This is an archive of past discussions about Tyne and Wear Metro. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Listed under notable features is "The Tyne and Wear Metro was the first railway in the UK to use the metric system". I'm not sure about this. I think that was the Snowdon Mountain Railway, opened in 1895 with a gauge of 2 foot 7 and a half, which makes much more sense in metric: 800mm. The explanation is found in the article: "When the railway was planned only the Swiss had a large experience in building rack locomotives, so it was they who won the contract to build the engines for the line." They were using metric then. The Metro might be the first railway in England to use metric, perhaps? --Telsa(talk)13:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Interesting point, though you're talking about track gauge; the Metro is of course standard gauge (1435 mm). The use of the metric system referred to means the sole use of metric use across the system, including speed limits and distances, and the Metro was built to metric specifications. All of these were firsts in the UK. ProhibitOnions14:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually the Snowdon Mountain Railway is pretty much entirely metric, the entire railway was basically bought in and the main equipment was built by Schweizerische Lokomotiv und Maschinenfabrik in Switzerland so is metric. Perhaps what would be clearer and make sense is to describe the tyne & wear metro as the first railway in the UK to use metric signage for speed and distance, which afaik really is a first. AlanCox22:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, its operations are all conducted in the metric system. I thought this would be clear enough, guess not. I'll rephrase it if you haven't already. ProhibitOnions22:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Graffiti hypocrisy
Something should be said about Nexus' apparently hypocritical attitude towards graffiti, as revealed in the Evening Chronicle on 28/09/2006. Nexus "talks tough" about graffiti and spends huge sums of money on removal, yet perversely it allows "legal graffiti walls" at Chilli Road and permits graffiti imagery in station "art" (such as at Longbenton and now Jesmond stations - the latter even prompted complaints to the police from Metro drivers as they thought it was vandalism!)
As an aside, I personally think the people at Nexus need to consult with the public at large on this issue. They can't have it both ways. If the majority of people like graffiti and want to see it in stations and on bridges, Nexus shouldn't be spending £250,000 a year trying to get rid of the stuff. If most people consider graffiti on the Metro to be a nuisance, however, all graffiti and graffiti-style images (including advertising images) should be completely banned, as is the case on the London Underground - otherwise you send out the message that graffiti is acceptable. 217.34.39.12309:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Karlsruhe model
"With the opening of the Sunderland extension in 2002, the Metro became the first UK system to implement the Karlsruhe model"
I'm not convinced this claim can be substantiated when you compare the mixing of different train types elsewhere.
The Bakerloo line of the London Underground has shared tracks with mainline trains since 1915. A 7-car Bakerloo line train will weigh 164t compared with 199t of a 6 car Silverlink class 508 train (and the more common class 313 will weigh even more).
The Metropolitan line of the London Undergroud also shares tracks with Chiltern Railway mainline services and the District line shares tracks with Silverlink mainline trains. And elsewhere on the tube, trains of differing size/weight share tracks (Piccadilly line trains share with both Metropolitan & District lines).
For reference, a single Metro unit weighs 40t compared to 48t of a Northern Rail class 142 unit.
I don't doubt your facts. However, officially London Underground is heavy rail whereas the Metro is light rail, the definition of which isn't soley based on weight. The distinction is quite fine though, as the Metro is right at the upper end of what can be considered light rail ("Although nominally "light rail" the high platforms and full segregation from roads and pedestrians places [the Metro] at the upper end of the transport genre which includes street trams." - the picture caption on the light rail article). I think the distinction comes from the history of the systems - LU originated with locomotives and the Metropolitan Railway saw itself as a mainline operator; the Metro was (I think I am right in saying) orginally envisaged as a light railway. This could probably be explained better in the article. Thryduulf10:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Nexus have used this article in their publicity material!
Take a look at 10 Key Facts about Metro - its "Did You Know?" section on the last page quotes liberally from the "Notable features" section of the article. Which, in turn, says things Nexus should have been boasting about for years. Note, too, the lack of any reference to Wikipedia. ProhibitOnions(T)22:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup
Not trying to sound like a perfectionsit, but this artice needs some cleanpup, I am thinking of nominating this for a good article or featured article status but after reading it and starting the depserate changes, I realised it still needed a lot of work, for example all of the radmomly located external links would be better off into an extenral sections at the bottom and cleaned up so its not the very full URL. As-well as this the article contains much trivial like information about what could happen and which is not verifed, I'm going to start shortly adding references and continuing the cleanup and wikifying and when this is complete which could take long and I am willing to help with this I nominated the article for good article status about two weeks ago I just forgot to post it, any regulars at GA are free to review and choose to pass it or not but unfortunately if you are a regular editor of the article or have involvement in the article you cannot review it so I won't be able to either.Tellyaddict16:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Good afternoon (GMT time); I have reviewed this article on 16:21, Saturday March 10, 2007 (UTC) in accordance with the Good Article (GA) criteria. There are seven main criteria that the article must comply with to pass:
Well-written: Pass
Factually accurate: Pass
Broad: Pass
Neutrally written: Pass
Stable: Pass
Well-referenced: Pass
Images: ExcellentAn impressive array of images, which further add to the article's quality.
