Talk:List of metro systems/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Multiple operators versus multiple names

Some systems got multiple operators, such as the Seoul, Singapore, Shanghai, Beijing, and Shenzhen ones. (In addition, some have through service, such as the Tokyo systems with the non-metro private railways around it.) These systems may have only single names despite having more than one operators. How to determine which systems should have only single listings, and which systems should have multiple listings? 14.0.144.64 (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Power supply and gauge

There's a list of metro systems by ridership. Is there any list by gauge, by power supply (voltage, frequency, third rail, overhead wire, diesel, etc.), by length of trains, number of cars per train, and so on and so forth? 14.0.144.64 (talk) 21:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Not on Wikipedia. But check with World Metro Database. It has a lot of data that can be used for sorting. Kildor (talk) 15:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it encyclopædic enough to have some lists on these aspects? 14.0.208.112 (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Tokyo Monorail, Naha Monorail, Yurikamome Line

Are these systems rapid transits or light rails? (Don't think the technology used is that relevant.) 14.0.208.112 (talk) 06:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Two Tokyo lines fits well. I'm dubious of Naha Monorail, though. Most Tokyo urban railways fits well. Elk Salmon (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The monorails are already listed on the List of monorails. One of the aspects of this list is that the systems listed are at least somewhat technologically comparable (which is why the inclusion of some technical aspects asked about above isn't necessarily a bad thing), but monorails are too different in technology and carrying capacity to be comparable. To that end they shouldn't be included; they're already on the proper list. (This isn't the first time this has been asked; it would be good to check the archives.) oknazevad (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, as long as they run on tracks and share the same characteristics in operations, such as capacity, frequency, right of way, etc., they are rail rapid transit systems. It doesn't matter if they are concurrently monorails or funiculars. 14.0.144.64 (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Chicago 'L'

Chicago's 'L' was opened in 1892, but subway sections just in 1943. Have no idea, where the previous one got those wrong dates. 09.01.2013. Karkluvalks

As the criteria already note, there's no requirement for underground operation to be listed. And the Chicago 'L' has been in continuous operation since the 1892 date; the 1943 opening was an addition to, not replacement of the 'L', so we use the original date. Your correction was incorrect and has been reverted. (PS, new comments go on the bottom and should be signed.) oknazevad (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Last extension column addition

I propose to add one more column which can show the date of the last extension. This column will make it easy to check when data is up-to date.--Ymblanter (talk) 04:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Since there were no objection, I start implementing.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This idea sounds good to me. Gives an idea of whether the system is actively expanding, or if it's remained the same for years.

* You titled the column "last change" -- why not "Last extension"?

* The date format you used is not sortable. Could I suggest [[ISO 8601] format instead? It looks like this: 2012-12-31. It is sortable by computers easily.

—fudoreaper (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

ISO dates are machine sortable, but should be avoided in English usage as they're uncommon. It is possible to put te ISO date as a sort key for the dates without showing them (See WP:MOSDATE for how) but I wonder if we even need the full dates anyway. The year is sufficient; it's not like a metro extension doesn't take many months (if not years) of construction time, so the precision of exact days and months is really unneeded. It clutters what is a simple, effective and useful addition. Note that the opened column only contains years as well. oknazevad (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Oknazevad. The last extension date should be the year, not the exact date. For exact details, a reader can view the article about that particular system. —fudoreaper (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not like the extension because it could be a station opened in the middle of the existing stretch. If the consensus is for extension, I can live with that though. Year is definitely a good idea, if there are no further objections I will change that.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Ymblanter, the extension should include new stations opened in that year. Duesride (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like you are saying you don't like the word extension because a new station on an existing line is not an extension of the system, which implies lengthening—the new station adds no length. Perhaps we should use the word expansion instead. Services can be expanded by adding a new station, that's clear. But it opens up the possibilities of other types of expansion: Would the purchase of additional new trains count as expansion? Probably not. What about upgrades to allow more carrying capacity on a line? Perhaps more difficult. So some judgement would have to be used, but the term expansion might be better than what we have now.

—fudoreaper (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Chongqing metro and monorails

An anonymous editor updated the length of the Chongqing metro, so I updated the station count as well. Then, I noticed Note 4, which says: "Statistics for line 1 and 6 only; lines 2 and 3 are monorail and are not included"

Yes, Line 2 and 3 are monorails, no dispute there. But why shouldn't they count as part of the Chongqing metro? —fudoreaper (talk) 03:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Since there were no objections, I removed the note about not including monorail lines. I had adjusted the data already, so now the data includes all lines, and we don't have a note saying we are not including lines 2 and 3. —fudoreaper (talk) 03:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Wish I had seen this sooner. We don't in life monorails be aide they have their own list. As noted in the talk page archives, that's because they're a distinct technological standard. Indeed, it's already explained in the "considerations" section of this article. oknazevad (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we can reconsider this, as it is unnecessary technology-based discrimination. We already have rail-based and rubber-tyre based systems here (and these are very different technologies), so why not to include also monorail systems, if they meet the list criteria. Most of them simply will not meet them, but we can find few "urban, electric passenger transport system with high capacity and high frequency of service" (some Japanese, like Chiba Urban Monorail). --Jklamo (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that I didn't even read the considerations section before changing the content of the article. So thanks for setting the data back to what matches our criteria.

That being said, I'm shocked that the implemented technology is an important factor for inclusion in the list. To quote the first line of the section: "A metro system is defined as an urban, electric passenger transport system with high capacity and high frequency of service, which is totally independent from other traffic, road or pedestrians." This sounds like a good definition to me, and one that would include some, but not all, monorail systems. Tama Toshi Monorail Line is another example of a monorail that meets the one sentence definition of a metro. 16 km, 19 stations and 120k daily ridership.

Finally, a thing can be part of two categories at once. So a transit system could be part of a list of metro systems, and part of list of monorails. I see no deception or contradiction in listing it in two places. —fudoreaper (talk) 08:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the concern in prior discussions was that we didn't want systems to appear on more than one list to avoid confusion and give firm categorization, and that monorails are very different from standards two-rail metros from an engineering standpoint. I can see validity of both arguments. oknazevad (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Seoul metro figures

Recently an anonymous and annoying editor has changed the network length figures for the Seoul metropolitan subway. I am only interested in the facts, but Seoul seems to me a system that's fairly complex, meaning it's hard to define where the system ends, and where sub-urban, non metro rail begins. As I am writing, Seoul Metropolitan Subway's infobox says 957.4 km (327.2 km urban) and 337 stations (but also 592 stations vaguely). So I don't trust the figures in that article.

Does anyone know where to get reliable information about Seoul's subway system? —fudoreaper (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think this is just a matter how we define the system. For instance is the line going to Suwong a part of the system? Or the Incheon metro? We should just decide what we include to the table.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I have read what it constitutes to be a metro and have applied the strictest definition for the Seoul subway system. All lines in Seoul are electric, highly urban and are totally independent of from other traffic, with no access to pedestrians. Including the entire system would count to 957.4km but that includes many lines or sections that have a service frequency of 15 minutes during daytime, which wouldn't constitute to a high-frequency metro. Those lines are Gyeongui Line, Jungang Line, Gyeongchun Line and Suin Line, as well as the further most extensions of Line 1, Line 4 and Bundang Line. As per the article, I have excluded any line or section that have service frequency lower than 10 minutes during day time. It is made clear on the reference. This may change though, especially with Suin and Bundang, which are expected to merge into one line in 2015 (hence the same operator color). I will update them if the service frequency comes down to 10 minutes. Lines that are completely outside of Seoul, such as Incheon Subway Line 1, would count as a separate system despite a transfer station to Seoul Subway Line 7.118.33.54.136 (talk) 08:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

So what figure do you get for total length? "558.9 km and 429 statios" is what the page currently says, which makes it the longest in the world. This is significant, as many articles will mention the longest metro system in the world. Already Shanghai Metro says it's third longest, because of this article. What's bugging me here is that Seoul metro got about 150 km longer not because it expanded, but because people are counting differently. This suggests unreliable numbers are being used currently, or that wikipedia was quite wrong in the past. —fudoreaper (talk) 05:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with most of the inclusions in the short term but the non Seoul Metro sections of line 1 included worries me as Seoul-Incheon and Guro-Byeongjeom have KTX, intercity and/or freight service sharing the tracks with metro trains so this violates the definition of rapid transit. In the long term only Seoul Subway Line 3 - Jichuk~Daehwa and Seoul Subway Line 4 - Seonbawi~Ansan will still stand. As the Bundang Line and the AREX will be penetrated by KTX services in the near future.Terramorphous (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

