Talk:List of metro systems/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Seoul Metro Subway

266 is not at all the correct number. I just counted up the stations on lines one though 7 and topped 300. On top of that would be lines 8 and 9, the two bundang lines, the Incheon lines, Everline, and a handful of others. Express airport line... Right, this number is completely wrong. The 266 comes from the Seoul Metro Subway page which says it doesn't include Korail lines. Korail runs half the lines!

They are certainly run by KoRail, which is a intercity rail company, but these are most certainly subway trains. They are part of the same payment system, the same map, the same stations, et all. They connect to Seoul Station and Yongsan Station, where you can board regular trains like KTX. Lines 1-9 are numbered like that because they are part of the same metro system. If you argue otherwise you have obviously never used them. I was out with some friends the other night and mentioned the difference in line ownership to them and they had no idea. They have lived in Seoul for years, but never realised any differences.

This isn't like Amtrak in Philidelpha people.

Another wikipage not worth looking at. :o(

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.50.91.208 (talk) 06:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The good thing with a wiki is that anyone can edit, including you! If you have more updated numbers, please add them to the list (preferrable with a reference). The current numers for the Seoul subway are from the Seoul Subway article. --Kildor (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The Liverpool Merseyrail System

From Merseyrail "The system is one of the most frequent metro-style British commuter systems outside London"

Merseyrail meets all the criteria of a rapid transit metro system - underground section was opened in 1886. Separately managed and a separate system. It is underground in central Liverpool and central Birkenhead.

The system can't cope in the city centre. Central underground station is being expanded, or moved down the tunnel to a better location. Merseyrail are increasing passenger throughput and greater frequencies with better passenger management and more trains.

There is around 6 to 7 miles of disused tunnels under Liverpool and Birkenhead awaiting re-use, complete with disused underground stations - when re-commissioned, the Wapping tunnel will be the oldest tunnel used in the world, 1829, and the older metro tunnel. There are miles and miles of surface lines and trackbed awaiting reuse when needed, with a line proposed for passenger reuse for Liverpool FCs new stadium. The historic tunnels: http://www.liverpoolwiki.org/Liverpool's_Historic_Rail_Tunnels The Scope for expansion: http://www.liverpoolwiki.org/Extending_Rapid_Transit_Merseyrail

Only today, the local press are reporting that Merseyrail may extend to Skelmersdale on the city's outskirts. A small section to be electrified from Ormskirk to Southport has heavy political backing. These look imminent This will bring on-line, maybe another 8 stations, taking the station count to 75 stations and track length to around 90 miles. 79.66.48.37 (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Definition of metro, used in this article: "And in contrast to commuter rail, metro systems are primarily used for transport within a city, and have higher service frequency, typically not more than 10 minutes between trains during normal daytime service.". Merseyrail have 15 minutes intervals on most stations, with up to 30 minutes on some branches. And there are other objections in the former discussion above. It seems to be a very good suburban rail system, but not a metro system. --Kildor (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

By that definition Tyne & Wear should be taken off as it runs out to other towns outside the city Newcastle. The word is "typically", not "must". Merseyrail has a few minute intervals in the city centres of Liverpool and Birkenhead. Again....From wiki, Merseyrail. "The system is one of the most frequent metro-style British commuter systems outside London". Miss a train at some of London Underground's outer stations during the day or at weekends, and you will be waiting a long time before the next one comes - more than 10 minutes. So, maybe London Underground is not a Metro. Merseyrail metro is so well used there is chronic overcrowding. Central station may be greatly expanded to cope and increase frequencies, however proposals to build an additional station 500 meters up the tunnel are being taken very seriously. There is also suggestions to introduce fast Liverpool-Chester trains missing out some stations - aka London Metropolitan Line. Once again...Merseyrail is a rapid transit metro system. Not assertion, going by the definitions on wiki. The wiki for the Tyne and Wear Metro says, " Rapid transit/light rail/commuter rail". No mention of it being a metro system, apart from its arbitrary title. From this wiki, The name of the system is not a criterion for inclusion. Some cities use metro as a brand name for a transit line. So, maybe Tyne and Wear should be taken off the list. What world are some of you guys in :)

79.66.48.37 (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Merseyrail is the name for a franchise and set of services operated on Britain's national railway network. It's true that on a substantial part of the tracks in question – including the underground section in central Liverpool – it's the only service, but that track remains fully integrated with the rest of the national railways, and some of it is shared with other trains. Look at this picture of Bidston, for example: it's a regular country station with only one track going each direction, and it's served by both Arriva Trains Wales and Merseyrail. It may be a metro-style service, but so are many of London's commuter trains. Merseyrail could probably be turned into a metro more easily than most sections of the British railways, but that doesn't make it one. David Arthur (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly childish. Bidston is not in the country it is on the edge of Birkenhead Docks - look at a map. In the country or not, does not make one bit of difference either. By the way, London Underground clearly runs through fields at many points and so do many other "metros". Merseyrail is NOT a part of the national rail network at all, it is separate and run by Serco/Nedrail, with separate ticketing, management and livery. Liverpool has had an urban underground rail system since 1886 and it expanded since then and morphed into Merseyrail - identical to London's Underground in any respects. Merseyrail is just a small version.

Just wanted to comment as I was the first (I think) editor to revert this addition. I went to the Merseyrail Web site and tested a midday journey (12 noon) between Brunswick and Sandhills, at the very center of the network. This resulted in proposed departures that were an hour apart. This was the source for my edit summary. Unfortunately, as far as I could tell, Merseyrail does not provide comprehensive timetables in PDF or any other format on its Web site, so I was unable to check frequencies more generally. In any case, it seems clear to me that the Merseyrail network is not a metro as that term is defined for this list. --Tkynerd (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Pedantics again. Strange I found one no problem. At Sandhills I found these times: 0821, 0827, 0836, 0842. Wirral Line at Moorfields underground station: 0731, 0736, 0746, 0751, 0801. I looks frequent enough to me. Also the frequency is being increased by Merseyrail, so this timetable may be replaced. What is stopping the frequency being tighter is the chronic congestion at Liverpool Central station. The wiki for the Northern Line says ""the frequency is as little as every 8 minutes". Then when you take into account these are six car heavy-rail trains packing in around 900 people per train at peaks hours, and not tiddly light-rail trains like on the Tyne & Wear Metro, you see that Merseyrail shifts more people than any metro outside of London. Recent figures are that the system saw an increase of 14% in passenger usage, so even greater frequencies and more rolling stock is needed, getting some surplus from Southern Rail before the whole metro fleet is replaced in 3 to 4 years time. Merseyrail is a heavy-rail Metro, like London Underground is.

Plenty of suburban and commuter rail systems have frequent services during rush hours. Clearly, there is no consensus on including Merseyrail on this list. And there is no source backing up your claim that Merseyrail is a metro system. In fact, the article on Merseyrail begins with: "Merseyrail is the name given to the electric commuter rail network, centred on Liverpool in the metropolitan county of Merseyside in England.". Please stop making disruptive edits to this article unless there is a consensus on adding it to the list.