I have concluded that, in my opinion, the article has passed all categories and I therefore award it GA status. Congratulations to the lead editors, and keep up the excellent work!
Is this article the correct place to include details about the changes that took place in Tyneside when the Metro was opened? An integrated system was introduced, whereby many bus services which came into Newcastle were terminated short at Metro interchanges (Four Lane Ends, Regent's Centre, Gateshead & Heworth). This reduced road traffic into the city centre. A system of "Transfares" was introduced together with a honeycomb style zone system. Transfares were valid for a complete journey, which could include bus, metro or even the Shields ferry. I have many original leaflets from the time in my loft, and could include details in this article - I am new to Wikipedia, so would appreciate reassurance that I'm following the correct path! Andrew-R01:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Problems
Should the section about the doors closing announcement be in this section? It doesn't seem to fit very well.
Not really the place for this, but Charv/Charva is actually 'correct;' it has a different origin to Chav, and as this article is about the North East I would say that it is correct version of the word. 08:44, 03 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.133.192.115 (talk)
Huw Lewis of Nexus writes: The ue of music has been discontinued for some years, in part due to licence costs. The original idea was music combined with an outreach programme by local youth workers could address youth anti-social behaviour, and this proved to be the case in the pilot station Shiremoor. Music was then played at some other stations because passengers liked it and it seemed to create a more welcoming environment, but apart from anecdotal evidence, there is no further hard evidence it caused young people to move on or reduced crime/anti-social behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HuwLewisNexus (talk • contribs) 13:33, 16 December 2014
Simonside
Is Simonside open yet? If not, someone should update the relevant articles to say the construction works have overrun. It seems weird saying it will open in Autumn 2007 in 2008... Traintoots (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Tyne and Wear Metro logo.jpg
Image:Tyne and Wear Metro logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I believe the article currently has multiple issues that need to be addressed, and as a result, I have delisted the article. The main issues are below.
The lead needs to be expanded to better summarize the article. See WP:LEAD for guidelines. Try and touch on each topic in the article.
There are multiple lists in this article which should be converted to prose.
Address the "citation needed" tag, it has been there since July 2007! Some of the "News and issues" as well as the "Notable features" also need to be cited. "Corporate identity and livery" is completed unsourced as well as the majority of "The Future".
Throughout the article some terms are bolded. Only the article's title needs to bolded. If you'd like to place emphasis on the words use quotation marks.
A few explanation sentences should be provided before the table in the "Opening dates" section. Also, dates shouldn't be wikilinked.
"Current plans" section should be expanded. Subsections shouldn't include just a single sentence. Either expand on the details or incorporate the details into another section.
The gallery needs to be removed per WP:IG. A link is already provided to the Wikimedia Commons category of images related to the article.
Many of the citations only have a title and an access date. The sources should include the author, date, publisher, etc. Consider using the citation templates at WP:CITET to simplify the formatting.
The article has multiple [hhttp://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Tyne_and_Wear_Metro#view=0,1,1,1,1,1 dead links]. The Internet Archive can assist in fixing them.
Although the article has been delisted, the article can be return to GA status by addressing the above points. Once sources are added and cleanup is done, I recommend renominating the article at WP:GAN. If you disagree with this assessment, a community consensus can be reached at WP:GAR. If you need clarification or assistance with any of these issues, please contact me on my talk page and I'll do my best to help you out. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I added the {{cleanup-gallery}} tag to the gallery. There is nothing in inherently wrong with a gallery, but this one is poorly done. It's just a random collection of images - exactly the sort of gallery discouraged by WP:IG - it either needs to be significantly improved or moved over to the Commons. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Simonside on the Maps
It appears that none of the user created maps have been updated since the opening of Simonside station. I was wondering if anyone wants to modify the existing maps? I'll have a go, but I do not know how good they will look. TubularWorld (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
section reorganisation
I have reorganised the content into an initial section with content relevant to the casual user of the metro, followed by a history section which now includes some content from other sections into chronological order, and then a section of the current and proposed development of the network. Other sections that not fit this model follow the development section which now follows a format used by many other transport articles of 'current development' and 'proposed development'. I wasn't sure if the Phase 2 work had already started but left it in proposed for now. It may need to move. I have tried to retain all content and just re-organise it. I hope this has been helpful. PeterEastern (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
True, but the oldest bit of the Metro is from 1834. I'd say the're roughly contemporaries. Next time I'm in the City I'm going to have to ride on the first section of the LIRR and compare the two... Regards, ProhibitOnions15:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe the Tyne and Wear Metro is a metro just in name for whatever reason since its not fully segregated from roads and pedestrians and other physical objects, four legged creatures for this matter! Rapid transit (metro) main features are its total grade separation either underground, surface level or above ground, therefore i would change the introductory section of the article as: The Tyne and Wear Metro, also known as the Metro, is a Light rail system in North East England...