They may seem like a single line but Seoul-Incheon and Guro-Byeongjeom do not share tracks with KTX, intercity or any other freight service. While they run close to each other, they run on completely independent grade-separated tracks - the subway cars have their own right of way and KTX or other trains will never come into their tracks. Hence, it does comply with this definition. I don't know where you got this information but the Bundang line will never have KTX service. It was only designed as a subway line. The Suseo-Pyeongtaek KTX line opening in 2015~2016 runs partially similar to the Bundang line but it is designed for KTX only. A section of AREX line (Digital Media City~Incheon International Airport) will receive KTX service later this year, but once again, its tracks will be completely independent from AREX subway service like Seoul-Incheon and Guro-Byeongjeom. Let me know if you have further comments, thanks! Duesride (talk) 11:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Also of note is that Guro-Incheon is an exclusive subway-only line. All other services terminated in 1974. Duesride (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone show a list of lines and the length of each line we are using to get a total of 558.9 km and 429 stations? I think that would help us all see how the total was arrived at, and we can examine each line separately. —fudoreaper (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Our article seems to have the list.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

But it includes, for example, Incheon Subway Line 1. Incheon cannot both be part of Seoul metro, and have its own entry in this list, right? Plus, the Seoul metro article includes the full 200 km of line 1, some of which is not a metro line, but is a suburban railway line. Issues like these two are exactly why we are having a hard time agreeing on the length of the Seoul metro system. Adding all those lines gives a total of 957.3 km, but on this list we show 558.9 km. Where does the 558.9 km figure come from? —fudoreaper (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not know. But the footnote says that only some lines were taken into account. If we take the total length of these lines, do not we get these 558.9 km? If not, we should probably correct one of the two, either the length or the list.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The Incheon subway is not counted as part of the Seoul subway in this list. If you read the reference, only rapid transit stations of Line 1 is included. The list on Seoul Metropolitan Subway includes all official subway lines - but not all of them conform to the American or western definition (such as service frequency typically lower than 10 min. during daytime), so I have applied the strictest definition on this article. I have made the reference clearer and simpler: Only includes rapid transit serviced stations in Seoul and their extensions, excluding the Incheon subway. Stations that have service frequency typically lower than 10 minutes during daytime are excluded. Transfer stations are not counted as one. Only the following sections are included:

• Seoul Subway Line 1 - Uijeongbu~Incheon, Guro~Byeongjeom: 102km/69 stations
  
• Seoul Subway Lines 2~9 - All stations
  
• Bundang Line - Wangsimni~Jukjeon: 33.6km/23 stations
  
• Sin Bundang Line: All stations
  
• AREX: Seoul Station~Geomam: 32.5km/7 stations

Duesride (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply, Deusride. I now see your detailed explanation on the main page in the footnotes. Thanks for that. I took a bit of a look at the figures, and they make sense to me, it appears you've used good judgement. I assume that in the past, no Wikipedia editor did such a careful job as yourself of arriving at a total figure. Once we had done that, we realize that Seoul is the longest system in the world. One minor detail, is that when I add up the lengths you've given, I get 563.7 km total. Not sure why we're out by 1.7 km. —fudoreaper (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the figures up, I can confirm it's 563.7km with 429 stations after double-checking on it. I have corrected the figure on the article. Duesride (talk) 07:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The figures for Seoul have been greatly exaggerated since January by including sections outside Seoul and mixing commuter rail with rapid transit. Such changes should be reverted.--Frysun (talk) 10:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok someone has a issue with it and now the box is open again. Firstly, Frysun I believe that these "newly discovered" lines are actually metros by my strictest definition:

• Bundang Line - Wangsimni~Jukjeon: 33.6km/23 stations
  
• Sin Bundang Line: All stations
  
• AREX: Seoul Station~Geomam: 32.5km/7 stations
• Korail sections of 3 and 4

In my definition is that the most important thing everyone missed is the whole line is grade separated and independent of traffic. I can overlook the 10min headway rule if a majority of the line exceeds that.

I think what fudoreaper and Ymblanter is great they discovered what I call the Ghost Metros. Tokyo was full of them such as Rinkai Line, Saitama Rapid, Toyo Rapid, and Tsukuba Express. But my issue is that of Line 1 and the methodology of cutting off sections that are not up to metro standards which is not what your supposed to do unless you use what I call the "though operation exception". I mostly derived the rule of of Japan but being that South Korean Rapid Transit is heavily influenced by it I think applying the same rule makes sense.

I'll start with a counter argument for line 1. If you applied that methodology to any large Japanese Subway that though operates, that means many particularly Tokyo and Osaka would double in size. For example:

Tokyo Metro Tōzai Line

On one end it though operates with the Toyo Rapid. The Toyo Rapid Railway is fully grade separated and only has traffic from its own trains and the Tozai Line trains. Its resembles the situation of Seoul Lines 3 and 4. In other words

• "real" metro <=> ghost metro

Which by my definition both should be counted which is what you did there for Seoul and what should be done for Tokyo.

On both ends it though operates with the Chūō-Sōbu Line which is mostly or completely grade separated in sections where the Tozai Line interlines. This situation reflects Seoul Metro line 1.

• "real" metro <=> grade separated extremely metro-like commuter line where the tracks that the interlined metro service continue significantly further and deteriorate in service standards in any end of any of the lines branches.

By my definition and what has been unintentionally and indiscriminately done so far on every case like this in Wikipedia (most of the situations are in Japan) is you must only use sections owned by the metro company. I agree with that judgment, so by that logic the extra ~100 km of line 1 should not be added.

If it didn't exist and we included the logic of cutting of what dosen't count; all of a sudden you will have RER, Japanese interline services or S-bahn with sections that are "rapid transit enough" to added to the count and non-metro sections being treated like they don't exist an the whole list will be a giant pissing contest of exceptions and technicalities. I know there is exceptions "rapid transit" to the rule here and there but other than that, it's fairly consistent. The last thing we need is another measuring standard that allows for more exceptions to be made. In this case allowing an exception for an extra 100km to pass the bar is a bit too much for me

So at the moment my tally stands at 461.4 km

This figure includes:

• Seoul Metro section of Line 1
• Lines 2-9
• AREX
• Sinbundang

This figure would still put Seoul first but not at a landslide. Also, I need to see the schedule of the Bundang Line to see how much of it is under 10 min in headway to make my assessment but the line is extremely metro-like, most of it is underground. In the future I think they will ramp up the frequencies when the extension to line 1 is complete but for now I left it out. Any thoughts?

Terramorphous (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Frysun. Because you ignored this talk page discussion, and merely stated your opinion, and then edited based on that, I have reverted all your recent changes to the main article list. Before you change the figures for Seoul, please explain to us which lines you are including, and excluding, and why. Then we can discuss whether your proposed edits are correct. As you can see, the current consensus disagrees with the figures you put up yesterday. —fudoreaper (talk) 06:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Well at the moment I disagree with method of counting and I don't really see a consensus as there is only 2 people actively discussing it I didn't even have time to reply and bam it's been dead and done. It should be set to back to original until the actual number has been reached. Like I said before adding +100km is a big deal especially if a new exception is made. Terramorphous (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

My previous figure was based on deducting the overblown part of Deusride's figure. After reading Terramorphous' comments I would partly agree with Terramorphous his tally. The 327.2km/306 stations figure for Seoul Metro/SMRT/Seoul Metro Line 9 is beyond doubt but I would be inappropriate to add 100km to Line 1. I think the same may be applied to Lines 3 and 4 as well given that Template:Seoul Metropolitan Subway distinguishes the metro part of all three Lines?

I oppose the inclusion of AREX and Sinbundang Line as they are too different to be bundled with other Subway lines: Both are operated by sui iuris companies based outside Seoul (Incheon and Seongnam respectively), both have different pricing schemes with other Subway lines, neither is recognized as Subway Lines on UrbanRail, neither uses the 1,500 V DC electrification system shared by other Seoul Subway lines, and neither is included in Seoul Government Statistics for subway ridership.

So the figure should be 327.2km/306 stations for Seoul Metro/SMRT/Seoul Metro Line 9 or 386.1km (461.4 km minus AREX and Sinbundang) if Korail part of Lines 3 and 4 are included.--Frysun (talk) 11:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I think electrification systems or tech is irrelevant many systems in the world have different technology running in different lines but you bring up a good point about the Sinbundang Line if a system is separated into 2 parts due to lack of integration say Tokyo Metro/Toei Metro, Foshan/Guangzhou Metro, or closer to home Incheon/Seoul Metro then the DX Line (or Seongnam Metro par say) and the AREX should be listed separately but not added to Seoul's tally but at I'll leave that open for further discussion and analysis.

Regarding Line 1: track layouts and usages resemble RER A, B and E. Which is a big issue.

See: [1] for RER.

