be given first for all countries except the U.S. But if some editor insists that metric should come first for all countries in this list, then the visible-in-edit-mode (pre-conversion) figures are going to be completely different in the U.S. section of this list as compared to any U.S.-only lists for the very same systems/cities: One using metric, the other imperial (in edit mode, pre-conversion; output would be approx. the same). Of course, if the North American section here is moved completely out of this list, as appears likely to happen, that issue would no longer be relevant to this discussion, but there would still be a risk that someone would specify miles first for some system in another country, thereby making the sorting inaccurate.
Second, the way things are going, I am still predicting that all of the length and stations columns will be removed from this article (except for North America, likely to be spun off). I'm reluctant to get into a discussion of that subject in this thread, because we have another thread for that farther up the page, but it's relevant. I was planning to zero-out all or most of those columns very soon for Europe, as being almost entirely unreferenced, and was only waiting to see if there was any reaction against my having done that for Asia (there has not) or earlier for Africa. No one except you, IJBall, appears willing to spend any time at all finding and adding (good) references. That sad reality supports the arguments I made above (on this page in June) that it's not realistic to think that this article can contain size statistics for every (or even most) existing system in the world, as long as we are trying to uphold about Wikipedia's basic core principles regarding sources and verifiability. I give you credit for adding several inline citations, but many have been bare URLs (which raises the issue of link rot, among other issues) and some have only been general URLs for the site where you presumably found the stats, not a specific URL for the specific page giving the info. SJ Morg (talk) 08:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
SJ, thanks for your input.
For this table I was planning on doing a "km|mi" convert (i.e. km first) for all entries - this is an international table, and 95% of the world uses metric, so on this particular page the Americans are just going to have to live with it. Also, the List of metro systems (where I have a similar proposal going) also lists 'km' first for all systems, just as this one does, and there's no rationale for doing it differently just for the American systems. (FTR, some of the U.S.-specific ridership lists do list miles first in those, and that's fine, as they're not "international" lists. Also, this hasn't seemed to be an issue in those places where km is listed first - e.g. I haven't seen any evidence of America Wiki editors try to revise those...)
Second, I'm coming around to your column deletions thing - I think the Asian 'stats' columns should be deleted next (it's clear no one is ever going to fill those out with stats, with references); possibly ditto the South American ones. I still have hope that at least some of the European systems' stats will be filled in and cited. And I think Oceania can easily be filled out (with references too).
On the references thing, I don't think any of the ones I added are "bare URLs" (I use the 'cite web' template with probably 98% of all of my refs additions, and have for months). And if it's attached to a stat, then the reference is direct in almost all cases (there may be a very few cases where the reference is to the right page, but might require one more click on a web page 'tab' on that same page or something (I don't know how to link to those more directly...)). In fact, if you'll notice, if I couldn't find a direct reference for a stat, the stat has been left unreferenced. (The bare URLs issues seems to be much more prevalent in the Asia section, and those references were added before I got here...)
In any case, if no one else objects, I will probably get to the 'column merge' in the next couple of weeks. SJ, if you want to delete more unused columns (e.g. from the Asia section) in the meantime, feel free to do so AFAIAC... --IJBall (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
And Done! I'm not 100% satisfied with the "look" (e.g. I've 'center'-justified the Total route length stats, but I'm not sure it looks best... I may experiment with 'left'-justifying those stats to see if they "look better"... I do think the Stations, and probably the Year opened, stats look better 'centered' though). But the column merge is done, at least... --IJBall (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Splitting the Rhein-Ruhr Systems?

As I've been going through and trying the reference the various European systems, I've come across a few issues that probably warrant discussion. (One issue, about "Year opened" stats, I'll save for a separate section in a few days. Meanwhile, I need to see if I can figure out how to archive the early parts of this 'Talk' page, as it's starting to get long...)

But one of the biggest issues I've come across lately is what to do about some of the German systems. The biggest headache seems to be the collective "Rhein-Ruhr" entry - try as a might, I can't find any stats when looking at the whole overall Rhein-Ruhr system as one complete unit (even when looking at its operating company, Verkehrsverbund Rhein-Ruhr).