It's definitely a borderline system that challenges definitions in several respects, but since it's both self-presented and generally perceived as a metro, I think it's more informative to introduce it as a metro, and expand the paragraph in the Overview section that discusses the various ways in which it differs from expectations. Since Tyne and Wear is the only system in the United Kingdom to actually use 'metro' in its name, I think we also have to consider it a substantial part of the term's British definition.
I've only ridden it between the airport and Central Station; can someone clarify how many level crossings the system actually has? (For a system that approaches the dividing line between metro and tram from the opposite direction, see Edmonton Light Rail Transit.) David Arthur (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Very interesting, the only other Metro system that i know of that has several level crossings is the unique Chicago 'L', in its Brown and Yellow lines, both very interesting, and now that i'm on it, the Brown line is the only one that does the whole loop and comes back, the Yellow line that jaunts into the suburbs once had pantographs and third rail in the same line, when switched from one to the other you've hardly notice it, though the train slowed down a little. ∞ Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
This is NOT a metro. Look at the map. All radial lines, with only 3 interchanges. Merseyrail is Commuter-rail but is more metro like than this. Who classed this as a Metro? It is not. It is a light-rail commuter-rail system.Geographically accurate map of the Metro system94.194.18.224 (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't know of anywhere where it runs in conjunction with traffic barring level crossings. I would definitely call it a Metro. Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Karlsruhe model
Page says
"...With the opening of the Sunderland extension in 2002,[5] the Metro became the first UK system to implement a form of the Karlsruhe model, using track shared with mainline trains on the section between Pelaw and Sunderland.[6] The section from Sunderland to South Hylton was previously part of the Sunderland to Durham mainline, closed in the wake of the Beeching Axe in the 1960s, and was the second Metro segment to be built on a completely disused line, following on from the Newcastle International Airport extension, which was largely built on the former Ponteland branch line.[7]..."
However there are sections of track in London shared by London Underground and London Overground services. Metro is surely more simillar to LU than to trams used in Karlsruhe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.130.213 (talk) 08:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
User 94.194.21.227 recently replaced this version of the page which included references which specifically defined the T&WM. with this revision which contains this reference which is American and makes no reference at all to T&WM. This is in clear violation of Wikipedia:No original research as the citation given does not support the claim being made, and the replacement of referenced material is disruptive. I have requested semi-protection for this page. G-13114 (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
The above is total nonsense.
The references that were in the article mention nothing of the status of the T&W metro. I referenced an article explaining what commuter rail is and that T&W falls right into the definition. T&W Metro is a metro in name only. The T&W metro fans did not like the reference and the above writes, as the reference specifically does not mention T&W metro it can't be correct - this is childish!
The article is also overtly false in that T&W is not the second biggest rapid-transit rail network in the UK, that goes to Merseyrail. The opening para should be changed to reflect.
a commuter rail network, with three radiating lines to the suburbs with only the interchanges. A map is on this talk page to prove the point. It is not a metro. The impartial reference I gave explained clearly what commuter-rail is and T&W falls right into line. One reference given stated "The Tyne and Wear Metro is a light rail rapid transit system". No mention that is is a metro or a commuter-rail so useless. The second reference given does not mention whatsoever if the network is metro or commuter-rail. All definitions of commuter-rail and metro clearly put the network as commuter-rail.
it is a borderline rapid-transit using slow light-rail trains. Merseyrail's large heavy-rail trains get to 75mph and faster acceleration. T&W trains can only get to 50mph on a stretch.
T&W Metro is not the second largest urban rapid-transit network in the UK. That goes to the larger Merseyrail. No reference needed for that as wiki clearly proves that point. Merseyrail is larger in the physical network and passengers carried.
I am not into a consensus (as wiki puts it) on clear untruths which this article has on two points. BTW, Merseyrail is used as a comparison network to put some sense into this article.