Take RER A for example local trains are separated from other traffic and have dedicated tracks but run in the same corridors and have a central tunnel in the core that all the lines funnel into (like Seoul Metro Section of Line 1). Most similarly branded express trains on the same corridor run on the tracks shared with other rail traffic stop short (B-rapids) or become local (A-rapids) when approaching the central tunnel. Of course some of the ends of the RER lines continued as regular rail lines just (like Gyeongwon, Gyeongbu, Janghang, and Gyeongbu KTX Sections). RER is not deemed as rapid transit it called a hybrid system so Line 1 should be deemed as such. Even worse Duesride arbitrarily discounted sections that don't meet the criterion of rapid transit; a flawed methodology. I'll just subtract the the excess inflated values for Line 1 (~100km) for now as it is a fairly serious breach as including the korail sections of line one violates the European (shown in this post), Japanese (shown 2 post ago), and American (outright fails) perspectives on rapid transit. I'll leave the other lines in question on the tally for now as they have good cases for inclusion. Terramorphous (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems like there has long been a confusion of Seoul Subway with Seoul Capital Area Electric Railway--Frysun (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys i wish i had better information to add to this discussion, but I really don't. Frysun, I didn't really want to say your edits were wrong, just alert you to the discussion, and the contradictory opinions of what should be included. But it seems you have read this page and thought things through, which was my main point. Your changes are fine with me. —fudoreaper (talk) 06:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Fudoreaper you were absolutely right in alerting me. Thanks for the reminder.--Frysun (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It is wrong and outdated to distinguish between the unofficial "Seoul subway" and the official Seoul Metropolitan Subway. Seoul Subway is an unofficial, colloquial term that refers to lines operated by three companies (Seoul Metro,SMRT,Line9) and is never used in the subway maps, or the public anymore. The name dates back before 2000 when all lines in Seoul/Gyeonggi/Incheon (collectively the Seoul Metropolitan Area) were unified together under a single system. The most accurate name for the current subway system is the "Seoul Metropolitan Subway". Literally called Sudogwon Subway in Korean, its literal meaning is "Capital Area", which in English is always rtranslated as "Seoul Metropolitan Area" in the official subway maps. The word "electric" is never mentioned anywhere in the official maps - This seems to be completely made up. Seoul Metro's official English map says "Metro lines in Seoul Metropolitan Area".

Another reason why the most accurate term is "seoul Metropolitan Subway" is because many lines completely intersect the boundaries of Seoul, Gyeonggi and Incheon. Line 7, for example, starts at Uijeongbu, Gyeonggi, crosses Seoul and Bucheon, Gyeonggi, and terminates at Bupyeong, Incheon. Yet, if you apply the old "seoul subway" definition, we need chop off parts of it. Bundang Line starts at Wangsimni, Seoul, crossing Gangnam, Seoul, Seongnam, Gyeonggi and Yongin, Gyeonggi, terminating at Suwon, Gyeonggi. Again, the old definition doesn't work here. In other words, they're are a single system and that's why the term "seoul subway" is outdated and not used anymore. Line 1, 3 an 4 are even operated by two different operators and cross the three regions.

So the universal consensus among the official subway operators and general public is that it's a single system. The "Seoul subway" definition is only used for calculating the revenues of the three operators owned by the Seoul government. The purpose of it's existence is different. Its use as a official subway system and official route map has been removed since 2000.

Therefore, the articles that have been edited should be reverted back to the official "Seoul Metropolitan Subway" article. However, I agree with the points mentioned above that some do not qualify as subways under the definition here. Duesride confined it to the stricted definition as possible in terms of operation frequency. Basically he limited it to operation frequency to under 10 minutes - This is very strict and should actually be loosened because I saw many subway lines here that have frequencies as high as 15 minutes under daytime. All the lines listed were also grade-separated completely. I agree with Terramorphous, it doesn't matter whether it runs on different voltages as long as it is completely electric. Terramorphous, could you clarify on what sections of Line 1 count as a rapid transit and why? It seems you are confining it strictly to the section between Seoul Station and Chyeongyangni. The section between Incheon~Guro (also known as Gyeongin Line) is rapid transit exclusive (only grade exclusive subway cars with a separate line dedicated to express subway cars that skip certain stations) - I believe we should include this section as part of tally although I'm not sure if it's like the RER that you mention. I need to learn more about RER and how it applies to Seoul subway. What exactly is the definition of a "hybrid system"? Terramorphous, I can confirm that the Bundang Line has frequency of under 10 minutes from Wangsimni to Jukjeon (8 minutes to be precise). From Jukjeon to the rest, it's 15 minutes during daytime. For AREX, it's around 6 minutes for Seoul~Geomam, 12 minutes for the rest. You can download a seoul subway app to confirm.

Frysun - You are both correct and incorrect. AREX is operated by Korail actually, which is based in Daejeon. Sinbundang Line was originally part of the Seoul Subway Line 11 and will extend all the way to Yongsan in 2018. They're not included in the Seoul government's website because that only tracks ridership for lines owned by Seoul's government. The purpose of this is to measure revenue as I've mentioned before, not as an official subway system. Operation and ownership must be distinguished when looking at South Korean subways. I'm trying to get ridership statistics for the other lines but so far the ridership count is somewhat different in methodology, which is why it's not added as of yet. We'll figure it out though. Camins (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The most accurate tally would be close to Terramorphous' one (by excluding a large chunk of Line 1's section, although I need some technical clarification on this), which stands at

A total of 508.2 km rapid transit lines which includes:

• Line 1 (Seoul~Cheongyangni)
• Lines 2~9
• AREX
• Bundang
• Sinbundang

Camins (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

As an outside observer in this discussion (being I don't know enough about the Seoul system, however it's defined), it does seem that Terramorphous' list is the best for our purposes. But I'd be wary of declaring the Seoul system the longest in the world without at least one source stating such. Yes, the calculation of the total length from adding the individual lines is a simple calculation, the sort that doesn't constitute original research, but unless someone else makes the statement, we don't really know if the definition of what constitutes the Seoul system is a widely accepted one, and therefore not purely made up. oknazevad (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC) PS, Camins, you don't need to use break tags between paragraphs (a blank line will work) and using two per break creates unneeded white space.

fudoreaper, a hybrid system is a system that provided extremely metro-like service but it not actually "rapid transit" in the technical sense. Examples include:

• RER
• every large German city's S-Bahn system
• Crossrail

I confined the section between Seoul Station and Chyeongyangni because its is owned by Seoul Metro as per standard handling of Japanese systems (Seoul's system is heavily inspired by it). Though operation lengths of every subway line in Japan are discounted and who owns what trackage is used as a dividing line for inclusion (i.e only Tokyo Metro owned sections), regardless of the technical standard of "suburban" railway its though operating with. The only way you can count all of line 1 as metro is if all of korail's sections of line l is rapid transit not just one branch or section. Thats why the Korail section's of Lines 3 and 4 is counted because the whole line is rapid transit. I used RER as an example because some branches are not rapid transit so the whole line doesn't count. Plus, unlike Japan, they don't have 2 highly distinct operators (of which one is branded as and actually is a "metro system" that shall be counted in the tally) to draw a dividing line so the entire RER system is not counted. Duesride arbitrary used the cut whatever doesn't count which can lead to people scrambling to "scrape off" sections of their own commuter rail systems to be included into the list and all of a sudden the central section Frankfurt's S-bahn (city tunnel) and the underground section of crossrail is "rapid transit".Terramorphous (talk) 04:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Camins I think you were being misleading. The Korea Name 수도권 전철 is NOT Metropolitan Subway but Capital Area Electric Railway. The meaning of each Hangul character is more than clear.--Frysun (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

You're translating it from the characters, not the words. (I think you're getting it from Chinese characters) There's strong consensus among the official subway operators and official subway maps that have no mention of your "translation". Jeon means eelectric but Jeoncheol means subway. Capital Area always refers to Seoul Metropolitan Area. Your translation is literate and incorrect. Camins (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Let us all continue on Talk:Sudogwon Electric Railway#Name Page to address the difference between the two systems before coming back.--Frysun (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

If this page was the Korean page than the 한자 would be incredibly important, however this is concerning the English name. To know what the English name is one should simply look at a map provided by the system system; that is the official name. Do not attempt to retranslate it to suit what you think sounds best. Referring to the discussion on the Seoul Metropolitan Subway talk page no one suggested name changes for seven years before you changed it. ₪RicknAsia₪ 15:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Astram Line

What about Astram Line in Hiroshima ? It is totally independent rubber-tyred urban system. Capacity could be high, altough current frequency is medium (http://www.astramline.co.jp/01hon-h-d.pdf) - 10 min in daytime (higher in peak time for some parts of the line). --Jklamo (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Rotterdam

The Rotterdam Metro is an extensive system, goes to many different suburbs, however, some notable parts from the A, B and E-lines are not grade-seperated. From Melanchthonweg to Nootdorp on the E-line, it was a former commuter-railway and contains some railway crossings, despite its high frequency of 10 minutes. The A and B-lines have from Capelsebrug until either its terminus (A) or De Tochten (B) a tram-like infrastructure. As such, only the C- and D-lines are fully metro lines. Only these two qualify fully. --OPolkruikenz (talk) 08:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The New York Subway is less than half that length

the NY Subway is not as long as 1000 miles, I have seen figures ranging from 300-600, can someone find a reliable source that is consistent and correct this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.243.3 (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The figure here is the length in kilometers, not miles. And it is accurate. And new comments go on the bottom of the page. oknazevad (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, a vandal briefly changed it to 1000 overnight, I now reverted the figure back.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Number of lines column addition

I propose adding a column that shows the number of lines that each metro network has. It would be a way to give an idea of how extensive the metro line is. Eddypc07 (talk) 03:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it really does, though. System length and number of stations are better measures for that, as they truly show how much coverage the system has. Also, the number of lines can be quite deceptive, especially where there's a large amount of shared trackage, such as in Washington or New York (especially New York, with all the trunk lines). That said, it almost seems silly not to include some sort of line count, as its pretty much something readers would expect to see. So I could go either way depending on the consensus. oknazevad (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC) PS, new discussions to on the bottom of the page.

