Talk:List of urban rail systems by length

Definition

How was this list defined as to qualify and define the length? (and I am sure it should be spelt lenth not lenght)

I would think that by almost any definition Sydney's Cityrail would have enough kilometres to beat some of the entries on this list

Why should they be "Independent from national railways"? (criteria 4) Many national railways operate frequent urban rail systems that well matches other criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leinsd (talk • contribs) 14:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles and San Francisco Problems

Most of the Los Angeles length here is not urban rail in the sense of the others (undergrounds, subways and metros). The rest is tram or light rail. Needs to be fixed (from one who was there at the creation as a member of the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission). Below there is indication that this list includes light rail. No, for the most part it does not. A bit of clarity would help... Light rail or trams belongs in its own article. Any yes, Paris RER and Sydney Cityrail are really commuter rail systems, not metros, though they are high-end commuter rail systems.

San Francisco's BART deserves to be on the list. It is a metro as much as any other on the list.

-Demographia

Berlin data

All matters of semantics. The term subway is often used to denote an entire Metro system, such as NY or Washington, where the system is sometimes in subway, sometimes elevated and sometimes on the surface... but never are there grade crossings. Same for the London underground. This is the principal charateristic of a Metro. Thus, metros may operate above, below or on the ground. The Paris metro, for example, has a long elevated section on Line 2.

In in the broad sense of the term, Sydney does not have a subway, but its Cityrail commuter rail system operates in subway configuration in the downtown area.....

Sources for the length of the rail systems in Berlin: for Berlin U-Bahn and Tram see this PDF file at bvg.de, for Berlin S-Bahn see link. --FlorianB 8 July 2005 15:02 (UTC)

This is, was, and will be, a List of ONLY Subway or Elebvate Metropolitan Railway Systems. to the definition of a Subway you can read here:

http://www.urbanrail.net/about.htm

What is a metro? A subway? An underground? *1) An urban electric mass rail transport system, i.e. it is primarily used to move within the city *2) Totally independent from other traffic, rail or street traffic *3) High frequency service (maximum interval approx. 10 minutes during normal daytime service)

Obviously a metro does not have to be underground (this is why I prefer this term to 'subway' or 'underground' or 'U-Bahn' as all these terms imply a tunnel), it can also be elevated or at grade. A metro does not necessarily use heavy rail technology, therefore the Docklands Light Railway or the Lille VAL are full metro services, with the only difference that their capacity is smaller according to the needs of the city/area they serve. It's also irrelevant whether the metro runs on steel wheels or rubber tyres, is monorail or conventional double rail, uses third rail power supply or overhead wire, is fully automated or has a driver, has standard, narrow or broad gauge.

There are many mixed forms nowadays and probably there will be even more in the future. In Europe (especially Germany and the Benelux) light rail systems (Stadtbahn, Premetro) have been bridging the gap between metros and trams for some decades now and provide, in most cases, a perfect service in their city. For the time being I can only cover these mixed systems (which I'd like to refer to as metroTrams) in Europe only, although also in America and Asia more and more networks of this kind are being built.

Sydney don't have a Subway.

About Berlin...same answer the S-Bahn and the Tramways AREN'T Subway Systems.

BTW Paris with Subway+RER+Tramways have 200 km more than Berlin!

But you can open, and i will be happy to help you, a page where there are a list of all the city with the total km/miles of ALL the Urban Railways of any typologies that run above and underground.

have a nice day.