WP:NOTTRUTH. If you can't edit to a consensus, then please leave, as this is not the environment for you. Also, accusing people of deluding themselves is a fantastic way of losing any argument. Lukeno94(talk)17:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I will not edit to a consensus of untruths. In this talk page many writers have clearly explained that the T&W metro is a commuter-rail network. It is clearly lies that T&W metro is the second biggest rapid-transit network in the UK. People with brains do not go along with untruths. This article gives wiki a bad name.94.194.21.227 (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
"One reference given stated "The Tyne and Wear Metro is a light rail rapid transit system". No mention that is is a metro or a commuter-rail so useless. The second reference given does not mention whatsoever if the network is metro or commuter-rail.".......So in other words, because the references disagree with you, they must be wrong! "All definitions of commuter-rail and metro clearly put the network as commuter-rail."...... Except you haven't found one which defines the T&WM as one. Unless reliable references explicitly define the T&WM as such then they are useless as references. G-13114 (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
The references do not need to mention T&W. They give the points that Merseyrail is second biggest rapid-transit network in the UK and there are FOUR raid-transit systems in the UK. They are the points! Read them again. I have the impression those who peddle untruths are Geordies attempting to big up their system. Lies is lies are you lot are peddling it with Original Research. Wiki is not about clear lies.94.193.161.155 (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Tyne and Wear Metro is not a metro
Despite its name T&W is not a metro. It is commuter-rail having three long lines from the outers and even Sunderland, that meet in the centre of Newcastle with three change points. Clearly not a metro and a commuter-rail setup. The wording to the network being a metro should be removed.94.193.164.216 (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
T&W Metro is no more a metro than the other one with metro in its title, Metrolink, which is street running trollycars.BigScribe (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
The good news is, we don't ever have to engage in this rubbish again (in the main article), due to the indef semi protection. And BigScribe has been blocked as a sock. So we can just ignore any more of Waterspaces' dodgy POV, I guess. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)19:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts in setting up the sock investigation, Luke. Already an awful lot quieter over on the Merseyrail article. A persistent troll removed for good, hopefully! L1v3rp00l (talk) 04:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikimedia Tyne and Wear Metro page
I think it's about time the Wikimedia page was cleaned up?
It seems like it is being used as someone's online storage for fantasy maps and original research. I'm all for extensions but only if they're grounded in reality and realistic. There's a lot of these fantasy maps and they're adding little to the facts about the system and are slowly taking over the whole Wikimedia entry.
By "Wikimedia", I guess that you mean Wikimedia Commons, which is normally known as Commons (because there are lots of Wikimedia sites, such as Wikimedia Meta-Wiki or "Meta"). Anyway, assuming that you do mean Commons, you're probably thinking of commons:Category:Tyne and Wear Metro. The images held there are not controlled by English Wikipedia, although many of their creators also edit Wikipedia. Have a look at the Welcome page on Commons; somewhere in that you should be able to find out how to express your concerns about images held on Commons. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/tyne/
Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
http://www.railway-technology.com
Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
I guess that some people will not be too happy with my adding Merseyrail to the list of underground rapid transit systems (I deleted the word 'metro' for reasons that I shall explain). My view is that there is far too much similarity between the Merseyrail and Tyne and Wear Metro systems for the former system to be ignored. Both systems serve both urban, suburban and outer suburban areas, both have underground sections in the city centre with interchanges and both run at high frequencies (fifteen minutes interval off peak on all Merseyrail branches and five minutes in the central area). Although Merseyrail is ostensibly part of the national rail network, it is almost completely autonomous with an electrification system (DC third rail) that is not found anywhere else outside of the south east.
I think that both Merseyrail and the T & W Metro are properly termed as 'rapid transit suburban systems' or, using the German terminology, S Bahns. An important part of the definition of a 'metro' is that its primary function is as a means of transport within an urban area. So, I would agree that the Glasgow Subway is a metro but not Merseyrail or the Tyne and Wear Metro. (Just having 'Metro' in the title is not enough - consider the West Yorkshire Metro).