Agree, would be very difficult to implement.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

List of under construction/planned metro systems

I think there should be a list of under construction and/or planned metro systems added to the page, or in a separate page. Eddypc07 (talk) 04:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

This I oppose, as planning can take years, even decades, before construction starts, and then that may not even be completed. Just too many potential issues with the WP:CRYSTALBALL policy. Open is a a simple, objective criteria that keeps the list clean. oknazevad (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The page List of monorail systems has this, so I don't think why it would be a problem. Eddypc07 (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I think adding a list of metros currently under construction is a great idea. Once a metro actually is actually under construction, it is extremely rare that the work isn't completed. Compiling the list should be pretty easy since most new metro systems that our currently being constructed already have wiki pages. Lance Friedman (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you guys think a new page would we needed for this? or would it be good to do it on this same page? Eddypc07 (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The existing list of open/operational metros & the new list of cities with metros under construction should be kept strictly separate. But, if a new metro system currently under construction meets the same criteria (such as grade separation) as the existing metro list, I think it makes sense for the new list of under construction metros to be in the same wiki article below the existing list of operational metros. Metros, lines, & stations that are still just plans or proposals should not be included in the new list of under construction metros. If someone wants to make a separate list of planned and proposed rapid transit systems, there should be a link in this page. But, that actual list should be in a completely different page, since plans and proposals (unlike something that is actually under construction ) can morph into something that would not meet the criteria for a metro (or not be built at all). Lance Friedman (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Sao Paulo Metro figures

It's a common and irritating mistake for many sites to consider only the CMSP as the "Metro" in Sao Paulo because it's called The Metro Company, disregarding CPTM, which operate other metro lines. The definition of "Metro" is "medium or high capacity urban transport independent from all other traffic". Which CPTM lines do not meet this definition? None. So CMSP 74KM + CPTM 252KM commercially active lines = 326KM. Source for CPTM figure: http://www.cptm.sp.gov.br/e_contabeis/RelAdministrativo_2012.PDF - page 2 "252,1 Km de vias operacionais de uma malha total de 260,8 Km". The only difference between CMSP and CPTM is that the former operates lines built to be metro, whereas CPTM operates older conventional railroads converted to metro standards. Both companies charge the same fee, use the same metrocard and transfer between them is entirely free. They share a numbering system from 1 to 12 (soon to be 1 to 17). So I'm editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mopcwiki (talk • contribs) 00:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts on Subdividing The Metro Systems Table by Continent?

I notice that the single 'List of (current) metro systems' is getting rather long and unwieldy.

The List of tram and light rail transit systems page is subdivided into listing the systems, in separate tables ordered by continent (or, at least, is evolving to that on the page...) - though granted that page has an even longer list of systems than this one.

Still, might it not be worth considering splitting the 'List of metro systems' table up by continent as well?

Thoughts? -- IJBall (talk • contribs) 05:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Fine with me.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. This would eliminate any sort of comparison via sorting (the oldest, longest, most stations, etc.) and continents don't make good divisions anyway with a few having many metro systems, and a few having few or none. Mattximus (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mattximis; the purpose of having one large list (and its not thatlarge) is to allow for sorting by any column. Breaking it up by continent defeats that purpose. oknazevad (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Mattximus and I discussed this elsewhere, and I withdraw the proposal (though I still do think the increasingly long nature of this particular list, which is only going to get worse over time, is starting to impact its "readability" - I'm just not sure there's a solution for that...). --IJBall (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

We could get rid of the Metro systems under construction section (or move it to its own page). Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball and shouldn't really be speculating on systems of the future anyway. Mattximus (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's too short for its own page, and as long as the criteria of actually being under construction (that is to say shovels in the ground) and not just plans on paper, then it doesn't run afoul of CRYSTALBALL. It was just added after discussion two sections above here, and while I opposed at the time, the idea that its strictly for under construction convinced me. oknazevad (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

SEPTA - Norristown High Speed Rail Line

I think we need to talk more about this one.

First, this particular line uses a third-rail. I am not familiar with a light rail system in the U.S. that uses a third rail like this - all the ones that I know of that use a third rail are "rapid transit". Is there an example of another "light rail" that uses a third-rail? I could see categorizing this line as "commuter rail" instead of "rapid transit" maybe, but not "light rail".

SEPTA themselves consider this line to effectively be "rapid transit" as of 2009 (see the Norristown High Speed Rail Line Wiki page, with ref). So does the SETPA page on Wiki. Why is APTA a better arbiter of this than SEPTA themselves?

Lastly, can a reference from APTA be provided showing that they consider this line "light rail" (as of 2012-2013)? I tried looking for one online, but couldn't find anything.

I'm going to go ahead and restore the reverted reference for now. But I currently remain unconvinced that the Norristown High Speed Rail Line (NHSL) is anything by "rapid transit", and am going to need to be convinced otherwise... --IJBall (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

And still waiting... Note, also, that every other page on Wiki that deals with this also considers the NHSL to be heavy rail for the purposes of counting it (see, for example, the List of United States rapid transit systems by ridership, the List of rail transit systems in the United States, and the SEPTA, pages), as does the FTA itself in their own documents. Even an APTA doc from 2013 that I just dug up ( http://www.apta.com/mc/rail/program/Documents/tom-hickey-tour-march-20.pdf ) describes NHSL as "Light Rapid Rail Transit" (vs. types "Rapid Rail Transit" and "Light Rail"). NHSL is pretty conclusively "Rapid transit". So I am once again going to include it in the SEPTA stats on this page in the very near future... --IJBall (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems pretty conclusive to me. It's a definite change from the way the line has historically been considered. Older statistics don't include it, and it is overseen by the Suburban Transit Division, like the 101 and 102 trolleys, not the City Transit Division. But the NHSL is really a special snowflake. It is hard to categorize, but it seems that it's being called heavy rail nowadays. Though the APTA document does call it light. oknazevad (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Cool. (FTR, I think SEPTA themselves used to consider NHSL to be "light", until about 2010 when they recategorized it as "heavy rail". It's probably somewhere in the middle between "light" and "heavy", but maybe closer to "heavy"...) Anyway, I'll get to updating SEPTA on the list tonight, or in the next few days... --IJBall (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Tünel

If metro in Athens goes to 1869, Istanbul metro is also old too, not 2000 as in the list. It should be 1875 look at Tünel--Ollios (talk) 09:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Already included in the List of funicular railways. oknazevad (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The stations list is sorting as text

So a user looking for the least/most stations will sort those with 10/9 stations, respectively, to the top. It looks to me like the problem is the style="text-align:right" code for each city, but I don't want to replace them all one by one when I'm not that familiar with lists and risk screwing it up. If someone can confirm what needs to be done I'd be happy to help do it though. -Thomas Craven (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Whichever idiot made the number of stations sort alphabetical just cost me a virtual £1m on the million pound drop TV show. ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.93.140 (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC) (Comment relocated by --IJBall (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC))

Fixed. Apparently, all that needed to be done was for a 'data-sort-type="number"' header to be added to the "Stations" column. But it should properly sort now. --IJBall (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. oknazevad (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Seoul

Figure for Seoul obviously includes commuter railways, which are not included for other cities. Elk Salmon (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