Ok, the introduction is better now, although I find it still way to confusing what is included on the list and what is not. But still, Berlin S-Bahn is exactly what you stated, you just need to read the first paragraph of its article! It is an integrated system together with the U-Bahn. So I will add it again. The only difference is that U-Bahn is mostly underground and S-Bahn is mostly elevated (and partly underground). --FlorianB 17:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not agree. the S-Bahn in the whole Germany are Commuters Lines. this is a page with ONLY subway/metropolitan systems. if you included the Berlin S-Bahn someone will can adjoint also the RER of Paris, that is on surface, but for the most part in the municipality of Paris underground! some other will adjoint the Path of New York city that is completely underground. Some other (me?) will can adjoint the S-Lines of Milano that have the 80% of the tracks undrground inside the Milano's border. some other will can write something about the Ferrovie Metropolitane of Roma and Napoli that run underground for more than 15/20 km with dozens of stations!

but...all thats are Commuters Railways, that are not Subways! The 10 S Lines of Milano run underground in the city every 2.5 minutes for 18 hours each days! for 12 km on the line S10 with a dozen of stations. is the SAME thing of a Subway, but no-one consider that as!

the same thing is for Berlin. Btw....why the underground lines are called U-Bahn and the elevated ones S-Bahn? cause the first one are a Subway System inside the city. the second one are an elevated system for the commuters of the Berlin Metropolitan Area. the same thing happened in Milano with the distinction between Metropolitana and S-Line. the same thing happende in Spain where there are Metropolitans and RENFE (the Commuters Railways that have a lenght that in Madrid is BIGGER THAN BERLIN!) the same in Paris, NY, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Barcelona, Moscow, London....

you are the only one that one adjoint the Commuters Line to Berlin. no other one in that months did that with other cities!!!

do you want read that Berlin HAVE THE BIGGEST SUBWAY SYSTEM OF THE WORLD?

OK.

READ IT.

ALONE.

I'm going to move the L.A. Metro system higher on the list, seeing as the Metro rail article lists the system length at 118km, and the system seems to fit the criteria listed above. BlueDrew 06:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco BART

Could we really consider the BART system in San Francisco as a subway ? In many aspects it is closer to Berlin S-Bahn than to the subways as we imagine them. Well, all this is subjective and a matter of convention I guess... Metropolitan 4:17 (CET)

New York Subway

Corrected the data for the New York Subway to reflect "Route" distance rather then the "track" length as previously shown. All other networks are listed by "route" length.
Why the number goes from 400km to 1000km just in weeks?

re-corrected NY data. this is a list by lebnght and not by tracks. NY Subway have more than 600 miles of tracks, but a half parte are parallel tracks fpr the express service, along the normal service.

please do not change for that 20th times the NY data.

Laon

Where would you put the Poma 2000 of Laon ? 208.46.78.226 00:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) An urban electric mass rail transport system, i.e. it is primarily used to move within the city

YES - Inside Laon, between the railway station and the city hall

2) Totally independent from other traffic, rail or street traffic

YES - rubber tyre system on metallic track

3) High frequency service (maximum interval approx. 10 minutes during normal daytime service)

YES - 2mn 30 headway

the Poma is a Mini-Metro system, so it isn't a subway. it can be cosider as a People Mover, not sure as a subway!

Bombay

read: Mumbai#Transport should it be included as it is? It is just a normal commuter railway which the article says it should be excluded.---Pedro 10:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i've cancelled Mumbay from the list. it is a Suburban commuter railway system and not a subway system. on Wikipedia there is a well did page on Mumbay trasportation.

Paris

pleas don't wrote again the RER close to Paris in the list. it is well wrote on the intro that this is only a subway list and that the Rer of Paris, the German S-Bahn and similar aren't counted. thanks

How is it a problem to clarify that the RER isn't counted ? More than 60 km of the central RER network is underground. The central RER network is fully independent, each lines being operated in dedicated tunnels. Many travellers are believing wrongly that it's part of the metro system. Clarifying that the RER is excluded from the figures only makes the list more transparent. I fail to see what's the point in hiding such an information. Furthermore, please learn to sign your messages while posting on discussion pages. Thanks. [User:Metropolitan|Metropolitan] 16:49 10 may 2006 (UTC)

YOU can open a new page about RER, and will write how many times that Paris have a long, long Rer network. but NOT HERE. that page is ONLY about SUBWAY.

in the Intro there is wrote in a clear way and there is wrote that the RER of Paris, as many other simila system as the one of Germany, SPain, Ityaly...aren't interestdf by this list. German S-Bahn, Renfe in Spain, S Lines in Milan, FR in Roma have all network really similar as lenght to RER, and ALL runs underground in the citycentres. BUT NO ONE WROTE NOTHING ABOUT ITS....cause that list is O N L Y...A B O U T ....S U B W A Y ...

i can't believe.....