The point surely is that, from the ordinary passenger's point of view, (and this is after all a general encyclopedia and not a technical discussion), the distinction between the Tyne and Wear Metro and Merseyrail is almost invisible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mann Island (talk • contribs) 22:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem with the latest revision (25.02),of the introduction that omits the list of other underground systems. To list the systems and omit Merseyrail would be misleading - this is fine. Mann Island — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mann Island (talk • contribs) 20:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
This G-13114 keeps reverting insisting that basically lies is kept in the article. Merseyrail is a far larger, rapid transit network and was the 2nd oldest underground the world. The article state that T&W is second which is overtly untrue. T&W is NOT a metro. It is clearly commuter-rail. Merseyrail is far more of a metro than T&W. Merseyrail is hybrid metro./commuter rail. Merseyrail is NOT a part of the national network, the electrified sections are totally segregated. 94.194.21.227 (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
@94.194.21.227: Your last sentence is completely untrue. Merseyrail is a part of the national network and the tracks are owned and maintained by Network Rail. That the likes of Tyne & Wear, London Underground and Glasgow Subway genuinely are separate from the rest of the national railway and have separate tracks and often signalling systems goes a long way to making them genuine, bona fide rapid transit and metro systems. As you have been told several times by several different people, Merseyrail is a commuter railway system and is neither a metro nor a rapid transit system. L1v3rp00l (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
@L1v3rp00l: It matters not a joy who owns or runs them. They are segregated lines and the Merseyrail system is separate from other networks being largely 3rd rail.94.193.161.155 (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
LU does share some tracks with others in north London, which Merseyrail electric does not. Not that this make any difference.94.193.161.155 (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
@G-13114: This is pure prejudiced nonsense. Merseyrail was the second Underground in the world - 1886, and the first deep underground with bored tunnels. The central section is underground in Liverpool and Birkenhead and a way into south Liverpool. The network has a lot of partially underground stations - below ground but open to the atmosphere. The unused St.James station is partially underground, which may be brought back to use. Conway Park was cut down into a tunnel but open to the atmosphere to enforce more fire safety after the Kings X disaster. The unused Dingle station is 100% underground. There is is approx 5 miles of tunnel under Liverpool awaiting reuse. Commuter-rail usually has trains running through fields. Merseyrail has this bit most runs through urban areas. Two things is clear is that its partially underground and rapid-transit. 94.193.161.155 (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
@L1v3rp00l: To say that Merseyrail is not rapid transit is complete nonsense. It is rapid transit, mass transit, a segregated network and has high frequencies being a few minutes apart in the centres of Birkenhead and Liverpool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.248.36 (talk) 11:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
@Mann Island: The differences between T&W and Merseyrail are significant. Merseyrail is far larger and is heavy rail compared to light rail. Merseyrail trains reach 85mph to T&Ws 50mph. Merseyrail is a smaller version of London's Underground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.248.36 (talk) 11:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
The Tyne and Wear Metro, referred to locally as simply the Metro, is a rapid transit system in North East England...
Then, in the very next sentence:
The Metro is also described as Britain's first modern light rail system.
As the rapid transit and light rail articles make clear, you can't be both "rapid transit" and "light rail" – you're either one, or the other. As the Department for Transport and the Light Rail Transit Association categorize the Tyne and Wear Metro as "light rail", and UITP doesn't include the system in its list of world "metro" systems, the lede of this article needs to be reworded. I think something along the lines of "The Tyne and Wear Metro is a light rail system that shares some elements with a rapid transit system..." would be an acceptable way to go here. I'll wait for further comment, but if none is forthcoming, I'll reword the lede in the future... --IJBall (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
No, you won't, because you will be following the wishes of a sockmaster who has been pushing their POV for well over a year, and be violating consensus in the process. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)22:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, understand – you're no longer dealing with an IP 'sock' on this issue, but an actual editor who's been working on this topic for a year and a half now.
And the problem, quite simply is this: calling Tyne and Wear Metro "rapid transit", as the lede does, is an issue of WP:OR. Nowhere, that I can see, does the article back up the claim that Tyne and Wear is "rapid transit". In fact, looking at the definitions of "rapid transit" and "light rail", the system is clearly the latter, and not the former. Additionally, I can quickly produce three references: one from the British Government (Department for Transport), and one from the LRTA (based in the UK), that classify the system as "light rail", and a third from UITP (the preeminent world organization on the subject, esp. in regards to European systems) that doesn't include Tyne and Wear in its list of "metro" (rapid transit systems). The latter reference, especially, can't be ignored as it pretty clearly excludes Tyne and Wear Metro from categorization as a "rapid transit" system.