See here for reasons Terramorphous (talk) 01:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I know. I was seeing explanations. But the problem is that it uses double standards. Tokyo is not given with sum of all urban rapid transit railways. It separated into Tokyo Metro, Toei Subway, Yamanote Line etc. Moreover most Tokyo urban rapid transit lines are not included at all - Seibu, Tokyu, Odakyu, Keio etc etc. Moscow's 54-kilometer Small Railway Ring is undergoing entire rebuilding. After rebuilt it will have metro/yamanote like service. How would you count it then? We need some more common standard - if Seoul groups and sums its urban railways, then other cities should do the same. Elk Salmon (talk) 11:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a definition of what constitutes to urban rapid transit under Seoul subway's note - the train frequency should be under 10 minutes during typical daytime for at least half of the day. What you have to know with Seoul is that it is a giant metropolitan area that's continuously urban even with the surrounding provinces, so even subways crossing border act as subways in their own city borders and inside the metropolitan area. Bundang Line is a good example of that. Marzians (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not denying that most included into Seoul are rapid transit systems. I'm saying that approach is inconsistent - if Seoul groups and sums its urban railways, then other cities should do the same. We either should group or sum all cities into single group or single entry with total urban rail networks per city, or every network should be given separately with separate entries and route length per network rather than per city. Elk Salmon (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, other metropolitan areas should do the same if their network fully complies with the definition of a rapid transit. We should really sort them the way they are done on official subway maps (like Tokyo metro's subway map). But we shouldn't put a dubious tag on Seoul's count because of inconsistency - the count itself is accurate. Marzians (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Under Construction

Does the columns for length and stations make sense in this context? Is it the length when the metro first opens? Is it the total length planned? Is it the length of track currently under construction? Same with number of stations. I'm wondering if we should do away with those 2 columns altogether. Mattximus (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It should definitely be whatever is actually under construction AND will be opened when it officially begins service. Any more than that would be speculation and beyond the scope of the section. If they are not known, those columns should be left blank. -Multivariable (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid that in many cases it that section there are figures for whole planned systems, even if only first phase of construction started. My opinion is get rid of these 2 columns.--Jklamo (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Deleted the 2 columns. I also found that many of these lack citations, and one that is sourced (Esfahan metro), the links do not contain any mention of the completion date posted. I believe the date of 2013 is very dubious. I haven't looked into others yet but there are some quality control issues here. Mattximus (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Mistakes about Harbin Metro

I just checked the article in Chinese; the construction of Harbin's first subway started in 2008 and finished in 2012, but on this page, it says it started in 2013, and still not completed? I don't think this kind of slow speed would be allowed in China — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.8.191 (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• The under construction section is dubiously sourced, once Harbin Metro is complete and promoted to the main list, the construction start date is no longer a field and the problem should resolve itself. Mattximus (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Shanghai Stations

The Shanghai Metro states that there are 251 stations, but when you count interchanges multiple times the number is 300. I believe the 300 station number is misleading, since there are 251 actual stations. I'm not sure what the custom is for counting interchange stations as multiple stations... Mattximus (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Copenhagen Metro & S-train

Who keeps deleting Copenhagen's S-train from the list? It's as much a metro system as 'Copenhagen Metro' - just different operators. S-train is the backbone of Copenhagen's infrastructure. An edit war is silly, but at least some arguments would have been nice.

Urbanrail's definition of a metro system:

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)

S-train fulfills these definitions. Almost all stations are within the urban area of Copenhagen.

There are talks of making one umbrella operator for the S-train and Metro, but until then, who's to decide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theonehello (talk • contribs) 23:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure either way, but for consideration:

• The website you quoted also says "The S-tog is almost like a metro".
• The S-tog only runs a few of its lines on weekends, and even then it's only every 20 minutes. Which is very commuter-rail like.

Mattximus (talk) 03:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Not true: The S-train has fewer train lines on weekends, one per rail line, in opposite to two train lines per rail line on workdays (where one of them is a skip-stop line). But in the weekend they run every 10 minute. See [2]. --BIL (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• The link you sent does show most of the lines on the weekend after 6pm run on 20 minute intervals. So nearly half the time on the weekends it's running in 20 minute intervals much like a commuter rail, unless I'm reading this incorrectly? Mattximus (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The defintion of S-trains as more railway than metro is historical. They are mostly based on converted railways, usually not custom built for metro, and operated by the state railway company.     This is very much the same case as for Berlin and Hamburg S-Bahn which are also totally separated railways which go with metro frequency. We have sorted out how to categorize them a long time ago and shouldn't start over again. --BIL (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

FTR, this is what I (personally) look for in a "Metro" system (aside: I'm glad this list doesn't use the term "rapid transit", as I find that far more nebulous than the term "Metro" or "subway"...) - and feel free to pick these basic criteria apart if you like, but it's what I go by...:

1. Primarily underground (yes, there are exceptions here - e.g. Vancouver SkyTrain - but it's a decent starting point).
2. Trains run often - e.g. every 10 minutes, or less, during most of the day
3. Close station distance - e.g. most stations are spaced less than 1 km apart.

From everything I've seen, Copenhagen's S-Trains fail all three of these criteria (#1 & #3 more than #2, but still...)

Now this is one of those systems that's contentious. But, from what I've seen from the archives, the general consensus is that Copenhagen's S-Trains don't meet the Metro criteria. And, if I'm offering up an opinion, I completely agree that this S-Train doesn't meet the definition, and so should not be included in the list (as it traditionally hasn't been).

If someone can offer up a reference where, say, at the level of EU analysis, Copenhagen's S-Trains are considered "Metro", well then that would be different.

FWIW. --IJBall (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Every metro go less often in late evening. For example among similar sized cities, Stockholm Metro go every 15 min by evening. [3] (sorry Swedish only) The 10-min principle must be referring to daytime workdays. --BIL (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, which would answer my #2 (though see Mattximus, above). But it still doesn't get to #1 or #3. (In my mind, the biggest hurdle for Copenhagen S-Train is the approximately "average 2 km distance" between stations - that strikes me as very "un-Metro-like".)

Again, I think if an authoritative reference could be produced categorizing this system as "Metro", most editors would be convinced. But to my (untrained) eye, this particular system misses the cut.

In any case, consensus is going to be needed for this system's inclusion in the list, and I'm not sure that we have that yet. --IJBall (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I will drop this discussion, partly since this system is not known in Scandinavia as a metro system, partly becasue of history and its operation by the national rail operator, partial parallel to normal railways, and because of the low share of underground (the main tunnel has both S-trains and mainline trains along its entire length). --BIL (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks.

Note that there's no personal animus directed towards the Copenhagen S-Train system here - it's just one of those "borderline" systems that most of us feel "just misses the cut" as a Metro system. (It's actually one of a number of systems that I wonder why it isn't categorized more accurately as "Light rail", but that's a separate discussion...)

Anyway, in light of this discussion, I will now go ahead, and remove this system from the list. --IJBall (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Same is the case for the Stockholm T-bana and especially the Oslo Metro (which recently got rebranded). The somehow larger average distance between the stations is a valid point, but I still think these criteria are more important:

1. High frequency on every line, doubled in day-time. Some lines even have night-service (which isn't true for most of the world's larger metro systems).

2. Almost every station are within the Copenhagen urban area (read: not metro area - the local and regional trains functions are more commuter-like - and have nothing to do with the S-train).

3. More underground stations on the S-train network would be nice, but I really don't think that is what qualifies a metro system. Intercity trains spanning the Great Belt and Oresund are not metro links, just because they run in huge underground tunnels.

The use patterns, frequency and the fact that S-train is a seperate Copenhagen network are important factors.

DSB (the S-train operator) even bid on the M1 & M2 lines.

As said, I won't put S-train back - but I really don't agree with the conclusion - we wouldn't even have this discussion if they had decided to brand the S-train and Metro under one 'Metro'-umbrella.

Theonehello (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we still might, even if they were unified under the same system management, as you could then argue that you have a situation like the Los Angeles Metro (and a few other systems...), where some lines are clearly "Metro" and some aren't.

But I think without a authoritative reference categorizing it as "Metro", it will be hard to get consensus to include a system (or lines) like this one.