Tyne & Wear Metro might or might not belong to this list. But that is another discussion. --Kildor (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Merseyrail network is creaking, says transport chief. Oct 24 2008 by Ben Schofield, Liverpool Daily Post. Trains network is creaking, says transport chief. MERSEYRAIL trains are running so close to capacity the network is “creaking”, the region’s transport chief said. Sorry, Mate, you prove Merseyrail is not a metro. You have been given enough proof it meets and exceeds the criteria given on this wiki for a metro. The Merseyrail wiki also says "The system is one of the most frequent metro-style British commuter systems outside London", which you conveniently forgot to see. also "Unlike local train networks in other British cities, the regular frequencies on all lines provides for cross-city connections". If it looks like a duck and does what duck does, then it is duck. Merseyrail looks a metro and does all that a metro does. Well it is a rapid transit metro 79.65.119.190 (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing "pedantic" about it; that was simply an attempt to check the midday frequencies on the network, in accordance with the criteria set up in the Considerations section at the top of this list. "Normal daytime service" refers to the midday service between the peak hours. Your examples of departure frequencies are peak-hour examples, so they don't prove anything in terms of the criteria for this list. --Tkynerd (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The number of passengers has nothing to do with whether it's a metro or not – there are plenty of cities (Copenhagen, for example) where the metro is a relatively low-capacity system compared to the main-line railways. Nor does a description of Merseyrail as 'metro-style' support your position; London authorities call their commuter trains 'metro-style' as well, but the suffix '-style' is not normally used in referring to an actual metro. As for Bidston, you're missing the point: it's a small station with one track for each direction, and those tracks are shared by Arriva and Merseyrail. That photograph alone contradicts your assertion that Merseyrail is separate from the national railway network. David Arthur (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This one says: "It's true that on a substantial part of the tracks in question – including the underground section in central Liverpool – it's the only service, but that track remains fully integrated with the rest of the national railways, and some of it is shared with other trains." Merseyrail uses dedicated electric tracks, except the contracted out City Line, which Merseyrail do not own or run and is a badging affair - but the end user doesn't know or care. Look at the Merseyrail map, run by Merseyrail, all dedicated electric lines and 67 stations. http://www.merseyrail.org/documents/NetworkMap.pdf If the contracted out City Line is taken in to account (not on this map) the station count is another 20 or so. If the cheap to reintroduce curves are built about 10 more stations will be on Merseyrail. Expect in around 5 years 10 new Merseyrail stations. He also says: "Look at this picture of Bidston, for example: it's a regular country station with only one track going each direction, and it's served by both Arriva Trains Wales and Merseyrail." Bidston is an interchange between the Borderlands Line to Wrexhan and Merseyrail. Trains DO NOT us the same tracks. There are proposals to electrify this line and bring it into Merseyrail, to Give North Wales direct rapid transit access to Liverpool Centre and Liverpool John Lennon airport. Bidston is NOT in the country, it is at the end of Birkenhead Docks, with one the country's largest shopping malls planned for nearby on the in-filed Bidston Dock. He goes on: "It may be a metro-style service, but so are many of London's commuter trains." In that case London Underground should be taken off the list by your logic. The fact is, like London, Merseyrail is a Commuter Rail system and a metro system - a hybrid. Which Tyne & Wear and Glasgow Subways are not. I can't take the likes of you seriously. Merseyrail is a metro.79.65.27.152 (talk) 12:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read and consider the following policies of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Edit war. You are clearly the only one here who thinks Merseyrail should be included in this list. --Kildor (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I could not care if I am the only one, which I am not as the subject has been discussed previously. The fact I have proven it is, and that is, is all that matters. The logic and reasoning of all here I find baffling, like ownership matters. Yep that is a good one! I am supposed to take that seriously? In the wiki Commuter rail in the United Kingdom, it states: "Merseyrail is an electric rapid transit hybrid metro/commuter rail network. Liverpool Centre is the nucleus of the 75-mile network, running underground in Liverpool and Birkenhead centres. 100,000 people a day travel through 67 stations." Note the word "metro". In fact the word metro comes up all the time when Merseyrail is written about. What world are you people in? 79.65.121.246 (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thameslink is creaking; it runs more frequently that Merseyrail; longer trains (most 8 coaches). But there is investment going in there. Merseyrail less frequent services; short trains - mixture of 3 and 6 cars. This is a case of the word Metro being inappropriately used. The Strathclyde Network is larger and carries more passengers that MerseyRail. It is creaking, but is being invested in.

Incidentally why user 79.65.121.246 not creating an account and telling us about him/herself which could give more credence to these arguements, which there does not appear to be an consensus. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 17:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

In response to some of the IP editor's assertions:

• Merseyrail is NOT a part of the national rail network at all - That is simply false and untrue, full stop.

Ownership does not determine at metro system.

Fact: The Merseyrail infrastructure is owned by Network Rail.

Ownership does not determine at metro system.

Fact: Merseyrail is represented by ATOC and is therefore a part of 'National Rail' (while London Underground, Tyne & Wear Metro, etc. are not).

Ownership does not determine at metro system. Merseyrail is run by Serco/Nedrail as a separate system.

• In fact the word metro comes up all the time when Merseyrail is written about. - although apparently not on their own website!

Not in London undergrounds either, and that is regarded as a metro.

• it is separate and run by Serco/Nedrail, with separate ticketing, management and livery - only because it was franchised as a single entity. That doesn't make it a metro system, just as South West Trains or East Midlands Trains aren't metros.

Merseyrail conforms to the criteria of being a metro.

I think the root of this guy's problem is that he's from Liverpool and feels that without a metro system, the status of Liverpool as a city is diminished. That is so childish.

The route of this man problem is that he is from a little city called Newcastle.

–Signalhead ^< T > 22:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not from Liverpool. But I know what a metro system is when one conforms to one. Liverpool does, it is that simple.79.65.26.42 (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I believe that, since the anonymous editor has made edits to other Liverpool-related articles (see contributions by 79.66.48.37). P.S. Liverpool has no metro system. –Signalhead ^< T > 18:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

My company does work in the region. I gather you are from Newcastle - BTW, Liverpool & Newcastle are projected to be one of the 5 super-cities in the UK. Liverpool can there quicker as it has more scope to expand its rapid transit rail system. As to the poor frequencies you prattle about. The Wirral Line has 5 minutes frequencies in Liverpool centre, which were conveniently ignored. The timetable for the Northern Line through the centre needs revising with 3 trains leaving within 5 minutes and then none for 10 minutes. See: this PDF Liverpool has a smaller version of the London Underground. The only two systems that are similar, they are hybrid commuter rail/metro systems 79.65.42.120 (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring geography and frequencies, the only obvious difference to me between TW Metro and Merseyrail is the single vehicles (not trains). Merseyrail is most definitely 'heavy rail' from the POV that the stock is heavier, faster and longer than the TW Metro units. I very much doubt London Underground stock is similar to Mersey vehicles either. MickMacNee (talk) 03:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

London Underground is heavy-rail, similar to Merseyrail. The two systems are similar with Merseyrail a smaller version. Both are hybrid metro/commuter rail79.65.33.20 (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to run to Metro frequencies to me, see this from Lime Street to Birkenhead Park. And north of Liverpool central on the branch lines it does run every 15 minutes, which is pretty close to the frequency on large sections of the Washington DC Metro Eraserhead1 (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read the whole discussion above, and the former discussion from 2008. There was never a consensus to include Merseyrail in this list, and there is no source claiming Merseyrail to be a metro system. Even the Merseyrail article says it is a commuter rail system. --Kildor (talk) 08:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There was never consensus to remove it either Eraserhead1 (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

As discussed on Kildor's talk page, although its a borderline case it shouldn't be added as there isn't yet a consensus here to do so.Eraserhead1 (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

PS And I was wrong to say that it was already on the article as it wasn't in the long term :o Eraserhead1 (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong and Puerto Rico

Should Hong Kong continue to be listed separately, rather than under China? I could go either way on this question, it being easier to find the way it is currently listed. Peter Chastain (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I would rather organize this list according to List of sovereign states. That is, with Hong Kong under China, and Puerto Rico under United States. --Kildor (talk) 06:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the convention on Wikipedia is to list countries separately. There is no convention to list things according to sovereign states. TramAsia (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

TramAsia has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a permanently banned user who would edit war article pages and filibuster talk pages over the issue of placeent of Hong Kong. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Tyne and Wear