Therefore, I would like to propose that rather than one collective listing for this system, that we split it up into multiple entries based on each component system (e.g. entries for Düsseldorf Stadtbahn, and Dortmund Stadtbahn, etc.), as much as possible, with an attached note to each individual system indicating that it is a component of the larger "Rhein-Ruhr" system. For one thing, it looks like most of the component systems already have preexisting English-language Wii pages anyway.

(Note: I suspect something similar will have to be done with Karlsruhe too, though I haven't investigated that one as much yet...)

I know this list is starting to get quite long as it is (and, indeed, there are big issues with that as well - so I suspect we will need to revisit the topics of splitting this list, or "spinning off" parts of it, or simplifying it down, again). But is there any big objection to splitting out the individual systems of "Rhein-Ruhr" and then deleting the table entry for "Rhein-Ruhr" itself?... --IJBall (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

List of Light Rail systems

Why has List of Light Rail systems been created? 117Avenue (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Good question. That article looks redundant to me, not just with this one, but also with pages like Light rail in North America and Light rail in the United States. It's possible that something outside of Light rail in the North American sections of that page can be saved for a stand-alone article. But the rest of it looks like it should be merged with other articles, including this one. At the least, it looks like that article is mistitled, as it seems to be about interurbans (and their history) more than about modern light rail systems... --IJBall (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Length vs. Total route length