I imagine if both systems are put under the same transit system "umbrella", the question would be revisited then, however. --IJBall (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

No difference between S-Train and S-Bahn (Berlin & Hamburg)

There are two different metro systems in Copenhagen,the metro and the S-train 100% eqviliant to S-Bahn in Hamburg and Berlin. Or rather more up to standard than Hamburg S-Bahn - since the entire system is without one-level crossings between rail and roads. (In Hamburg there are parts of the system that does not fulfill this requirement (and also track sharing with regional trains. However this is outside Hamburg city/state). Back to Copenhagen S-train. Much of the system are build on old railways - but so are London Underground aswell! All tracks are separated from other train traffic, electrified, spaces for standing and cykles etc. And 10 minites per line all day. Only Sundays differ. Thats usual in all metro net system. There are not much underground parts, but that's not a concideration. I will put i back. If anyone wants to remove it again, he or she then also must erase similar system. I fail to see any problem. Boeing720 (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Germany

The german section contains a lot of errors. One ist discussed here (but only from non-germans: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_metro_systems/Archive_3#Berlin_.3F.3F http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_metro_systems/Archive_6#Which.2C_if_any.2C_S-Bahn_systems_should_we_include_here . Reading it as german i see that the people who wrote there don't know difference of the german networks which running on rails. The S-Bahn in Berlin is a ordanary railway like england railways with 3re rail. Before it had the 3rd rail, which was added between 1920 and 1930 (North-South-Tunnel opened 1939), there were high frequent service with steam locomotives on the tracks. Today on the tracks are still running other trains. In Hamburg is the same situation. Frankfurt U-Bahn is a lightrail network. If you look at urbanrail.net (which is hosted by a german) only the U-Bahn of Hamburg, Berlin, Munich and Nuremberg are listet as metro networks. So i make the same corretions i make days before. (Contact R Schwandl and he will say the same) Greetings from germany --93.228.69.163 (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

This seems like a big change to make without further discussion about it... --IJBall (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

...And I have reverted the edit in the meantime, due to the major formatting issues. --IJBall (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

This IP-user forgets that S-Bahn and U-Bahn are connected on all metronetz maps. You won't find any official schematic map of Berlin U-Bahn without it also includes the S-Bahn. And the same applies to Hamburg. There are though other cities with S-Bahns that is not up to standard in Germany. For instance S-Bahn in Rostock and Magdeburg, since regional trains and S-trains share tracks. But this isn't the case in Copenhagen or Berlin (and only outside Bundesland -"Hansastadt Hamburg"). And the IP user that states that "other trains run on S-train tracks" are wrong. On the central part "Berliner Stadtbahn" is it called for tourists, since it's elevated with good view, both S-train and several other kind of train runs - but not by sharing tracks. There are four tracks all the way from Westkreutz to Ostkreutz. Opinions of "what a common rail is" is of no matter, a metro system is defined by the considerations. Boeing720 (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Another Chinese city has a metro system

Chinese city Harbin inaugurated its brand new line one subway on Sepetember 26, 2013, making it the lastest Chinese city to have a metro system. The first phase of the metro line one covers a distance of 17.47km with 18 underground stations, the entire metro line is underground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.246.26.28 (talk) 04:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Map of Copenhagen Metro and S-train

This map shows Copenhagen City Limits (excluding suburbs like word-famous Elsinore (with Kronborg Palace that Shakespeare wrote about in Hamlet and Roskilde ) Outside the city limits, only a few stations exists. Map include Copenhagen S-train and Metro. Its obvious that its primary use is urban. Not suburban. Boeing720 (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Not that it matters but I don't believe that is a map of Copenhagen city limits. For example, the airport is outside of the city limits, but not on this map. The map also shows that most of the stops are in a place called "northern suburbs" which I believe lies almost entirely outside of city limits (not sure if it's entirely or just mostly), so it does sure sound like a suburban commuter rail. However, I'm not sure whether to include or not, leaning towards include as a functional metro. Mattximus (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I still oppose Copenhagen's S-Train inclusion, for the reasons I outlined above. Though I suspect I would change my tune on the question if it was unified under the same transit "umbrella" as the Copenhagen Metro. But, for now I would not include it, as it very clearly states on the Copenhagen S-Train wiki page that it's a commuter rail system, and for the reasons I outlined above I think it's not quite "Metro" (maybe closer to "light rail", actually...). The other thing that could change my mind is an authoritative reference. --IJBall (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

To IJBall, there is no consideration that a metro system must be under ground at all. The Loop in Chicago is included. Whithin the city core (and urban area) the station distances are equal to f.i. Moscow Metro , Berlin S-Bahn , Hamburg S-Bahn.

There are two lines (to Frederikssund and Hillrød) where distances get long up to 8 km I belive. The line to Køge (south) was constructed as S-train from the beginning and also here occur 3-4 km distances between stations toward the southern end. But here will be build more stations by 2018. Anyway line extensions cannot be a strong issue. Note insted that there are five junctions and two different ways through the most populated areas. Concidering "Northern Suburbs" this simply means that they are outside Copenhagen municipality, but within the urban area. You may compare with Google maps. Of the 85 stations, atleast 70 is whithin the urban area. In general Copenhagen municipality is very small, only around 75 km² of land area. Whithin this area is Frederiksberg municipality located "like an island". There has been no incorporations of new territories to Copenhagen municipality since 1902. Even Amager is divided between three municipalities and the border between Copenhagen and Tårnby isn't possible to note. This is only Danish tradition, but hence -out of 1.2 million city inhabitants only 560.000 lives in the municipality. Including suburbs (Elisinore/Helsingør, Roskilde, Hørsholm, Hillerød, Køge, Frederikssund, Frederiksværk) the metropolitan area (approx 3000 km²) counts very close to 2 million. Further the Copenhagen S-train is far more up to standard than f.i. Oslo T-Bane, which entirelly are build on former "førortsbaner" or suburban rails. The city center counts only 4 or 5 stations and the circular branch is located around the city centre. The main local network in Oslo are the trams, not the T-bane. And yet again, Copenhagen S-train is very similar to Berlin S-Bahn. (and better than Hamburg S-Bahn, as I've explained) The Berlin S-Bahn has lines that even reaches Potsdam and elsewhere in the German state of Brandenburg ! With very long distances far out from the city centre. If Copenhagen S-trains isn't included then also Oslo T-Bane and all German S-Bahns must also be erased according to the same principles. Boeing720 (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

And someone has changed Copenhagen S-train to the wrongful "commuter rail". It is an urban local train system, without crossings and 100% tracks of their own. (The S-trains even uses a different signal system and power system compared to other trains, I think it is 1500 V DC, other trains uses AC power - or diesel) that is under the same "umbrella" as the Copenhagen Metro, Oresundtrain, regional and inter-regional trains (aswell as diesel driven local trains far out of the city centre). The Copenhagen metropolitan area (described above) is diveded into close to 100 ticket fare zones. You pay for minimum 2 zones and maximum 9 zones (a 9-zone ticket is valid in all zones, even if 15 are crossed). A such single ticket is valid 1 hour, 1½ hrs or 2 hours from stamping the ticket, whithin that time the last change of system or line must be done. There are of course several types of travel cards. And the same tickets are valid (whithin the metropolitan area) at metro, s-train, busses etc, however not at Inter City trains and Express trains. Boeing720 (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I think we need an independent reference categorizing the system as a "Metro", then. --IJBall (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

At http://region.trafikken.dk/hovedstaden/trainmetro.asp and http://region.trafikken.dk/hovedstaden/hovedstaden.asp (in Danish) You can see that S-tog and Metro are under the same umbrella. "Hovedstaden" means "Capital city" (litterary "the Head city"; "Hoved-" is "Head" and "-staden" is "the city") Hjere You can see the common ticket fare zones http://www.moviatrafik.dk/dinrejse/kort/zoneoversigt/Documents/Hovedstadsomraadet/1.pdf Some information in English http://www.dsb.dk/om-dsb/in-english/city-passes/copenhagen/ (note about tickets "all valid for buses, trains and the Metro in the Greater Copenhagen area". However on DSB IC-train and IC-lyn-train You need a seated ticket. There are also other operators, like Swedish SJ. DSB doesn't mention this at all. S-train and Metro has different operators (currently DSB S-tog and Metro A/S) but both are integrated. Here is a plan of the metro (including lines under construction) , note that all changes to the S-trains are marked with the S-train symbol. http://m.dk/#!/ Summary

• 170 km of dual, separated, electrified tracks
• the S-train and Metro are under the same umbrella
• the S-trains are equal to S-Bahn of Berlin and (better fulfills the conciderations than) S-Bahn in Hamburg
• the S-trains uses a red S-symbol at evry station
• the S-trains run on tracks and platforms of their own
• there are no one-level crossing with cars or pedestrians, not even at stations. All platforms are reached by passsengers through pedestrian tunnels or bridges. Lifts/elevators exists at all stations. Escalators at many.
• 32 stations are located within the city core and 68 whithin the urban area (out of 85)
• Through both the city branches the stations are elevated, in open trenches or tunnels. Apart from the two described tunnels ,there also exists several areas of smaller tunnels and open trenches (then I do not count common bridges etc).
• 10 minutes between each train at evry line until the evening. In the city core a train departures evry second or fifth minute. Only "commuting extra line" , line Bx, departures only 3 times in the morning and afternoon.
• 24-hour service nights after Friday and Saturday. Elsewise from 5 am to 1 am (Sundays later start and reduced capacity (but no stations are closed like at London Underground)
• Trains without toilets and they are adapted to heavy urban use including standing areas, and areas for cykles. 4,6,8 or 12 cars. (the 12 cars are 8+4 trains)
• Separate and different signal and power system, compared to all other electrical trains.