Consensus is all well and good, but I don't think it trumps WP:OR or WP:V. Now, if someone can produce a solid secondary reference that categorizes Tyne and Wear Metro as "rapid transit", well then problem solved. But I am doubting that such a reference will be forthcoming, as this very article makes clear, the system contains both level-crossings and track sharing with other rail, both of which pretty clearly rule the system out as rapid transit, by definition. --IJBall (talk) 23:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Follow-up: One possible way to bridge this gap would be to change the lede to something along the lines of: "[Tyne and Wear Metro]... portions of which [insert appropriate section of system here] operate at rapid transit standards." Such a statement would no doubt be both truthful and accurate, and it's more probable that a reference could be produced to verify such a statement. Afterall, there are a number of "light rail" systems in the world that have at least one section that is at "rapid transit standards" – San Francisco's Muni Metro being just one such example. --IJBall (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Both of the references used [1][2] refer to it as a light rail and a rapid transit system, I don't think the two things are mutually exclusive. G-13114 (talk) 09:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the terms are mutually exclusive: "rapid transit" refers only to those systems that are fully grade-separated. However, your second reference, from railway-technology.com, does point the way forward – it states: "The 1970 Tyne-Wear Plan suggested major investment to convert the North Tyne loop and South Shields branch from heavy rail to modern rapid transit standards." This fits with my suggested compromise above – portions of the Tyne and Wear Metro are to "rapid transit standards". That statement is accurate. What is not accurate is to say that the entire system is a "rapid transit system" – as both of your references still make clear, overall, the system is a light rail system. Thus it would be best to revise the lede as suggested – to point out parts of the system are "to rapid transit standards", but the system in toto is "light rail". --IJBall (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
The system does have some level crossings with roads, like at Callerton Parkway, Kingston Park, Howdon and Fawdon stations. But I have not found any street running on satellite images, making this a borderline case between rapid transit and light rail.--BIL (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
It has some track-sharing with freight rail, as I understand it, which is a big no-no. But the more salient point is this: both the British government's Department for Transport and the Light Rail Transit Association categorize the system as "light rail", and UITP deliberately excluded the Tyne and Wear Metro from its list of "world metro" systems. IOW, no major reference categorizes the system as "rapid transit". It's true that remarks have been made about "rapid transit-standards" in regards to portions of this system by the Railway-Techology reference. (The other reference mentioned above is from a consultant who calls the system "a light rail rapid transit system" which is a nonsensical statement on its face, and coming from a consultant I would consider this reference to be rather low on the "reliable source" heirarchy...) But none of the big guns call this a "rapid transit system". Ergo, this article's lede is highly misleading on the subject, and needs to be changed... --IJBall (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
If it is built to rapid transit standards, then surely for all intents and purposes it is rapid transit, whether 'light rail' or not? So this argument over terminology is really splitting hairs. It's something of a hybrid system anyway, as it was built largely from previous heavy rail commuter lines knitted together with newly built tunnels. So exact terminology for it is difficult. G-13114 (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
The Metro is a passenger transport railway that has characteristics of rapid transit, light rail and heavy rail metros. The real world is not as neat as theorists would like. The vehicles are light rail, some parts of the network are new-build light rail, some parts are reused heavy rail, other parts are shared-use heavy rail. In the city centres it is clearly a rapid transit metro system; the north Tyneside coast and Newcastle Airport routes are urban and suburban light rail; between Pelaw and Sunderland it's an inter-urban regional mass transit system. The system doesn't fit neatly into a single box, but sadly this does not stop people wanting it to. Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
And all of those points can be noted in the article's text. But definitions matter (it absolutely is not "splitting hairs"), as do what outside references say, and this system simply cannot be accurately categorized as "rapid transit" anymore than Muni Metro in San Francisco can be. If we leave the lede text as is, we are leaving a misleading (if not outright erroneous) impression, and we aren't doing our job as an encyclopedia. --IJBall (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
It appears to me that the system is more like a commuter rail system. No street running, but several road crossings, not so much tunnel and some track-sharing with mainline and freight trains (see the "Development" headline). Or a mixture, with some stretches being a commuter railway and others light railway.--BIL (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
The official website's opening sentence is "Metro is the North East's very own light rail system." [3] The history section's "Landmarks in urban transport" page consistently uses "rapid transit" with sentences like "Tyne and Wear was the first metropolitan area in Britain to integrate fully all public transport operations: the Metro, opened in 1980 and completed in March 1984, was Britain’s first urban light rail transit system.", "[T]he study team found that the best course of action was to convert the suburban British Rail network into a rapid transit system with direct penetration into the central area. The bus network would be restructured to complement the rapid transit system, and car commuters encouraged to transfer to rapid transit..." [4] The "How it was built" page says "When Metro opened to the public in August 1980 it [..] was Britain’s first light rapid transit system and the heart of an integrated transport network." [5]. This government press release describes Metro as "Britain’s busiest light rail network outside London". Paragraph 4 (PDF page 7) of this RAIB report describes it as "a light rail system". The The Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport (Sunderland) Order 1998 describes it as a "rapid transit railway". The Institute of Mechanical Engineers introduces it as a "unique rapid transit system ... [now] encompassing elements of light rail, heavy underground metro and higher speed suburban operations".[6] The Transport Research Laboratory call it a "light rail rapid transit system" [7]. A company working with the engineering department describe it as "a rapid transit system in North East England, It is the second largest of the three metro systems in the UK." [8]. A 1987 publication by University of Newcastle upon Tyne Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies is entitled "Rapid Transit and Land Use: the Effects of the Tyne and Wear Metro". Chart 1 on page 7 of this PDF is one of many sources that define the UK has having 3 "metro systems", which although they aren't always explicitly identified are always cited as the London Underground, Tyne and Wear Metro and Glasgow Subway when they are.