MILAN

I noticed one little mistake: Milan has only three subway lines already operating, not four. Line 4, 5 AND 6 are only planned or in pre-building stage. The north branch of the line 1 in future may become the line 7, but now it's still part of the M1.

on the main underground corridor of Passante Ferroviario (11 Km) there is a line called S10 and other 4 lines that run inside evry 4-5 minutes. it's a subway service.

SI units and English units both PLEASE!!!

I've done conversions before for wikipedia, but someone comes along and says conversions are off. Turns out my conversions were not off, the original numbers were English units converted and rounded to SI. I know we are lazy Americans, but please use both units. I'd rather use SI units too, newtons are a lot easier than ft-pds, but I've used the English system most of my life, it is just easier for me, and others to visualize.

Corrections to Istanbul's Data

I made the correction to Istanbul's data. New length excludes suburban rail system (72 km total acc. to Urbanrail) Urbanrail's data wasn't updated and doesn't include the newly opened lines. For the map, http://www.istanbul-ulasim.com.tr/harita/IstanbulHarita.pdf

Sorry, i must reverted your edit. See on the end of the article, what is not included. Suburban rail lines is exact that (like RER in Paris or German S-Bahns). --Jklamo 21:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suburban rail system, which is under state's rail company's authority, isn't included in the 52 km as I wrote above though! Just the suburban rail system by itself is 72 km, from Halkali to Gebze. With the finish of Marmaray project though, underground metro trains will work on those systems just like it does in Athenes. But, as I said in my first paragraph, acc. to municipality's web site, without suburban rail, there are 52 km rail system in Istanbul. Mayor said 50% of city's budget goes to transportation projects in Istanbul. If he is not lying, hopefully 52 km will increase soon. I guess that answers your concern. I'll change it back, however please correct it again if I made a mistake somewhere else.

Portland, OR

Portland, Oregon's MAX line should be on this list.

Oh, also, the person screaming about the S-Bahn in Berlin is only partially correct. Take a look at a map -- there is a big S-Bahn line running straight through the city (a line which also takes the RB and ICE trains). I assure you that that line is FAR more critical to the city's transportation network than the U2 past Schoenhauser Allee. Oh, and the Ringbahn. That thing is critical too, and is entirely within the city. Zweifel 07:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester, United Kingdom

I think a few of you should look at this line, it has a central street running zone incorporated with roads, traffic and lights, etc. Yet it also runs through suburbs on the extremities of the track.

I'm no expert on trains and railed transport, but this is definately an urban rail system in my eyes.

it currently has a main line from Altrincham to Bury and a second line from Piccadilly (centre of the Altrincham-Bury line) down to Eccles. The main use of this rapid transit system is essentially commuting to and from work in the city centre, however, the lazy ones also use this for getting around the commercial area of Manchester going between shops.

Link to their main site, happy updating! [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.162.192 (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin combines S-Bahn & U-Bahn

Berlins urban rail system combines two major networks creating a single one-fare-metro-system. Unlike previous discussions suggests, the S-Bahn is not a commuter rail, like the RER in France. The Berlin-Brandenburg regional/commuter service would be the RE or RB. The Berlin S-Bahn is primarily serving the administrative territory of the city forming together with the U-Bahn a single metro system. A single ticket allows to use this highly integrated system. Unlike commuter services the S-Bahn is also scheduled every 10 min (typical metro criteria). The integrated system will therefore rank the combined rail length of 477 km. Annex: The inclusion of the S-Bahn rail length is based on the articles´ name (List of urban rail systems by length (section)) and its first paragraph describing the nature of the S-Bahn accurately.