What else is needed ? See also the conciderations in the article and S-Bahn article Boeing720 (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Official metronet map http://ciff.dk/files/S-tog%20og%20Metro%20DK-UK%2004.2013.pdf (exists at the Metro and S-stations) Boeing720 (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I do tend to agree, but I think this debate can be settled with a single reliable (official?) source that calls it a "metro system". I think that should suffice for consensus. Mattximus (talk) 02:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Can't we, in order to avoid discussions about personal opinions what the definitions is, include borderline system in the list, such as Copenhagen S-trains, Berlin S-Bahn, San Francisco BART, but mark them as "borderline" systems or similar.   The reason for lists like this one, is to help readers to find articles about such systems. This discussion is very hard to settle, since there are various ambiguous criteria, like separation, history, local name etc. The Copenhagen S-train fulfils all criteria for a metro system, but is not locally known as such since it is defined as a special part of the Danish railway network (similar to the Berlin S-Bahn).--BIL (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

That's why the need for an independent reference is important - it's supposed to remove editors' personal opinions from the equation by citing an external agency on the question.

At first glance, I like your 'Note' idea, but I quickly realize that it reintroduces the same issues - i.e. who decides which systems are "borderline"? I mean, I know which systems I personally think are "borderline", but I suspect my list of those kinds of systems would be different from every other editors'...

So we're back to needing an independent reference, I think. --IJBall (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

To BIL. You are "on the right track", I think. The importaint issue is that the same "rules"/conciderations applies to all. There cannot be one rule for Copenhagen and another for Berlin, Hamburg , and also Oslo T-bane. Agree fully in theargument of thinking of the readers. And it is also well formulated reguarding the local point of view. There is simply no official classification, but until the mid 1990's the S-trains actually was the only electrified tracks in entire Denmark! The most common "classification" is "lokaltog" , "local trains" (very confusing since that term also is used for single track diesel trains that starts where the S-trains stops -or "bybane"; "city rail". Simply only due to local traditions, and thefact that before "Wikipedia-time" began, there was simply no need for comparing. And then Copenhagen Metro came, so labeling the S-trains as a metro system become confusing. I think You also agree with me (?) To IJBall, This list is not a scientific matter. I do not fully understand what You really mean by "independant reference". Where are the "independant references" to all other meto systems ? And You have preaviously stated that "You would change tune, if the Metro and S-train are under the same umbrella", which indeed isa fact. Am I really that bad in explaining these matters ? Who has decided that Berlin S-Bahn, Hamburg S-Bahn and Oslo T-bane are metro system ?, just as examples ? The Oslo T-bane is to 95% constructed from old førortsbaner , or "suburban light railways" connected to each other with one 1 km long tunnel (and there was approx 1.5 km tunnel for some of the surburban light rails). It's still far less urban than Copenhagen S-train is, if counting number of stations in the city centre. And the lines surelly reaches far beyond the Oslo municipality and urban area. Just as S-Bahn in Berlin and Hamburg. There cannot be different rules only for Copenhagen S-trains. So - if evry concideration is proven, I think that is enough. The only possible alternative is to question almost all other listed systems, remember one concideration is "the name of the system is not significant". Boeing720 (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

You aren't needing to convince just me - you need to convince all the other editors.

The reference is important because, otherwise, we're just taking your word for it. If this system is so "obviously Metro" as you say, finding a reference saying that shouldn't be hard to find. Once provided, consensus for its inclusion in the list should be easy to obtain, as Mattximus was saying above. And it isn't just "me" saying that - this is standard operating procedure on Wiki. So I'd appreciate it if you'd stop implying that it's just me saying so. --IJBall (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I've never stated "obviously Metro", just the same as S-Bahn Berlin, S-Bahn Hambug and Oslo T-Bane - and lots of to me totally unknown listed systems. You give havn't given any answer to these issues at all. There are no special sources which applies to them eighter. If You read "conciderations" - and all of them are proven, then that ought to be enough for listing the system as "Metro". Otherwise the conciderations must be changed. I'm talking of principles. The same rules must apply to all listed systems. Since there is no extern references to any listed system, I cannot understand what makes Copenhagen different ? As of now, Copenhagen is excluded for unknown reasons. Boeing720 (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is a reference by the way http://bybane.net/ - in Danish. The word "by" means "settlement of any size", and "bane" means "rail". Together in this context "Bybane" means "City rail" though. It includes the Metro and the S-trains. Boeing720 (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC) Forgot "Bybane.net - om bybaner i København" means "- about city rails in Copenhagen". And here is the official traveller guide http://www.rejseplanen.dk/ is available in English (You must press "In English-button"). You can input two stations (metro or S-train, see schematic map above) and press "Find journey"-button and then the program returns where to change and lots other info. Be sure to use a local time between 5 am and midnight. Boeing720 (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, so the next issue is - when did this system achieve "Metro" status? Because it definitely hasn't been a "Metro" system since 1934... --IJBall (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If now the discussion is about Oslo T-Bane, the term appeared as a rail line in operation, in 1966.

Sorry - I meant Copenhagen S-Tog(?): when can that be dated to be a full "Metro" service? Because I'm guessing the trains weren't running with a 10-minute frequencies back in the 1930s (that must have come later)... --IJBall (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know for how long Banedanmark has classified S-tog in this way. However until the 1990's the S-train system were the only tracks that were electified in Denmark. That Origin was more concentrated to the Copenhagen, Frederiksberg and Gentofte municipalities, they were together concidered to be "the Capital City" (danish Hovedstaden) until the 1970's. The tracks has always been separated from other trains and other traffic. In f.i. Copenhagen tourist information guides in German, from the 1980' and 1990's, they are refered to as S-Bahn. And a S-train schematic map has always been included i all such tourist information maps. And since Copenhagen Metro opened in 2002, the map is changed into a joint S-train/Metro map. Parts of the S-rail has been converted into the metro (Valby - Frederiksberg). (Although the system has grew since then. And not only by expanding. The following stations are of more recent dates Bispjeberg , Ålholm, KB Hallen , Danshøj, Flintholm, Vigerslev Allé. In 2002 the station Ellebjerg was closed instead of the new junction station Ny Ellebjerg. Also note that the lines that runs to Hillerød, Frederikssund and Køge previously ended at Holte, Ballerup and Vallensbæk. In short, since the S-trains always has been running on their own (electrified) dual tracks I think the year 1934 still is the best. Boeing720 (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The real issue was - how often were trains running in the 1930s? If they weren't running with 10-minute frequencies back then (as I suspect they weren't), then it wasn't truly a Metro system back then. My guess (and it's only a guess) is that the train frequencies in this system weren't increased to every 10-minutes (or sooner) until the-1960s-through-the-1980s sometime. It would be good if someone could track this down, as I strongly suspect the 1934 "Opening year" figure used is really misleading in this particular list... --IJBall (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

All I know about the original time tables are that train departured at certain minutes, and several each hour. Until the last couple of years there were about twice as many lines as today, but they departured every 20th minute instead. For most stations this ment no difference. That goes back to the 1960's atleast. Probably longer. My guess is that when the first branches of the S-train system opened, it started with 20 minutes per line. Things then got very complicated between 1940 and 1945, due to the German occupation.

The question must also be asked for all other older (or very older) systems. How often did the Metropolitan Line in Watford and London departure back in 1863, by the way ? It really wasn't until far far later the label "London Underground" came in use. Old maps shows "underground railways in London" etc, but we don't question the 1863 opening, do we ?

Boeing720 (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, that's a good point - I'd bet that a lot of the 19th Century systems that are listed here weren't, in fact, up to true "Metro standards" until well after their starting dates. That's a separate issue we can all talk about. On my end, I'm focusing more on the 20th Century systems, and trying to figure out when they truly achieved "Metro standards". In the specific case of S-Tog, it doesn't seem to have started out as, nor was it originally conceived as, a "Metro" (or "subway") system, but possibly evolved in to becoming one after its inception. That's why when it became a true "Metro" system is relevant, IMHO.

Also, if as you say there used to be more lines running at 20 minute-intervals before, but they went to fewer lines running every 10 minutes a few years ago, then it seems to me like that would be the logical year to mark for the "transition to Metro standards" for this particular system. We could put that year down in the table, along with a note mentioning the 1934 founding date as well. --IJBall (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

About 20 minute time tables, I remember that it was not long time ago that the "F-line branch" formally was served by two letters F and possibly G. However there has been no true change. I really have no idea of why two lines were showed on the schematical maps. All stations on the branch was served every 5 minute then aswell. A guess is that one of the lines later should differ in path somehow. (For a brief period when a tunnel was constructed between Svanemøllen and Ryparken, I belive that one of the lines continued to Klampenborg, since the usual line could not continue during the work) But after the tunnel was opened, the "dual-line" continued. I belive this was the case for some other lines aswell. One true differency I can recall though, was when the branch to Frederikssund (after Ballerup) first was opened, then it run on single tracks and 20 minute between the trains (the Ballerup-Frederikssund part only). This was in "my time", possibly the late 80's or early 90's. But this previous partial limitaion applied only to Ballerup - Frederikssund (and there were originally only three stations after Ballerup aswell, 7 today and I've read about "requests" for more stations). So one could argue that with exception of (approx) 5-10 years after the opening of Ballerup-Frederikssund line extention, the entire system did't fulfill all conciderations. One of the stations at the branch to Hillerød isn't marked on maps, and could be subtracted. It's something of a "military station" with very few stops. (See List of Copenhagen S-train stations.) I know of no other lines that ever has runned on single tracks. "Subway" (in American English) does suggest something different than "metro" (according to the stated conciderations). I do not think Copenhagen S-trains to be "a subway system". [In England a subway is a pedestrian path under buissy streets, by the way, and completely off-topic].