The Tyne and Wear metro is not independent of other highways so it is not a metro. Is it just on here because it's very much like a metro?--Tubs uk (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Tyne and Wear is definitely a borderline case, having a couple of level crossings in the outer areas. The question has come up a few times, but as it's generally perceived as a metro (and, as you say, is more like a metro than like anything else), the most informative way we can cover it is to call it a 'metro' like everyone else does, and then explain where it differs from the usual expectations. For that matter, since it's the only system named 'metro' in the United Kingdom, I think we have to consider it a substantial part of the term's British definition. David Arthur (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"Top 5 by length"

I have removed the list, which was added by User:Vo45, because it was unsourced and the ranking is debatable. (The list had the London Underground at #1, which I believe is correct if you look at route length, but the New York subway is #1 by a very large margin if you look at total track length.) --Tkynerd (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I took the length numbers from the figures offered on this very page. I don't think the source is up for debate. Also track length doesn't seem to be a popular measure. Vo45 (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point of having a top 5 list here. The list is sortable, so the same information can be achieved from the article already. --Kildor (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have removed several entries from the list. Systems that still are in planning stages or in construction should not be included here. We will never know if or when these systems will be completed. And any network data on these systems cannot be anything but speculation. I did also remove the number of lines column. It is difficult to define what constitutes a line. Does branches counts as separate lines, or do they belong to a single line? It is a measure that is difficult to compare. And the column was imcomplete, making the table layout poor and sorting difficult.

I also believe that some non-metro systems have been added to the list. I will try to sort them out... --Kildor (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Number of lines

Should the number of lines be included for each system on this list? I think that would be a worthwhile addition. Eraserhead1 (talk) 11:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

As a reply to Kildor's comment in the section above - Metros have a map with a defined list of lines, so you can easily just use the data they give for each system - the only slightly tricky case is New York which has multiple "lines" with the same colour. Also even if the data before was incomplete it wouldn't be that tricky to get the data fairly accurate, an Unknown value could be added for those without a known number of lines. Eraserhead1 (talk) 12:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I recently deleted that column from the list, because it is very difficult to define what a "line" is. Compare maps of New York City Subway and London Underground as example. In New York, branches have separate lines (with a few exceptions), but in London branches belong to the same line. Counting lines as presented on official maps gives that New York has 26 lines, but London only 11. Those numbers tell little about the size or complexity of the systems. If Transport for London decided to assign numbers to their lines in the same way as in New York, the number of lines would be doubled over a night. Stockholm Metro is another example on how difficult it is to determine the number of lines. It could be either 3 or 7 depending on how you count. Since number of lines as presented on maps is an uncomparable measure, I think we better not include it in this list. --Kildor (talk) 12:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that New York is the main exception to the rule (Stockholm also looks like its a bit tricky) and most of the other 140 systems worldwide are much more straightforward. If you wanted to rate New York and London fairly with the same method you could compare the New York line colours. And its a shame to remove the line count as it allows you to easily compare the sizes of the different systems, from small systems like Lima which have one line, to medium systems like Singapore's which have 4 lines to large systems like London which have 11 lines. Eraserhead1 (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the NYCS is an enigma. It defines a "line" as a singular route of train tracks—each branch, as you will (though not exactly), or divergence is named separately as a line. "Services" can operate over several lines. (See List of New York City Subway lines and List of New York City Subway services. Both are needed for understanding the situation. Even a page like New York City Subway nomenclature is necessary for our system.) The MTA apparently gives the figure of 27 lines. [1] I don't know how this was decided (perhaps it includes the Second Avenue Subway?). I also am uncomfortable with using the colors to come up with a number. The colors are used to denote the "trunk lines" that pass into Manhattan, generally speaking, for space considerations in the map. To say only the trunk lines and shuttles should be considered for the number of lines will cause disagreements among users. Also, Massimo Vignelli's map in the 1970s was memorable for several reasons (which New Yorkers seemed not to like), but it showed each service as a different line on the map. If I had to choose, I would put the figure as 26, though it should be noted this is the number of services for the reasons above. Tinlinkin (talk) 08:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It is however difficult to come up with a clear and fair definition of number of lines. And I would say it is not only New York that is unclear. What about Vancouver SkyTrain, does it have two, three or four lines? The number of stations is also a measure of the system size, so I don't se why we need to add another measure that is clearly ambiguous. --Kildor (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You could have many stations close together for a certain distance or two stations over the same distance. I think the "measure of the system size" (if that is an intent of the list) is adequate as it is now: number of stations and route length. You could also add ridership—not sure why that's not a column in this list. Tinlinkin (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It is basically the same problem. It is difficult to get fair and comparable numbers. --Kildor (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've changed my mind, I agree with Kildor -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yamanote Line (Tokyo)

Is Yamanote Line of Tokyo Japan a rapid transit or metro line? It runs with its own right of way within a conventional railway network. TramAsia 00:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

As part of a conventional railway, I would say it is not a metro line. And according to the Yamanote Line article, it is a commuter rail line. --Kildor (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

From a quick look at the article, I think I'd call it a local/express system within the railway network rather than a metro. It's part of the JR East, and seems to be connected with the national railways throughout its history, though it isn't clear from the article whether the tracks are still connected or not. I suspect the fact that no other traffic uses the line can be attributed primarily to the 2.5-minute frequencies cited in the article – there would hardly be room for anything else – rather than to its being a metro. David Arthur (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

In that case we are going back to the same question. Are those that were converted from conventional railways rapid transit systems? Examples include Seoul's lines 1, 3 and 4, Munich's S-Bahn, Hong Kong's East Rail, and Copenhagen's S-tog. TramAsia (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Possibly.... Perhaps rapid transit, but not metro in my opinion. Though I don't know anything about the Seoul lines. --Kildor (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak to any of the others ('S-Bahn' in particular has always been contentious, since no one English term covers all the systems bearing that name), but as for Copenhagen, while the long absence of a metro has indeed led to the S-tog taking on some metro-like characteristics, they still follow recognisably 'railway' service patterns. I once tried to build a metro-style map for the S-tog to complement the ones I did for the more recently built Copenhagen Metro, and it just didn't work at all. David Arthur (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't it work?

I mentioned Tokyo's Yamanote Line, Munich's S-Bahn, Hong Kong's East Rail, and Seoul's lines 1, 3 and 4 because they fit neatly in neither categories, namely metro or rapid transit and regional or commuter railways. This is a matter that we have to take care of. TramAsia (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The S-tog just don't run like a metro. Stations are relatively far apart (like a conventional railway), numerous routes congregate on a single central station (like a conventional railway), and there are express/local trains and minor variations (like a conventional railway). Really, the only thing that seems at all metro-like beyond their frequency (which is matched by plenty of conventional railways) is the fact that they go underground through the city centre, and all trains running north from Copenhagen do that. David Arthur (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Urban Rail the Yamanote line is a "metro like" service. Does this mean it should be included after all? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The "like" in metro-like makes me think that the author does not consider the Yamanote line to be a true metro. If you look at a video from the Yamanote line, you will see it is part of a huge railway network rather than a separate system. It is a quite impressive railway line though. --Kildor (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It is true that it is part of the Japanese railway network as its run by JR East. However it also seems to fit all the requirements for a metro, it has a very frequent service, lots of stations and dedicated track - which is why I brought it up. I certainly think its a borderline case. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I guess it is much like the S-Bahns and S-tog mentioned above, though the Yamanote line is much more busy. But I still think these are more of railway type than metro. In the book Urban Transit Systems and Technology, chapter 10 "Characteristics and comparisons of transit modes", there are sections about light rail, rail rapid transit/metro, commuter rail, regional rail and more. From the section Regional rail: "Typical regional rail networks are the S-Bahn systems in Berlin and Hamburg, JR lines in Tokyo and other Japanese cities and RER in Paris." --Kildor (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Under construction systems