Sorry but I beg to differ. The Berlin S-bahn is exactly like the Paris RER. Actually, trains frequency is higher on the Paris RER than it is on Berlin S-bahn, reaching intervals as low as 90 seconds between trains on central part of line A. Another thing is that various S-bahn lines share tracks on the city center of Berlin whereas all RER lines run on dedicated tracks, almost exclusively underground, in the Paris city center. And similarly as in Berlin, with a single ticket, you can switch between metro and RER lines in Paris. As a matter of fact, the busiest urban rail line in Paris (and also in the western world for the matter) is the RER A. If you consider Berlin S-bahn to be part of the city's urban rail network, then, there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to exclude the RER from Paris urban rail network. For which silly reason would you believe that 76.5 km of the RER network are built underground if that would be otherwise?

As for the administrative limits. They mean nothing. Most of Berlin urban area are within the 892 km² of the city of Berlin, whereas the 105 km² of the city of Paris (Boulogne and Vincennes woods included) represents only 5% of the Paris urban area. If one day it would be decided to enlarge the city of Paris to encompass the inner suburbs, would the RER become a subway all of sudden to you?

But anyway, as a matter of fact, the double level system U-bahn/S-bahn or metro/RER has proven to be vastly superior to the in-between system such as what could be found in London. Granted London tops a ranking list on the internet, but its system trying to combine local services and express services is definitly less user-friendly than are double level systems such as in Paris, Berlin, but also Tokyo. Metropolitan 01:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pro S-Bahn argumentation picks up some misinterpretations in previous discussions (Berlin data). The RER was an example (maybe some similarities to the S-Bahn exist). The points you raised does´nt seem to change the conclusion. By the way, the administrative territory is an important measure, what else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.89.41 (talk) 01:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does the points I raise don't change the conclusion? S-Bahn and the RER are both, urban electric mass transit railway systems with high service frequency. There's absolutely not a single argument to consider Berlin S-Bahn has better reasons to be integrated to the Berlin U-Bahn than there are for the Paris RER to be integrated to the Paris metro. Political boundaries are totally irrelevant to this discussion, and to tell the truth, the areas served by the Paris RER are actually more densely populated than are those served by the Berlin S-Bahn. Different countries have different political organization, and if you expect to reach the countryside once leaving German city borders, that's far to be true in the case of Paris. If you wanted to find a counter-example to prove how S-Bahn couldn't be compared to commuter rails, the RER was probably the worst example worldwide. Metropolitan 02:29, 27 october 2007 (UTC)

Look, there hasn´t been an argument against RER. The case I made is based on pro S-Bahn arguments, nothing else. The preconditions of this article list (name, introduction) allow the inclusion of the metro system called S-Bahn. Otherwise this article has either to be deleted or renamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.89.41 (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's only one reason for this: The S-Bahn is not fully independent from other rail services. The sections it uses are shared with other DB services. Actually, lines A and B of the RER were totally independent from other rail services at the beginning, but even then, it wasn't considered a metro despite the fact it met all criterias. On the other side, sections of the London underground are also shared with commuter rail services. The most iconic example being the metropolitan line, which is ironically told to be the original metro line, the one which is supposed to have given its name to the system.

The truth is that what is a metro and what is not a metro is essentially a matter of conventions. The San Francisco BART or Washington DC metrorail are more regional commuter trains than real metros, but they call themselves as such so they are considered as such. Mumbai on the other side is considered to not have any metro system, and this despite the fact it has one of the busiest rail mass transit sytem in the world. I know this is silly, but that's the main reason why this list shouldn't be taken too seriously. The systems which are ranked here are not at all comparable. I've tried to put a big disclaimer in introduction in mentionning the various lists of similar networks which were excluded, but it's been decided to be moved to the bottom of the page.