About Copenhagen in general, I know that in 1949 a "master plan" for the future development of Copenhagen, known as the "Fingerplan" ("Finger plan"). The city as of 1949 was "the hand" and the city should grew as fingers with green areas in between. Each such finger should get S-train service. This did work fine towards Køge, Roskilde (Høje Taastrup) and (to a certain extent) Frederikssund, than in the more fancy nortern parts, that grew from existing villages.

I truely can understand Your eager to find out when older systems reached a certain standrard, "at what time did the older systems reached the metro standard of today ?" - question. Based on Your comment. But I think that, this possibly has changed over time. It's difficult to compare the standards of today with the ones 50 or 100 years ago. What was concidered good service in the 19th century or in the 1950's may be different from today. And a subject which possibly calls for OR, if even that is possible. But if You f.i. can find a source for the Budapest metro original time tables (one of the oldest in the world, but a system that didn't recieve any further development for a very long after the fall of the Austo-Hungarian Empire in 1918) Or any other really old system, then perhaps it would be possible. I not not object to changing of years, if sourced and fair. But I've got a feeling that others may object. Perhaps many sytems were concidered "Metro", "Metropolitana", "Undergroud", "U-Bahn", "Tunnelbana" or "Subway" at the time of the opening (but that doesn't apply to London Underground as early as 1963). A better idea is perhaps to add one more column for "Year of Metro service of modern requirements" (and the other maintained for "very first opening"). But that's a lot of work.

Boeing720 (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

About "transition to Metro standards". The Copenhagen S-train system was separated from other railways beginning 1934. A new technical system was then installed, that is electric propulsion, which was not used anywhere else in Denmark before 1986 and higher platforms. Other passenger trains were not using S-train tracks because of congestion and platform height, and obviously S-trains could not go elsewhere. This system was built inspired by Berlin S-Bahn. That year 1934 is my "transition to Metro standards" as it was separated from other traffic, using own standards including high platforms, which is a metro criteria.--BIL (talk) 07:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

There would still be the issue of system headway - what you describe could also be considered "light rail" if the headway was greater than 10 minutes back in the 1930s. --IJBall (talk) 03:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

What's ment by "system headway" ? Anyway in 1934 Klampenborg - Vanløse - Frederiksberg (except Bispjeberg and Flintholm) was the first line. The same year also Vanløse - Valby and Valby - Hellerup opened. It was like a circle wich included a branch towards the centre, the Vanløse - Frederiksberg part. This describes the electrified dual track sytem only. The line-paths are unknown to me. But most stations got atleast 10 minutes between departures in each directions. If You are confused by Frederiksberg as S-train station, this is due to the fact that Vanløse - Frederiksberg became a part of Copenhagen Metro system in 2002. The tunnel (which originally was ment to go to København H and continue to northern Amager)

couldn't be build as sceduled due to the German occupation, but an other line could still be opened in 1941. The German occupation 1940-45 became an obstacle to the S-train development long time afterwards. It's very difficult to establish time tables from 1934. And again, f.i. "London Underground" as a metro system wasn't really up to (a common) standard until a long time into the 20th century. I've seen maps of underground railroads of London, were different lines could be privatly owned. The Waterloo & City line in London was a good example of that kind. And even the New York Subway was divided into three different systems into the 1960's. And what about time tables from old USSR systems (Moscow and former Leningrad), these were most possibly "a national secret" during the Stalin-era.

In general, if an old system (lets say pre-WW2) fulfills the current conciderations, then a very good reason isneeded to change the opening year, I think.

However I must give You, IJBall, my best credits possible, for your efforts in this article especially due to the sourceing. (Sorry for misspellings, I seldomly use dictionaries for talk-pages.) Best reg 83.249.164.158 (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise that I wasn't logged in, however the talk-page contribution above (83.249.164.158, 1:14, 26 September 2013 UTC, dynamical IP within a certain range ) is written by me, sorry once again Boeing720 (talk) 03:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

"system headway" - see headway, in general the time between trains. Regarding the headway in Old Copenhagen, it was probably longer, because much fewer people lived on a further distance from inner-city, therefore less demand. People in general had much shorter distance between work and home. But that was so for many cities and many metros. If you require every metro to have had 10 minute headway from start before 1940, would exclude many metros. --BIL (talk) 08:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

That is probably a fair point. And I'd probably make the cut-off for things like system headway more like the 1960s and 1970s - I'd bet very few systems were running trains more frequently than every 10 minutes before about 1970...

And, thanks Boeing, on the referencing thing - that has been a very useful project, and I'll plan on plugging away on it for this list, and the List of tram and light rail transit systems over the coming months. --IJBall (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Mashhad

I think we must reconsider Mashad system. It is:

• separated from other traffic (mostly underground)
• used within city
• possibly has high service frequency (there is something about frequency here, but I do not speak farsi)
• name is not criterion, but even if enwiki page is named Mashhad Light Rail, English version its webpages is using "Mashhad Urban Railway"

I think the system is at least comparable to systems like Adana Metro. --Jklamo (talk) 10:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I dunno - it would seem to qualify with greater certainty when Line 2 opens (the current Line 1 looks to be only about half underground)...

I guess my question is - where did the Wiki title for that page come from? Is "Mashhad Light Rail" just a bad translation? If it can be established that "light rail" is a bad translation, maybe somebody can move/re-title the page for this Mashhad system to avoid future confusion?

So it would seem to come down to system frequency - if it's less frequent than 10 minutes, then it truly is "light rail" at this point. But if trains run every 10 minutes or even more frequently, then I guess it would qualify for this list (and I can delete it from the Tram & Light Rail list...) --IJBall (talk) 03:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I understand Farsi (Persian) and what the link says is that the frequency now is every 4 min starting from 21 September 2013. Service time is from 6:30 to 21:30.

The system is officially called mashhad urban rail, which is known informally as Metro in Iran. So Mashhad Urban Rail or Mashhad Metro would be a better name.

10.5 km of the line is underground and 8.5 km is above ground. The rail is 100% separated from any other type of traffic (vehicular, national rail and pedestrian) --Nima Farid

OK, thanks for this, Nima. With this info, I withdraw my objection to including Mashhad's system here (and I'll delete it from the List of tram and light rail transit systems page once it is included here).

In the meantime, I'll see if I can figure out how to "move" a Wiki page (I've never tried this before), as the "Mashhad Light Rail" title (page) should be moved to a "Mashhad Metro" title (page) instead, to better reflect the particulars of this system... --IJBall (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done I have moved the page - it is now under Mashhad Metro. --IJBall (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this move. I think "Mashhad Metro" is something made up for wikipedia. If you do a google search "Mashhad Metro" only appears 2,000 times, "Mashad Light Rail" 22,000 times, and "Mashhhad Urban Railway" appears 29,000 times. Strongly suggest keeping the literal translation. Mattximus (talk) 03:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

This discussion should probably be taken to the Talk page over there. On my end, I'd oppose moving it back to "Mashhad Light Rail", as it seems like that is very literally a bad translation. If people want to see the page moved to "Mashhad Urban Railway"... well, let's see if there's a groundswell for it at the Talk page over there... --IJBall (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I have opened a topic on this issue over at the Mashhad Metro Talk page - if you have strong opinions on it, please post a response over there. If no one else comments, I will probably take Mattximus' suggestion, and move the page again, to "Mashhhad Urban Railway" this time in the near future. --IJBall (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Also at the moment, I am busy with university related work, but when I get free, I start making pages for Stations and lines. Nima Farid (talk) 06:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Origin of Oslo T-bane

Mid 1960's map of Oslo and suburbs. Note in the legend "förortsbana" equal "suburban rails"

This proves that most of Oslo T-bane (or Metro) is of suburban rail origin. (Map comes from a Swedish encyklopedia). Also Stockholms Tunnelbana began with a tunnel for trams, but not close enough to the Oslo T-bane. Boeing720 (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Note that the word "förortsbana" - "suburban rail line" does not imply it was a "heavy rail". That word was used in Stockholm about tram lines on dedicated tracks. A premetro, or light rail line. A user recently changed Oslo T-Bane from origin 1966 to 1928 (when an underground portion was opened), but at that time it had tram traffic and was not separated from other tram lines.--BIL (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this info - based on this, and the Wiki page article on it, I'll revert that 'Year opened' date back to 1966... --IJBall (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)