I guess these shouldn't be included? I've just reverted the addition of two in Bangkok. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The line to Bangkok airport also shouldn't be included as it isn't open yet (source). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree! --Kildor (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Archive talk page

The talk page seems to be very long and confusing. Is it OK to add the {{Archiveme}} to this page? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It was indeed very long. A created a new archive page, and restored an old one that was left with the old name (List of rapid transit systems), now the /Archive 1 page. --Kildor (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Berlin S-Bahn is a metro

I´m not sure if this is known here, but to my eyes the S-Bahn system in Berlin is a typical metro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.128.124 (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

See this from the Archives. Of course the consensus could be changed :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Not just the Berlin S-Bahn, but a subset of the German systems with "S-Bahn" in their names are metros. Another subset are not. "S-Bahn" is a marketing term from which little can be deduced about the technicalities of the system. Anorak2 (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Which of them do you think are metros? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

O-train, Ottawa

As I said in my edit summary for removing O-train from the article, the O-train shares its track with other users, and doesn't appear to have two tracks in each direction. It is also described as a light rail service on their website. Therefore it isn't a metro. The only criteria in its favour is that it has services every 15 minutes all day. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Barcelona Metro

Just to point that the length is not the one that appears in the Barcelona Metro article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.159.25 (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see I have missed the FCG lines out. I'm correcting that in the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

would it be possible to have a list of world subway systems?

I would imagine that most of these would meet the definitions here. I could also see having separate columns for the number of stations above and below ground. I'm not sure why it couldn't be a separate article, but i would be fine with an extra column, here.

I do not know if there are many above ground operations that duck underground for a very few stops, but that column would show it clearly. Thanks, (fotoguzzi) 131.252.210.82 (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Then they aren't metros and are probably Commuter rail or light rail services. Besides if you included every service that has underground stations you'd have to include the Shinkansen services north of Tokyo as they are underground at Ueno ;). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Valencia Metro

It seems Valencia metro is mostly a tram, so the number of stations/length is probably wrong. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 01:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Line 4 and 6 and parts of line 5 are tram lines. Line 1, 3 and 5 are, in my opinon, suburban/commuter railway lines. Although with metro standard in the city center, outer parts have several grade crossings, single tracks and up to 45 minutes between trains. I suggest Valencia Metro is removed from the list. --Kildor (talk) 11:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be the simplest solution. Especially as that seems like its less metro than MerseyRail, which isn't on the list. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This decision is a mistake! Obviously, those who have opined here do not directly know the underground of Valencia. I hope that someone corrected with better criterion. 193.144.127.11 (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain why? Bearing in mind what is now the next section as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Definition problems

It's pretty clear from the history of this talk page that there is no consensus on what "rapid transit" means. And indeed, much of the proposed definition at the top of the article is unsupported by references. (Note that the references in "Considerations" define subway/metro systems and heavy rail specifically, rather than addressing all permutations of rapid transit—cherrypicking is not appropriate.) It is prescriptive, rather than informative, which makes it totally unsuitable for an encylopedic article.

Simply put, editors of Wikipedia tend to regard actual usage of a term as the working definition for an article's scope. The scope of "rapid transit" by definition includes "bus rapid transit", for example. That term is not merely an attempt by bus proponents to put their preferred solution into consideration for rapid transit projects (though that might have been the motivation in the past)—rather, it has become an accepted term of art within the transit, engineering and public works communities, not to mention the legislative bodies that consider such things for funding. We could even dissect the term and evaluate whether bus rapid transit uses buses, is rapid and is transit—and the answer should be self-evident. (This needn't devolve into an argument about whether buses on dedicated transitways are more or less rapid than trams on grade-separate track—that depends on the specific implementations, and is not especially pertinent. The point is that both are considered rapid transit by appropriate authorities.)

Similarly for streetcars and trams operating on dedicated tracks—even within medians and/or at street level—the accepted terminology in some jurisdictions is "light rapid transit" (or sometimes interchangeably, "light rail transit"). If you don't want those to be in an article about rapid transit, then you've got to either convince those (notable) jurisdictions to stop using the term in an unacceptable way, or demonstrate that they are not by definition "light", "rapid" and "transit" (and therefore the designtion is a misnomer), or change the scope of the article (title included) to better capture the intended subject matter.

Furthermore, I want to point out that the distinctions drawing in the "Considerations" section rely upon flawed logic. We exclude certain systems from the definition of rapid transit because they do not meet the definition of rapid transit given above. Yet the definition given must spring from actual usage—otherwise, it's original research. So we're either choosing to ignore counterexamples, or basing a definition on original research.

If it's felt that an article on subway/metro/heavy urban rail systems is more desirable, then efforts should be made to entitle the article appropriately, and limit its scope accordingly (and perhaps split off the BRT and LRT topics into a separate list). Consider the history of this article: it was originally a list of underground systems, then renamed over the years, leading to confusion. I would support a move to a more appropriate title, under these circumstances. TheFeds 19:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I fully support a move back to List of metro systems as well, but when the change to this title was made, it was not considered a change of scope. 'Rapid transit' is used to mean many things, but the definition used by this article is the same as for 'metro' et cetera: a railway running frequent service in an exclusive right of way. This is not a definition that Wikipedia invented; in fact, the TTC themselves have used it at various stages. It does not include streetcars, even if they run in separate lane - there's already a list of tram and light-rail transit systems in which such networks, including Toronto's, are covered. This article would be useless and uninformative if it lumped together everything that someone calls 'rapid transit' (York Region even uses the term for express bus routes running on ordinary roads). David Arthur (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the right way to deal with this would simply be to make this a list of metro systems. The definition of "metro" is not open to nearly as much interpretation as "rapid transit", and reduces the likelihood of confusion. (Also, metro is closer to the scope of the original list of underground systems that existed here originally.) "List of rapid transit systems" ought to point to a disambiguation page, or a subsection of rapid transit describing the types of rapid transit and linking to the lists for metros, streetcars/trams and BRT.

Also, the definition of rapid transit (in the rapid transit article) as being "an electric passenger railway in an urban area with high capacity and frequency, and which is grade separated from other traffic" is not reasonable, especially given that the two citations for that statement contradict it: "fast passenger transportation (as by subway) in urban areas", and "Rail or motorbus transit service operating completely separate from all modes of transportation on an exclusive right-of-way." We should fix the definition in that article, and replace the flawed definition in this article with an acceptable definition of metro.

Are there any objections to moving this article to list of metro systems, redirecting list of rapid transit systems to disambiguation/subsection, and fixing the definitions as appropriate? TheFeds 21:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I support a move of this article to List of metro systems. And since no one seems to have any objections to this proposal, I will request a move at Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Kildor (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that, when you carefully dissect the characteristics and properties of all 'metro' systems, it becomes apparent that very few of them are 'pure' metro systems that follow whichever criteria you may follow. After all, the London Underground would be the first out of this list, if we were to follow the rules! But that's not going to happen. A lot of people seem to robotically assume that because the RER in Paris - or the Copenhagen S-tog - meet the 'criteria' for a metro system, that it must be included here. I think it's dangerous to include them, and doing so does this article no favours. No Parisian describes the RER as a metro, so why include it? Since not every metro displays the same rigidity and purity as the Paris metro (with their traffic-sharing, street running, level crossing idiosyncracies), there needs to be a little bit more consideration for how a system is described locally and culturally. Ie: If it meets most of the criteria and the locals call it a metro, or the operator brands it so, then it is a metro. If it meets most of the criteria, but it is not described as a metro/U bahn/subway/whatever, then leave it out.Mumanddadsson (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Berlin ??

Isn't the S-Bahn supposed to be here? I live in Berlin for 6 months now and to me it is clearly a metro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.19.148 (talk) 04:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the footnote? As it says, many industry/trade groups in the transportation business consider it more akin to a suburban railway, and it was formed out of the general railway network.