If one would like to be really consistent, I guess the best would be to combine all the heavy rail portions being served by a minimum frequency of a train every 5 minutes during rush hours. Unfortunately, that would be considered as original research and thus scrapped from Wikipedia. But anyway I already know which city would top such a list: that would be Tokyo, by far. Metropolitan 03:43, 27 october 2007 (UTC)

Vienna combines S-Bahn & U-Bahn

In my Humble opinion I think the S-Bahn of Berlin should not be added or the RER should be, I will let others decide that. But if the S-Bahn and U-Bahn of Berlin are counted then the S-Bahn and U-Bahn of Vienna should also be included. ---Lumber Jack- 14:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the S-bahnen of Berlin should be included as long as other cities equivelents, such as RERs, PATHS and similair are included. Spacevezon (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

While this is a useful article it has absolutely no references and I've been unable to find any from a quick look on google. Also it would be useful if we included dates in the opening paragraph i.e. this is a list of the longest urban rail systems as of 27th October 2007, so that editors will know that they should include any extensions made after that date. Valenciano 09:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copenhagen S-train

Shouldn't the S-train services of Copenhagen be included, seeing as both Berlin and Paris have their S-train netowork in the list? The T-bane in Oslo is more comparable to the Copenhagen S-trains than the Copenhagen Metro; in addition, the S-trains often have a higher service frequency than the T-bane (every ten minutes on the main lines which have rush hour services, plus every five minutes on the ring line). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.75.167.214 (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fair enough. Although I think all S-Bahn and S-trains should be removed from this list. --Kildor (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your objections toward S-bahnen, but as long as we have hybrid systems they composes a problem: many of them form a metro component while being suburban feeder lines, falling short of regional service (like the Nordic capitals), thus restricting the "true" metro systems only to large cities (because of their large urban areas). The Copenhagen Metro is actually one of the most urban of all urban rails, but even this one has some km. out in the suburbs (bordering at one end and continuing out on the two branches). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.75.167.214 (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has recently been discussed at Talk:List of rapid transit systems. The S-train/S-Bahn/RER systems serve a larger area and connect with other cities (i.e. Potsdam and Frederikssund). They have separate tracks but run in large parts parallell to national rail lines. These are better described as commuter rail and are often referred to as such (the lead of the Wikipedia Copenhagen S-Train article is "The S-train network is the commuter train network of Metropolitan Copenhagen, Denmark."). These systems are not included in other lists of metro/rapid transit systems (MetroBits, UrbanRail.net, UITP/ERRAC). And if we include them here, then we will have problem with many other commuter rail systems being added (which already happend; it does not make sense to see Vienna ahead of London in this list...). --Kildor (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough--it's intention, rolling stock, stations and company makeup are certainly "heavy rail", whereas service frequency and track corridors are rapid-transit (12 times/hrs on the "inner lines" (double service), separate (elevated) tracks), compared to Oslo which has 15-min service at the branches, servicing the suburbs and used to have two separat power systems and at-grade crossings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.75.167.214 (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is your point? That the Copenhagen commuter rail system is better than the Oslo metro system? I certainly agree. But it does not matter when it comes to inclusion for this list. Including commuter lines makes comparison with other cities completely meaningless (even though I am not sure that a comparison of metro systems only is meaningful either). It is impossible to have a set of criteria for inclusion that will make this list completely fair. And when there is no distinct and clear definition to use, we will need to look for sources (otherwise, this will be own research...). And the Copenhagen S-train network is not included in any lists of metro systems I have seen. But Oslo T-bane is. --Kildor (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, it would be interesting to know the length of the S-tog system. If you know it, please add it to the S-train infobox. --Kildor (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo

The length of Tokyo is too short, and Tokyo has many urban rail lines operated by East Japan Railway Company and many other private railway companies. Trains run every 10 minites or more frequently in those lines, and total length of them is more than 1,000 km in Tokyo metropolitan area. They have similar function as 'S-Bahn' in Germany or 'RER' in Paris.