So in summary the Metro both is and is not all of a metro, (light) rapid transit, and light rail, depending on who you ask and what question you ask them. Thryduulf (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Points: A good portion of those references are primary sources, and on this particular question that's potentially an issue. Several more of them are dated (pre-2000), which is a problem, as the terminology has evolved somewhat over time. And, again, no one is denying that portions of the Tyne and Wear Metro are "rapid transit-standards" – so too are portions of San Francisco's Muni Metro, Charleroi's Metro, Edmonton's Light Rail Transit system, Rouen's tramway, and even Los Angeles' Metro Rail Green Line (which is actually fully grade-separated, and could legitimately be categorized as a "light metro"), and probably at least a dozen (or more) other systems I could come up with a little more time. Yet all of these systems are categorized as "light rail". I'm less interested in what the British Government called the system in 1998, than what they are calling it now, and they're now calling it "light rail". Again, I'm not advocating removal of the term "rapid transit" from the article, or even from the lede – all I am suggesting is that the lede needs to be rewritten to say something along the lines of "The Tyne and Wear Metro, referred to locally as simply the Metro, is a [hybrid?] light rail system in North East England...", with the subsequent sentence making mention of the system being "light rail" though with rapid transit-standards portions. In fact, the lede's third sentence does a good job of this. It's really just that lede's very first sentence which is problematic, as it is making a claim which is in fact, not true, in terms of what the definition of what rapid transit really is (i.e. "...Rapid transit systems operate on an exclusive right-of-way which is usually grade separated...") --IJBall (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Should not get classed as Rapid Transit or Light Rail since it is having major upgrades done to it for example going from 5tph to 6tph on each Line as well as the addition of a line set of lines to Washington. Tyne & Wear metro fleet has Lamp brackets making them a train as well as they are numbered under TOPS. I would say the Tyne & Wear Metro is more of a Commuter rail than Light rail or Rapid transit Since the Tyne & Wear Metro shares Track with Both Mainline Passenger Trains & Freight Trains. I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Beacon Hill Station
The section on Beacon Hill station should remain, in recognition of this feature of the network.
Whilst not a physical station or asset, it is a programme developed in collaboration with Nexus to encourage safe travel within the community. If needed, pictures can be obtained to provide further information on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.154.193 (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Huw Lewis of Nexus writes: There is also a mock-up station at the 'Safetyworks' educational facility in Scotswood, Newcastle. Safteyworks is run by Tyne and Wear Fire Service and features a number of scenarios to teach children about safety round rail, road, electricity sub-stations etc. The metro station was designed and built by graduate trainees and apprentices employed by Nexus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HuwLewisNexus (talk • contribs) 13:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Update of page information
Huw Lewis of Nexus writes: I would be happy to work with editors to update information on this page which is, in a few places, out of date. I have just created a new account and so may get access to the page but, out of respect for Wikipedia, I don't wish to exceed my authority by editing a page about an organisation I represent. If an editor wishes to discuss please leave messageHuwLewisNexus (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I have tagged the statement in the lead section about the Metro being considered a premetro system with a "by whom?". As far as I understand it, a pre-metro is a first-generation tram system (ie street-running) which has been partially upgraded to include some underground sections. Metro has never had any street-running, nor did it develop from a first-generation tram network. Is there any reason to keep this statement? --Peeky44What's on your mind?22:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
k
In my opinion no system should be called a "pre-metro" system unless that assertion is substantiated by a reference to a reliable authoritative source. I noticed that our articles on literally dozens of systems used to assert that they were pre-metro systems, without any references, and where those claims were highly questionable. Boston's Green Line was called a premetro system, even though it was built almost one hundred years before the term "premetro" was coined. A short segment of its original tunnel was built to standards suitable for heavy rail, which would be a specious reason to call it a "premetro" even if the line had been built after this term was coined.
Whoever went around slapping this term on articles on rapid transit systems seemed to think any line that had even one element of heavy rail should be called a "premetro" system.
Whoever went around slapping this term on articles on rapid transit systems did not return to those articles when I tagged them, and/or raised my concerns on the talk pages. After waiting a few months I then removed those unreferenced assertions from those other articles.
The term "premetro" is vague. I went searching for a definition in a reliable, authoritative source. I couldn't find one. Near as I can tell, the term is supposed to refer to a system when funds were set aside, at construction time, to build some elements of the line to heavy rail standards.