Which leads to a general question for all those who may be reading. Based on this question, and on the Valencia question above, should we refine the definition to explicitly exclude systems that reused rights-of-way that were part of the general railway network, but have since been severed from it? Or should we expand the definition to specifically include those?oknazevad (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Northern line for example used tracks that used to be part of the general railway network ;). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually the entire London Underground system evolved from mainline rail. Anorak2 (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

For unknown reasons there is some opposition here against including German S-Bahn systems (Berlin would not be the only candidate to include). The arguments put forward are non-consistent. For example the historical or technical connection to general rail would, if applied consistently, lead to the exclusion of London Underground which clearly would be a travesty of this list.

Ceterum censeo: A number of German S-Bahn systems do fulfill the criteria of a metro; Berlin is but one example among several (Not all systems in Germany labelled "S-Bahn" do though; "S-Bahn" is a marketing term rather than a technical category.) Those S-Bahn systems which fulfill the criteria ought to be included. Probably incomplete list: Berlin S-Bahn, Hamburg S-Bahn, Munich S-Bahn, Leipzig/Halle S-Bahn, Ruhrgebiet S-Bahn, Stuttgart S-Bahn, Frankfurt/Main S-Bahn. Some do not deserve inclusion because they are really not metro-like systems for one reason or another, such as Dresden S-Bahn, Karlsruhe S-Bahn, Rostock S-Bahn, Magdeburg S-Bahn. Anorak2 (talk) 12:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think if they are (almost) fully grade separated from other road/rail users and have no freight trains and the large majority of stations have a train in each direction roughly every 10 minutes then they should count as a metro. So that could well mean some of the S-Bahns should be included along with the Yamanote Line in Tokyo. But we do need a good consensus on this, as I'm sure Kildor disagrees and will have good reasons :p. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge the systems I listed as fulfilling the criteria do, even though it is probably a good idea to examine each case separately. And metro-like systems in other countries who are currently not listed ought to be examined using the same criteria. I'm not knowledgable enough to make suggestions about any others though. I'm not convinced Kildor has good reasons to reject such systems, as I said above I feel the criteria that are being put forward are not applied consistently. Anorak2 (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not doubting you ;). I just feel its difficult for me to comment in detail on borderline cases where I haven't actually been and used the system - and I haven't been to Germany before. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

After reading the "Considerations" it is clear that the Berlin S-Bahn fulfills all criteria. There is no way to exclude this system on a reasonable basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.12.148 (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Suburban railway systems may also have frequent services and grade separated tracks. I again quote from Urban Transit Systems and Technology, chapter 10 "Characteristics and comparisons of transit modes": "Typical regional rail networks are the S-Bahn systems in Berlin and Hamburg, JR lines in Tokyo and other Japanese cities and RER in Paris." --Kildor (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

But why doesn't the S-Bahn meet the articles criteria? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"Certain transit networks match the technical level and service standards of metro systems, but reach far out of the city and are commonly known or better described as regional or commuter rail. These are not included." --Kildor (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Please delete London Underground from the list. It reaches far out of the city, has low train frequency on some lines, is technically and historically connected to mainline rail, and therefore is far better described as regional or commuter rail by these standards. Anorak2 (talk) 09:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I´m sorry, this sounds like fantazising an own (personal) criteria. The text in the article pretty much describes what can be considered a metro. The Berlin S-Bahn covers all aspects. It is not even suburban, that is the RE or RB. The S-Bahn operates 90% within the city. I don´t know about other German S-Bahn systems, but this one clearly belongs here. Otherwise the list can be considered POV bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.12.148 (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done as the consensus seems to be that the Berlin S-Bahn should be included I've added it to the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It is rather pointless adding only Berlin S-Bahn. With same arguments, we should also include Tokyo Yamanote Line, Paris RER and Copenhagen S-Train. And at least discuss a change of inclusion critera (the "considerations" sections). Although I would prefer we exclude them all out from this list. Reliable sources, manufacturers and the UITP consider Berlin S-Bahn to be a suburban railway system. I don't understand why we should do otherwise. --Kildor (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC) BTW: I cannot see the alleged consensus here. --Kildor (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm of the view that it meets the criteria (along with 2 other people) - which are also set out on the UITP website then it should be included in this list, and it appears the Berlin S-Bahn does meet the criteria. I personally think that the argument that it should be excluded only because it goes outside the city boundary isn't persuasive when the London Underground goes outside the city too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

PS I'm happy to include the RER and Yamanote line, I didn't realise the whole RER was on dedicated track too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

With same arguments, we should also include Tokyo Yamanote Line, Paris RER and Copenhagen S-Train. Exactly. Please include them. Anorak2 (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Bilbao / Valencia

In the Spain section, why is Bilbao included as a metro and Valencia not? Any objection to Valencia being a metro applies equally to Bilbao - overground suburban or rural stations more akin to a commuter rail service running on lines previously used by passenger trains, level crossings etc? Valenciano (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the trains only run every 20 minutes from the outlying stations (source). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That's correct. I spent a few weeks in Gorliz about 15 minutes walk from Plentzia metro so used the service every day and the trains ran about 20 minutes. Like Valencia it's pretty much a "mixed system" underground/metro in the city and conventional light rail outside. Valenciano (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

In which case I would suggest that it is removed from the article, but lets wait a bit before we do so. I believe there is an article on commuter rail systems so it should probably be on that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree - either both should be in or neither, all depends on the criteria used. What's the commuter rail article? Valenciano (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

List of suburban and commuter rail systems. There is also a List of light rail systems. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The Bilbao Metro has a daytime train frequency of about 5-6 minutes, except for the 4 outer stations on line 1 with 20 minutes between trains. There seem to be a few level crossings on that part. Otherwise, the system is fully segregated. The Valencia Metro however has several level crossings, and many stations with a train every 20 minutes and up to 45 minutes. This apply in general to line 1. Line 3 and 5 may in parts be considered a metro, but even on these lines, there are level crossings for pedestrians (i.e. File:Estació de rafelbunyol.jpg). Line 1 is 95 kilometers long, with several level crossings, single tracks, and even request stops. This line is by no means a metro. The Valencia Metro article begins with the following:

The Valencian narrow gauge railway, or metrovalencia, is a modernised amalgamation of former FEVE diesel operated suburban/regional railways. It is a large suburban network that crosses the city of Valencia, with all trains continuing out to far-flung suburbs.

The Bilbao and Valencia systems are clearly different, and I think the Bilbao system is better described as metro, while the Valencia system is better described as suburban railway. --Kildor (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Valencia's subway grew out of the suburban network. Currently, the lines crossing the city in its urban section, operate as underground (except for line 4, a surface tram) at frequencies always lower than 10 min. and there is no level crossings. Another thing are the extensions of some lines outside the metropolitan area, with longer frequencies, although often quoted without distinguishing itself underground. In any case, if they can not be considered part of the subway, why not the subway stops being what it is.--82.159.136.1 (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the Metro Valencia is quite peculiar, but it is certainly a metro. Some lines extend beyond the metropolitan area, but work as a metro in the city (Area A), while in rural areas work is like a suburban train. In town, the only line on the surface is line 4. The other lines are underground, their frequencies are less than 10 minutes, but their extensions in the suburbs are on the surface, with a frequency of 20 minutes or more. Ultimately, what is inside the city is a metro system, although its extension outside the city is more of a suburban train. Denying that the network of Valencia is a metro system makes no sense. Also, if this metro is defined as a suburban train, this would cause confusion, because in that case there are two different suburban networks in Valencia.--82.159.136.1 (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