Current length of Tokyo includes subway only, but in many other cities, lines of 'S-Bahn' kind are included. As already raised in many other opinions, it looks quite strange that suburban lines such as S-Bahn' or 'RER are included in some cities (Berlin, Vienna,,,) and not in others (Tokyo, London, Paris, Seoul,,,).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Leinsd (talk • contribs) 15:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have added London's suburan lines and Paris's Rer and New York's Path. However, I know little about Tokyo's rail network so someone else will have to add that. Spacevezon (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complete mess

I'm sorry, this article is awful now with people just adding up as much as possible for their own cities just to let them end up on number one. Why doesn't London have the DLR added, and Paris doesn't have the RER, or New York hasn't got the PATH added? All of of these systems are equally if not more of a metro system than the S-Bahn, for example.

The definition that is used to introduce the list seems to be completely random and well, made up, without any references or backup. Especially the no National Rail bit is something I've never heard before.

I would like a simple list of just the metro systems, excluding suburban rail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.100.13 (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. Take a look at the List of rapid transit systems. It is perhaps what you are looking for. But this article should be rewritten, and renamed to List of metro systems by length. --Kildor (talk) 12:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This article needs to be improved. London Overground fits all the definitions of an urban rail system which were stated at the start of the article. And so does Paris RER. And all of Londons commuter railways do (such as the South London Line, Lea Valley Lines and et.), which are not part of a state owned railway company. All of Tokyo's urban railways probably add up to much more than the Berlin network (which is not independent of state control and is owned by DB). New York City's PATH + Subway + Staten Isle Railroad + Metro North + Long Isle Railroad is also probably larger than Berlin's network. Spacevezon (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian Monorail?

The Monorail list in this article has "Charleroi, Belgium 25.0 km" as the longest system in the world, but I cannot find any references to this system on Wikipedia. The Osaka Monorail listed as #2 is the longest monorail in the world according to the Guiness Book of Records. Maybe an expert can clarify the situation - as it is difficult to verify any of the entries without reference sources or citations. --DAJF (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Charleroi system is not a monorail, but a pre-metro or light rail system. See Charleroi Pre-metro. The section is labelled "Monorail, pre-metro & people mover", so it does not say anything about the longest monorail in the world. --Kildor (talk) 08:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the clarification. Now, what is a "pre-metro"? I am not familiar with the term, and it does not appear to be explained on this page or on the Charleroi Pre-metro page. --DAJF (talk) 09:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a well defined term. But it can be used to describe a light rail system with high standard, aimed to be "upgraded" to full metro. The system typically have metro standard to a large extent, but has some elements of light rail, such as intersections with road traffic, pedestrian crossings or some parts with in-street routes. See also Premetro. --Kildor (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin Tram Network Should Not Be Included

I don't think we should in include the Berlin Strassenbahn tram network because no other city has its tram network included in its total legnth. Howeverm I do not mind if the Berlin tram network is included as long as other light rail networks such as London's tramlink, Brussel's premetro, Manchester's metrolink, Sheffield's supertram, San Fransisco's muni and similair are included as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacevezon (talk • contribs) 18:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish

This page is all rubbish. Why do some cities (i.e. Barcelona) have tram networks added when others do not?

Why does Milan have a regional rail system included in its total legnth?

And more similair points. 79.66.64.56 (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MILAN/BARCELONA

I removed Barcelona and Madrid from the list. This is for the following reasons: A) Barcelona had a tram network on it. There was no citations or refrences about the legnth of this network (or wikipedia article). B) Milan had an international rail network (which serves Switzerland and Italy) C)Barcelona had many unvertified metro networks counted, of which to little information was avaliable (I tried google, wikipedia and the libary).

Could someone please add these two cities back once they can vertify the information and only add systems which meet the metro criteria. Spacevezon (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commuter train

If RER included for Paris and Tokyo, why Moscow Elektrichka is not included?--Dojarca (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:List of urban rail systems by length/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article includes know references and the definition of an urban rail system apears to vary from city to city. Spacevezon (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 18:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 22:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)