This list has to have a little give in some manners for localisations and understandings. In Australia total route length is know to be the length of all routes added up, this figure will be hugely different from the meaning in other localities where total route length is the amount of track that has route trams operate over it. The same thing (what others call total route length) is know as track length here, and it is the total length of track (mostly double) that trams can operate over. I have simply changed it to Length to avoid confusion, it seems more than reasonable that the section concerning a nation should use a English linguistic approach that they would understand. If the alternate term were not confusing I would have changed it, but it is, hugely. Liamdavies (talk) 05:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The category "Total route length" needs to be consistent within this list, and with the List of metro systems. If I understand you correctly, what you apparently want to quote what is known as "Line length" which if used is one of those stats that hugely inflates the actual size of a system. There are basically three types of stats in regards to what we are talking about: (one-way) track length (probably the least useful of the three), line length (which just adds up all of the lengths of the lines, even those that operate over the same stretches of track), and route length, which is the truest of the three as it doesn't "double count" the same stretch of track more than once. In Europe, and the American systems, I have carefully gone through and dug up the stats for route length as much as humanly possible. Worst-case scenario - line length can be quoted if that is the only stat for which a reference can be produced, but a 'Note' should be added to that stat to indicate that "line length" is be quoted in place of "route length".
And it isn't confusing - there was a somewhat lengthy discussion over on Talk:List of metro systems as to which was the best term to use, and "Total route length" was the consensus choice. And this list is not supposed to be "regionalized", but general and universal. In other words, there isn't Consensus for the change you are proposing.
As such, I will soon revert to "Total route length", to maintain consistency. If one of the stats here with a reference doesn't actually report that figure, please just include a 'Note' that it's one of the other stats, and we'll just have to live with it. That is the most reasonable solution... --IJBall (talk) 05:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
No, you don't understand at all. In Australia "total route length" is what you are calling "line length", so to an Australian you are adding all lengths of all routes together. This is wrong. To get the stat you call "total route length" in the Australan lingo is just length. Using any term but length is, to an Australian, wrong. Liamdavies (talk) 07:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I am now at a computer, and have some more time, so may expand on what I wrote earlier. We have different meanings for the terms you're stating, if you were to ask Melbourne's:
  • Track/system length, you would be answered with 250km of double track. That is, all the physical track laid in streets added up.
  • Line length, you would be answered with, what line? Here line length refers to a line, so line/route 1's length is 13.2km.
  • Total route length, you would be answered with, about 367.7km (discounting shuttles) as we would add the length of all the routes up to form the total length, ie the total length of all routes. (Please refer here for stats.)
This is why I say it's confusing to the Australian linguistic pattern, what you think a term means we think it means something else. The measurement remains the same, but the term to describe it is different, for this reason the simpler 'Length' should be used in the Australian/New Zealand context to avoid exactly this confusion. I completely agree with what you wish to measure though, the infrastructure, not the - somewhat irrelevant - routes that travel over said infrastructure.
To further elucidate this point, our peak governmental body, Public Transport Victoria, uses the exact method I am describing, see here where for trains and trams the term 'track kilometres' is used, that is how much track there is; where as for buses the term 'route kilometres' is used, that is how many kilometres of bus routes is there (add all the bus route lengths up and what figure do you get). I hope this expounds on my point, and highlights what my request is, and why it should be implemented, or at least discussed. Liamdavies (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
May I suggest that someone create an article about the terms that are being discussed here? Such an article could be interwikilinked to the de.wiki article Netzlänge, the name of which means "System length", and which explains the meanings of the German equivalents of these terms (the German equivalents are also used as the names of redirect pages to the Netzlänge article). If the English language terms have meanings that are not uniform worldwide, then that's all the more reason to have an en.wiki article explaining what they mean. I would be happy to do a literal translation of the de.wiki article as a starting point; eg I could do it as a subpage of my userpage, and then other editors could have input before it's transferred to the main space. Bahnfrend (talk) 12:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like a decent idea, but it should include the nomenclatures, such as what I have pointed out; I assume the situation is the same in WA, but would not want to say. It still does not resolve the problem at hand, I cannot see how placing a term that has a completely different meaning for those it is being to describe, for the sake of consistency, can be considered a good idea. The best option would be to use the simple term 'length' and have a note that explains what is meant by length, that would remove all nomenclatures and ambiguities. But short of that, the Australian section should simply use 'length' as it is true and understandable. Liamdavies (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
That is quite likely a fine idea in its own right, though on my end I don't have the time to write up an article like that, unfortunately... --IJBall (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for calling me "obtuse", Liam - that is wonderfully constructive. And thank you for ignoring my 'Note' suggestion, which is actually the correct way to respond to your concerns. And for ignoring the fact that this issue was already discussed over on Talk:List of metro systems where the consensus was reached that 'Total route length' was the best general term to use for what is being discussed. "Length" is, in the oppose case, completely vague as to its meaning.
So here is what I am going to do - I am going to once again revert when I get the chance later today. But this time, I am going to include a note to the 'Total route length' column heading in the 'Oceania' table which will mention the terminology difference and should alleviate your concerns about potential confusion with the terms used by pointing out the difference between the Australian and other usages of the terms. If you don't like what I write in that note, please feel free to edit it however you wish to convey what you think it should say.
This was the correct solution all along, even though you ignored my original suggestion on the matter...
Once again, this list is designed to be general and universal, not regionalized. The way to deal with issues such as these is with 'Notes', as has been used repeatedly on this page, and the List of metro systems already. --IJBall (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
You were, you failed to understand (and how it came off, try to understand) what I was conveying. The consensus was a discussion in which only three people participated, where 'total route length' was thought to be the clearest title. Given the information I have provided, would the same consensus have been reached? The term is inherently regionalised if it has differing terms in differing parts of the world, for that reason a mutually understandable term should be used. For this reason I, again, propose the term 'System length' or 'Length' be used, with each usage accompanied by a note explaining the method of measuring a system length used. This is clean in the tables, and offers the chance to describe the method being used; it is completely understandable, regionally intelligible, and unambiguous. Liamdavies (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, as an aside, I feel I am supported by MOS:COMMONALITY. Liamdavies (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
DPP (the PT operator of Prague's trams) and Zurich's operators also use the same nomenclatures (here and here). I'll add more as I find them. Liamdavies (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm now going to wait to see if there's any follow up discussion on this over Talk:List of metro systems. But I strongly oppose use of the word "Length" as it is a completely non-specific (and therefore non-instructive) term. And 'Note'ing every single length stat in the table would be overkill (this page is already so big that it is "breaking" Wikipedia) - we can put the terminology differences into an Introductory paragraph at the start of the article, explaining what is generally listed here. --IJBall (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
My only suggestion is that we use the expression "Network length" instead of "System length". The former expression appears to be much more commonly used, at least on the internet, perhaps because the tramways in a city are usually described collectively as a "tramway network" (as opposed to a "tramway system"). So, for example, unless there are any objections, the new article that I am about to create (as a translation of Netzlänge) will be named "Network length" (which is also a more literal translation of Netzlänge than "System length"). Bahnfrend (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I have no problem with that, I find both to be pretty much synonymous, and am happy with either. We should probably have the term not used as a redirect. Liamdavies (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I also have no problem with either term. My biggest concern is simply that the same term used be both here, and in the table over on the List of metro systems. I'll put forward "Network length" as an alternative over there, and see if there's any response. --IJBall (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Bahnfrend, one other suggestion: when you create that page, I'd probably title it "Network length (rail)", just so it's clear what the topic of the page is in reference to (unless the article includes buses too, in which case I'm not sure what the best title would be...). Just a thought. --IJBall (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
'Network length (transport)' maybe? Liamdavies (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I've now created the article. It's here. At the moment, it's nothing more than a translation of Netzlänge (with discussion of Swiss terminology excluded), and is not yet referenced. I still think that "Network length" is the appropriate name for it, but it isn't in main space yet, so the name is not yet fixed (and I agree that there should be various redirects to it). Feel free to add to it and reference it as desired. Bahnfrend (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Based on what's there now, I'd definitely lean in the direction of naming it "Network length (rail)" when it's moved into 'Article space' proper. However, if it's fleshed out to include buses and bus routes too, then Liam's suggestion of "Network length (transport)" would be a good way to go...
As for the article itself, it will definitely need to be fleshed out to discuss some of the Australian and North American variations of a term like "route length". But that is definitely a good start, and will be a useful resource when it's finished. Good job! --IJBall (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Split