So what about Thameslink? It is certainly a "metro" between St Pancras and Blackfriars. And what about the RER in the centre of Paris? Or the KTM Kommuter trains in Kuala Lumpur? I think the large majority of the line has to meet the metro criteria otherwise it is commuter rail. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is a contradiction. Sevilla's metro now has a line of 18 km, partially underground, and is on the list of metros. However, the Valencia metro line 5 is completely underground and has no extension outside the city. If only there was Valencia Metro Line 5 is a metro? But it's not subway because there are other lines? This is absurd. Moreover, the Valencia metro lines that extend beyond the metropolitan area on the surface, working as metro within the limits of the city (underground, frequencies, no level crossings, etc.), have a different regime in their journey underground and in suburban tracts. The logical thing would be considered a metro system in its urban part, but exclude the rest. On the RER and other similar networks, its counterpart in Valencia is the Cercanías [[2]] network of RENFE. --193.144.127.11 (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If Line 5 meets the criteria I guess it could be added, but as it shares track with other lines (e.g. line 3) which don't meet the criteria it seems to be more trouble than its worth to add it. Additionally being underground or overground is irrelevant, the London Underground is only 50% underground. Btw is the Cernanías independent of all other railways? If not it shouldn't be included. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No more stress. Anyone traveling in Metro Valencia know that it is a metro, as in Bilbao or Seville, but a man who has only seen a map does not believe that is a metro, because it violates their rules. Well, not metro. If one consults the list and sees that there is no metro in Valencia, when you come to Valencia will be a surprise. Ah! but is that Wikipedia is cleverer than everyone else! Salutations.--82.159.136.1 (talk) 11:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that Wiki unfortunately has to be consistent on an international basis whereas the people of Valencia don't :p. There is no reason it can't be in the list of commuter rail systems. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

And that is  Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by the arguments above for including Bilbao but excluding Valencia. The exclusion seems to be based on two sources. Firstly we have this one, the UITP which does indeed define "Metropolitan railways" as in the article. But scroll a little further down that self same page and there is a section which says "The Metropolitan Railways Division is composed of all UITP full members planning, constructing and/or operating a metropolitan railway transport system." One of the members listed by them operating a metro system is Valencia! The same problems apply to the second one, Robert Schwandl. Here on his map of metro systems he shows Valencia. On the entry for it, he says for example on line 5 that "The city section was built as a modern metro line running underground from Palmaret into the city to Alameda (1995, 3 km)." In his books section he also lists a book called "METROS IN SPAIN. The Underground Railways of Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia and Bilbao" which seems clear enough. So it is really bizarre to exclude Valencia metro from this list on the basis of two sources both of which specifically say that it is a metro system!!! Valenciano (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone going to try and explain why we should ignore WP:RS on this issue? Valenciano (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

RER Paris

RER is not a metro system but a rail network. So it should not be in this list ! THEQUEEN99 (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

As discussed above it appears to meet the criteria. It has frequent services, the tracks are grade separated from other trains and road users and it is used primarily for transport within a city. On what reasonable grounds should it be removed? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Although there are plenty of valid reasons as to why RER should be included on the list. It is easier to describe it as a commuter rail system with metro characteristics. Only line A and B are (partly) operated by RATP, all the other lines are operated by SNCF, the national railway operator. There are many areas where the RER is not segregated from other traffic (Branch A3 shares traffic with trains from St Lazare station for Example). A metro system is such a hard thing to define, as this talk page constantly exposes. But Wikipedia is not the platform to have radical changes to the status quo. Ask any Parisian and they will tell you the RER is not a metro system. Mumanddadsson (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If you don't have criteria which you apply then you can't make any reasonable comparison between systems on an international level, which makes the list kinda pointless. And the London Underground shares track with the Chiltern Line north of Harrow-on-the-hill and on the Richmond branch of the District line. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

PS I know I reverted initially but there was a consensus very recently to add the RER to this list. Now that consensus may change, but you shouldn't have removed it until the discussion was complete ;). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ask any Parisian and they will tell you the RER is not a metro system. That would not give meaningful answers. In Paris "Metro" is the proper name of one specific system, to which the RER of course doesn't belong, and Parisians would state so accordingly. But in the context of this article, "metro" is a generic name for urban transport systems which meet certain criteria. Anorak2 (talk) 09:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose its inclusion here - wrong article; RER is listed on the commuter rail page. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on that point a little? Some sources and/or some arguments as to why it shouldn't be here rather than the commuter rail page would be good :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

From the first section of the article, The RER is an integration of a modern city-centre rail and a pre-existing set of regional rail lines. (emphasis added) From the International comparison section, The RER is often compared with other urban rail networks that serve outer suburbs while fully crossing the city. Examples included the German, Swiss and Austrian S-Bahnen, the Spanish Cercanías, the RER networks of French-speaking Switzerland and (in construction) Brussels, SEPTA Regional Rail in Philadelphia, and the future Crossrail network in London. (emphasis added)

So, it began life as a commuter rail system, using standard railroad-sized trains. No third rail here. Metros don't general serve the suburbs. The central part of the RER was completed through a massive civil engineering effort between 1962 and 1977. That statement is like the Center City Commuter Connection of SEPTA in Philadelphia, PA that combined two commuter rail systems into one. It also compares to a system that could be created in New York City if the Long Island Rail Road, Metro-North Railroad and New Jersey Transit commuter railroads were all combined together and trains through routed. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"Metros don't general serve the suburbs.", the London Underground does... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops, that should have been generally. LU doesn't use anything close to the loading gauge of a commuter rail train. (Not the only criteria) Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

So you define a rule, to which you allow arbitrary exeptions, and make up new criteria as needed? :) Anorak2 (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping this wouldn't turn into a london underground argument, although LU perfectly demonstrates how it is almost impossible to strictly define most of these 'metro' systems as one thing or another. Most LU lines were never not considered to be part of LU, (at least in the bulk of the central part), The suburban sections were usually latched on to the central part, which had already been built. eg: New works programmes on Central line, Piccadilly to Heathrow, etc etc. The difference in Paris is that the central underground part of the RER was engineered and planned for the existing commuter network. It was never designed to become part of the metro. As I write, I am perfectly aware of how tenuous these arguments seem, but, The London Underground has always been called an underground, and the RER has never been defined as a Metro, by the Locals, and how it is branded by the operators. Therefore I beleive it should stay in it's respective commuter rail article. :D Mumanddadsson (talk) 08:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Double meaning of the word "metro", see my point above. Anorak2 (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

PS Most LU lines were never not considered to be part of LU, (at least in the bulk of the central part). Oh, a triple negative :) If I understand you correctly you're saying "Most LU lines in the central part were always considered to be part of LU, but some were not." Is that it? What is that an argument for, or against?

The suburban sections were usually latched on to the central part, which had already been built. Actually I think you're wrong. The original section of London Underground was an extension of a mainline into the city centre and originally not thought of as a city transport. Only later it evolved in public perception to be a local transport system. That is very similar to the S-Bahn systems and the RER. Besides, earler in this discussion even a small remote suburb section of the Berlin S-Bahn with low train frequency, which is a single exception in the entire network was used as an argument against including it.