I suspect that the idea is a "high concept" idea, that sounds great, when given only a cursory examination, but which doesn't work out well, in practice. A planner who thinks a line already has, or will soon have enough ridership to require heavy rail should recommend building a heavy rail line, right from the start.
Fans of the idea of a premetro overlook expenses of converting a route from light rail to heavy rail.
There is no point in upgrading a light rail line to heavy rail, unless its ridership is approaching the limit for a light rail line. But, since the line is then heavily used, upgrading it causes great inconvenience to those loyal riders, during the years of reconstruction, when some or all of the route has to be replaced by shuttle buses.
If ridership never rises to the level where heavy rail is justified, all extra expenses required to add heavy rail elements were a complete waste.
If a light rail line is at or approaching its capacity it makes more sense to leave the original line alone, and build a nearby parallel line. When the new nearby line is complete some riders will have a choice, and can choose the new line, reducing demand on the original line. The cost of constructing a new light rail line is comparable to the cost of upgrading a light rail line to heavy rail, but it doesn't require taking an existing line out of service for years of reconstruction. When the new line is finished twice as many riders will live or work within walking distance of a rapid transit station.
Where does the term come from, and why is it applied to routes in Belgium? Belgium has two communities, francophones and Dutch speakers. The two communities are jealous of one another. When there were plans to construct a heavy rail metro for one community a similar commitment had to be for rapid transit for the other community -- even though they didn't have any urban concentrations dense enough to justify heavy rail. Calling the Belgian light rail lines "premetro" lines was a face-saving compromise. I doubt the Belgian lines will ever be upgraded.
Near as I can tell, no one is suggesting the Tyne and Wear system is approaching the ridership where heavy rail vehicles would be required. So I removed the questionable assertion from this article. Geo Swan (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Future plans
I came across this link about future plans for the metro. If anyone wants to include it in the article. If not I'll do it at some point if no-one else does. G-13114 (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Overhaul
I've been attempting to give this article a long overdue overhaul, as it as been in a pretty sorry state for a long time now. My overhaul has included better structuring of the article, adding material, and finding references, plus deleting original research and unreferenced bits. If anyone wants to leave any feedback, or help, that would be appreciated. G-13114 (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tyne and Wear Metro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
It appears the semi-protection was placed on this page as the result of an edit war between a sock puppet and consensus in 2014.
I'm not able the edit the page to make a minor edit of updating a URL of a reference to it's new location because of this dated protection
Perhaps now is the time to remove it since that edit war should have subsided in 4 years.
The edit is simply to change reference 3 which currently has an archive link, it's updated URL is https://trl.co.uk/reports/CR357
Sunderland not only station in UK where light and heavy rail share platforms
This occurs where the Bakerloo line joins up with the Watford DC Overground line and Southern services from Croydon. Seemplez14:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
This system is a rapid transit system, by every sense of the definition. The Grade crossings mean nothing. The Chicago "L" also has grade crossings but it is still considered rapid transit. Calling it light rail seems to put it in the same category as systems like the Manchester Metrolink which does not make any sense. It seems like this should be considered rapid transit. If not, than probably a light metro like the DLR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rckania (talk • contribs) 03:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Merge "upgrades and development" and "Proposed future upgrades and development"
IDK, one seems to be about developments which have already taken place, or are ongoing, while the other is mostly speculative proposals. G-13114 (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
I didn't mean merge them to one paragraph, but it makes sense to me to have future proposals follow current proposals and extensions, rather than having 7 other sections between them
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Note I created Map 1 so naturally I favour it. However I believe it is the better because 1) it is bold and clear so works better in the small format of the infobox. 2) it is sufficiently different in style from the official map to avoid any kind of copyright problems. G-13114 (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Here are my thoughts: Map 1 has a big font, thick lines and a better legend which makes it easier to read. However the sharp edge on map 1 between Longbenton and South Gosforth is little bit confusing. Map 2 instead has a clear design with smooth edges and the interchange at Monument is clearer.
Good idea User:G-13114 to get a vote going. I'm all for a democratic vote. I created Map 2 after viewing the other light rail / tram maps on wikipedia and seeing how professional and clear they were so thought i'd try to design something similar for our Metro. Following your feedback User:G-13114 I increased the size of the font and re-aligned the labels so they're much clearer so I hope this helps. Map 2 is also a nod to the original 1980s metro map design which I felt was very clear and simple. Happy to go with the majority vote. Afterall we're all here to make it as high quality page as possible. Here are the other maps on Wikipedia which I used as a benchmark standard.
Done as to updating the link. Pinging Redrose64 as the original protecting admin, can you respond to the unprotection request? ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
OK let's see what happens now. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