This list is getting very unwieldy to edit. Is it even possible to split this into per continent? Simply south...... eating lexicological sandwiches for just 7 years 12:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

There previously been discussion on that subject, and there's currently no consensus for a split along the lines of, say, "List of light rail systems" and "List of tram systems".
I think a better near-term solution might be, as you suggest, to "spin-off" content from this list in to existing, or new, Wiki articles, to make the content more manageable. For example, I'm in the process of trying to migrate over information from this page's North America list to the Light rail in North America page. Once I've finished that project over Winter break, I'll then probably look at whether the Europe section can spin off in to its own Wiki page, or whether info from the Europe section could be migrated to the Trams in Germany, Trams in France, etc. pages.
But I'd oppose completely eliminating or replacing this page. --IJBall (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
A possible model for splitting this article might be List of town tramway systems, which is split into a large number of sub-lists. If there's going to be a similar split of this list, then it might be worthwhile renaming it "List of operational tram and light rail transit systems", so as to make the difference between the two sets of lists a bit more obvious. Bahnfrend (talk) 06:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Question About The Philadelphia & Pittsburgh Opening Dates

Recently, the opening dates of the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh systems have been changed to the horsecar opening dates. But when I went to the individual Wiki articles on these systems, neither mention these dates in their articles - is there a reference that provides these dates? Because it seems like the pre-light rail histories of both systems are missing from their respective articles.

Also, on a related note, I think the Philadelphia entry in the table needs to be split in to two entries - I'll try to get on that soon... --IJBall (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I figured it out - it's this reference:[1]
  1. ^ Demery, Jr., Leroy W. (October 25, 2010). "U.S. Urban Rail Transit Lines Opened From 1980: Appendix". publictransit.us. Retrieved 2013-11-02.
I'll go ahead and add this reference to these dates in the table. I'll also try to get around to adding this info to the individual Wiki articles in the near future... --IJBall (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

When should a system be called a "premetro" system?

The premetro article contained a great deal of original research, and characterized a large number of light-rail or streetcar routes as "premetro" systems for questionable reasons -- like that the light-rail or streetcar system had a short tunneled section. More recently the premetro article has been scaled back, to only include systems that verifiable authoritative sources have called "premetro" systems.

Unfortunately dozens of questionable incoming links were made to the premetro article, from articles like this one, that didn't supply any references that verified systems like this one had ever been called premetro systems.

I am going to place a {{dubious}} tag next to all questionable claims that provide questionable incoming links to premetro.

If no authoritative references ever called this a "premetro" system that phrase should be removed from this article, link and all. Geo Swan (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Ironically, I intended to do that on my end anyway - there are only three systems that can be "verified" as being "premetros" and all three are in Belgium (plus a fourth in Argentina that self-labels as such). So I was going to strike the term "premetro" from this list, as well as removing any "light metros" systems as well. It's on my informal 'To Do' list... --IJBall (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
User:IJBall, I should have left a note on your talk page -- you did excellent work there, when I wasn't paying attention. Congratulations! Geo Swan (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_tram_and_light_rail_transit_systems/Archive_1&oldid=1089052522"