Incidentally there's also ISAP which also evolved from a mainline railway and is now included as a metro. Anorak2 (talk) 09:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok fine. I was being a bit long winded, and I apologise about my writing style. It was a gramatically correct double negative! To summarise, LU is a metro system, correct criteria or not, and the RER isn't. To suggest otherwise, I beleive, would be a dangerous direction for this article. From the point of view of someone using this article as a source of information, if they were to then beleive that the RER was a metro could be misleading, and possibly the source of confusion amongst their parisian friends! There's a lot to be said about how the local rapid transit network is culturally perceived. No-one describes the RER as a metro, so therefore, I beleive, it should remain outside of this article. Mumanddadsson (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Shanghai Metro longest network

The Shanghai Metro is now the longest network in the world with 420 km of tracks in operation. Airport fan (talk) 10:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there a source yet? I don't think http://www.exploremetro.com/blog/ is enough and I haven't see anything on Google yet. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

PS I've reverted your change to London Underground for now until there is a reliable source talk about this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is the source : http://society.people.com.cn/GB/41158/11334069.html Airport fan (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see an English language source (see WP:NONENG) - I'd expect to see one in the next few days at worst. If not then we can go with that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Of note after translating that press release with a web translator it seems to be saying the Shanghai metro is only the longest in China - so unless they change their mind unfortunately it can't be changed as it needs to be verifiable :(. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Its mistake to separate berlins S-bahn and U-bahn, combined its the Worlds longest metro system (the same mistake with Tokyos 3 systems) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.115.120 (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Vacuum metro system

If the entrance to the metro train/metro train pipe was to be locked off by an airlock, perhaps that the pipe could be drawn vacuum (not sure however how airtight the soil+concrete pipes are). This would increase speed/decrease energy requirements. I came to the idea based on the Gravity train. Perhaps a reference can be made, and we can search whether the idea has already been proposed. KVDP (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge Athens Systems

Thoughts? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Liverpool Merseyrail ... ???

I have been asked by user:Eraserhead1 to propose discussion of the possible addition of Liverpool's Merseyrail network to this list. I recently added it, as I was surprised to find that it was not on the list, but is has been removed subject to discussion. It is possibly controversial, as although large sections are underground, and ran frequently, some outer parts of the network could be regarded as heavy-rail. Please give thoughts on this.

Many Thanks, ♚King Coolcat64♚ (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I would just mention that its inclusion has been debated previously, as recorded in the talk page archives. It seems the consensus is that it's connections with the national railway network make it a rather robustly scheduled commuter rail system, not a metro. Having never been to Liverpool, I personally can't judge it one way or the other. oknazevad (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of the Wuppertal Schwebebahn

It seems like a pretty obvious candidate, no mention in the article is made about excluding monorails or any specific type of track as long as it meets the other criteria. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious it shouldn't be included, as it belongs on the List of monorail systems, which already includes it. More generally, the design is so radically different that it falls under a different technical classification. For this case here, while frequencies and ridership may be more in line with metro standards than most monorails, the ability of someone to do a direct comparison is severly hampered by the dramatic technical differences inherent in the monorail design. That's why they're treated separately in almost every reference.

Also, I disagree with the use of the term "criteria". The list page calls them "considerations" for a reason, namely that every system is different due to independent design considerations and construction processes, so using a absolute checklist is problematic. A bit of qualitative judgement (and consideration) is needed when deciding what entries belong on the list. For example, the Chicago 'L' has a couple of grade crossings. But to exclude it from this list because of that would be the height of shortsightedness. So we must no be too rigid when deciding entries.

To summarize, we can't let the small detail differences that are inherent in the building of independent systems cause us to exclude systems that belong, but we must also ensure that we are not including systems that fall under entirely separate technical categories. oknazevad (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't really understand these dramatic differences, you can still get from A to B pretty quickly? EDIT: In which case its a metro. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a totally different technology based on a radically different design paradigm. It's not a metro. Inclusion of it would be factually incorrect. oknazevad (talk) 03:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

What are the technological requirements to define what is a metro, and what isn't a metro? Why can't a monorail like Naha Monorail and the Tokyo Monorail be considered metro systems, considering their frequencies and riderships? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.118.130.55 (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been bold and re-added it due to the lack of further justification. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 05:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing it again. I don't believe that "radically different design paradigm" is insufficient justification at all. It summates the issue quite thoroughly, in fact. oknazevad (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Given that many metros use different designs - some are above ground, some below, some both, some use rubber wheels, some use standard train track etc. and given the Tokyo Monorail is on the list your justification is weak. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

There was no need for further justification, as I thought the matter quite settled. And I should point out that there has been long-standing consensus not to include monorails on this list as they have their own list, and I agree that a system should only appear on one list. See the talk page archives. Frankly, if you told a civil engineer that a city had a metro because it had a monorail, he'd look at you funny and say you don't know what your talking about. They are not considered equivalent by those who design and build these things for a living. That's good enough reason to exclude them in my book.oknazevad (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC) (PS, Tokyo Monorail is not on the list, nor should it be. )

Israel and Turkey

Just curious why the Carmelit in Haifa, Israel and Tünel in Istanbul, Turkey are not on this list...--71.111.229.19 (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

They're on the List of funicular railways. oknazevad (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Gautrain

Is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautrain a metro? 41.247.37.161 (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's an 80-km system with 10 stations (4 in operation)and two sets of doors per side per train carriage. I would classify it more under commuter rail, but definitely not a metro. -Multivariable (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Certainly an upgrade on the existing services, and more frequent than most commuter services, but the distances between stations are too spaced for metro classification. oknazevad (talk) 22:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 130.149.147.171, 26 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} This article is really very informative. But would add the remark, that some cities have more than one metro systems. This is important, since the metro systems are always listet separately. If somebody want to make statistics about metro stations, she may miss this information.

130.149.147.171 (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Question: Welcome and thanks for the observation. Where would you like to add that comment and exactly what words would you like to use? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Rotterdam?

The Rotterdam pages show 62 stations, but this list says there are 38. Is this number simply out of date, or did someone here decide that say the Rotterdam A+B lines should not be considered as metros? (if so, I don't see this mentioned in the archives) 99.255.205.126 (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

From the article, it looks like Lines A and B have some level crossings, a definite no-no for metro classifications in which grade separation and right-of-way are a must. Given that, I would agree that leaving Lines A and B out for the station count is fine. I'm surprised it hasn't been discussed before, but I guess now it has. -Multivariable (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

However, to play Devil's advocate, the Chicago 'L' also has some level crossings, so it's not necessarily so cut-and-dry. And apparently it is considered part of the Metro locally, which we should account for. That said, Rotterdam's A & B may be more analogous to Cleveland's Green and Blue lines, which are light rail which share some trackage with the heavy rail Red Line. This is going to require some thought.oknazevad (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Underground not needed !?

As I understand it, even if metro systems often uses tunnels in city centers, this is not a concern for beeing a metro system. (?) F.i. at Chicago all lines but one is elevated instead of in tunnels. Wupperthaler Schwebelbahn (pardon my bad german) must be concidered as a metro system - it's a rare construction but without disturbances of other rails and street traffic. As mentioned above a city can have several etro systems, but they may not share tracks and so on. Several of the largest german cities have both U-Bahn and S-Bahn , and where they run om their own tracks, separated from each other and other traffic- then they are two different system in the same city. London has the Undrground and DLR (but what about the new Overground ?) Paris has the metro and the express-metro (RER), of wich the latter I cannot find. Thow RER is not a local train or commuter rail. /John (not member) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.42.159 (talk) 07:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Many of these sytems have been discussed before. I recommend you check the archives to see why each has been included or not. oknazevad (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hamburg S-Bahn

Copied from my talk page, with response:

I'm rather certain that the Hamburg S-Bahn has no tracks in common with f.i. regional trains or DB-Intercity train. They run parallel at Haubtbahnhof (And think You may been confused by the fact that the Hamburg S-Bahn is powered both from above, and by a third track, dependig of line.) But On Hamburg "Metronetz-maps" (also called "USA-Bahn"!(at least in the late 90's - the A-Bahn is a pure surburban pro-longing of both U- and S-lines, I do not know more about them, and they are not included by me, prehaps the A-Bahn has disappered today) German sites clearly indicates that the S-Bahn of Berlin and Hamburg is of "full metro standard" - unlike f.i. S-Bahn in Magdeburg. I followed a german site when adding Hamburg.

Zooming up this map makes it rather clear that no other train runs on the S-tracks. And they do certenly do not do so at Hauptbahnhof. (Thow 4 parallell tracks exists specially in and out of the centralstation/Haubtbahnhof (nouns is always spelled with a first versal i german)

http://geofox.hvv.de/jsf/mapsLGV.seam

and at the german wiki-page

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-Bahn_Hamburg#Ausschreibung_des_S-Bahn-Betriebs

I cannot find any support for that other trains then S-trains runs on the S-tracks, thow there are two differend powersupplies. In the whole system S-trains stops at 4 "Fernbanhöfen" (Long-distance-stations) and 11 regional stations, but nothing what so ever that suggests that regional trains and/or long distance trains use the same tracks as the S-Bahn.

Sorry if I'm wrighting this under Your personal discussion - but as a non-member I'm not familiar how to do in cases like this.

If You decide that I'm wrong, please just overrid my override.

Best of reguards John, Sweden (south) 300-350 km from Hamburg wich I've visited over 10 times. I've also red german i public school, and specially written german is understandable in most cases. (fast discussion is more difficult) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.42.159 (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

"31.9 km are operated together with regional and cargo traffic" - this, which is from here, is what confused me. The way I read the sentence, it says that a portion of the Hamburg S-Bahn shares tracks with other rail traffic. if the reality is that they run on separate but parallel tracks, then the other article needs clarification, If, on the other hand, my original interpretation was correct, and the S-Bahn traffic runs on the exact same rails as the regional and freight traffic, then the system doesn't belong on this list, as exclusivity and self-containment are pretty much the centerpiece of metro standards. As I said in my edit summary, S-Bahns are so hard to classify, as the only real thing they have in common is the name.oknazevad (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

After year 2003 (if there ever was a problem) only pure S-lines are mentioned as S-lines. Regional trains in Germany must not be confused with S-trains. They have numbers of theirs own. The german Railway classification is as follows

• InterCityExpress - ICE
• Inter City - IC
• Regional Express - RE
• Regionalbahn - RB (and some other names in former GDR)
• Stadtbahn - S

Before 2003 a Regional-line was used as S-Bahn inside the S-system. But it runned and was numbered as S-Bahn. After 2003 this line got the regional line no 10 and is not running on S-rail tracks. But even before 2003 all conciderations were fullfilled - but it should perhaps had been described as a system of it's own. A different kind of train running on tracks not shared with eighter S-train, Cargo-train , Regional/Long Distance -train or any other trains. This was new to me, but in any case no other trains but S-trains run on S-Bahn tracks in Hamburg. Unlike the U-Bahn , the S-Bahn thow runs outside the state/city of Hamburg. But as I see it this is of no concederition, and it's the same in Berlin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.35.168 (talk) 06:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Both the Hamburg and Berlin S-Bahn systems cannot share tracks with mainline rail for technical reasons: They both use third rail with DC, whereas the mainline use overhead with AC. You cannot mix the two electrical systems on the same track (not at reasonable cost anyway), therefore all S-Bahn lines in these two cities are separated from mainline rail by definition. They may use parallel tracks on the same route, but where that is the case the tracks still remain separate all the way. The reason for this oddity is historic: The two systems were designed decades before mainline rail became electrified, so they had to find individual solutions.

The same is not true for all the other "S-Bahn" systems in Germany. They all use overhead AC, and are compatible with mainline. Therefore in these systems it is technically possible to mix S-Bahn and mainline trains on the same tracks.

That does not mean that it's done in a given system though. For example the Munich S-Bahn which is technically compatible with mainline, still is kept separate in all part of the network. "S-Bahn" ist foremost a marketing label used for a large variety of systems with different technical layout and service qualities. The decision if a given system deserves to be categorized as a metro can only be done after detailed examination. Anorak2 (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Asi I said, S-Bahns can be so hard to classify. But from what is said here, it seems that the Hamburg S-Bahn is sufficiently self-contained and frequent enough to be considered a metro-type system. oknazevad (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

After taken part of what's confused "Oknazevad" new facts have come to my knowlidge. But not dued to the unreferenced short text only. I understand it as following: In december 2003 the line S3 (in southwest) was pro-longed into the state of Niedersachsen. From Harburg Rathaus ("Harburg City Hall") to Stade. This new part is crossed by an industrial track (track=Gleis) but the majority of the pro-longed S3-line Harburg Rathaus - Neugraben runs parallell only to other tracks (i.o

there are four tracks, two for the S-Bahn and two for the R10-line Hamburg-Harburg-Neugraben-Stade-Cuxhaven. Thow the 5-10 km part Neugraben-Stade (outside the state of Hamburg, in the state of Niedersachsen) has only dual tracks on the line - but at the very few stations between Neugraben and Stade the platforms are separated. (It seems that this is the first step to include Cuxhaven to the Hamburg S-Bahn, and therefore building four tracks at a rather small line is not a priority for the state of Niedersachsen. The major part of the pro-longing of S3 in 2003 is four tracks, with S-Bahn fully separated. The question is thow of a bit larger matter then I thought at first. My personal "vote" is thow that Hamburg S-Bahn belongs to this (very intresting) list - the consequenses of the opposite would f.i. be erasing London Underground from the list, since (to my knowlidge) eighter Metropolitan line, Bakerloo line or both share tracks in the north-west of London. (At least it has been so). Pure cargo trains do not operate in Haburg (or Berlin) S-Bahn - but all metro system need entrances/exits for diesel driven trains for maintenance.

My sources: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-Bahn_Hamburg http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niederelbebahn Can be helpful with the maps. Track=Gleis. That germans "put words together" may be of some help. (ex railway station = Eisenbahnstation) I have now neutrally (hopefully - I'm a least from southern Sweden) tried my very best to describe "the Hamburg S-Bahn line S3 pro-longing issue/problem , and leave it to others to judge. Best of reguards and I understand what got "Oknazevad" to react. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.35.168 (talk) 04:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Much clearer now. Danke.oknazevad (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

But still, 32 km out of the 144 km network is shared with other trains. That is 22%, a significant part of the whole system. Some outer parts of the system only have 20 minutes daytime train frequency, and the line to Stade only one train per hour. Parts of the network have level crossings and single track sections. Most of the system runs parallell to mainline railways, and it is operated by a subsidiary to Deutsche Bahn. All this make it more like a suburban railway system rather than a metro. --Kildor (talk) 10:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

No thoose facts are wrong - as far as I've found out. It concerns the part Neugraben-Stade - about 7 km and two stations only (Stade and Neu Wulmsdorf) The part Harburg-Neugraben has separeted tracks (4 tracks in all). So it concerns 7 out of 144 km and 2 out of 66 stations (wich both have separated platforms). A strange thing is thow - by the look of Google Maps. It seems that some of the tracks after Neugraben are covered (not tunnels) - I can only find the stations - and at them there is clearly dual platforms (4 tracks). Since this is both an extension of the S3 line and in the very outer parts of the system (inside the state of Niedersachsen and not Hamburg), and most likely the first step to connect the S3-line all the way to Cuxhaven, and then the problem is gone. I think it's best to make the future decide how to rank Hamburg S-Bahn. I fail to see any problem with S-Bahn running parallell to other raiways, as long as the system are fully separated. The S-Bahn have subway distances between the stations regionalbahn 5-10 km and IC/ICE trains only stops at the main stations. (Haubtbahnhof and Dammtor, i belive, in Hamburg) To build metro systems out of old railways is made at many other cities in the list. The importaint thing is that the metrosystem is fully separated from other trains and other traffic. Exceptions do however occur even i London as I mentioned. The germans themselves counts the S-Bahn of Berlin and Hamburg as different from f.i. Madgeburg and Rostock where large parts of the S-Bahn is used by other trains. As I mentioned earlier larger exceptions is accepted at London. But I am thow a bit courious where the 32 km and x number of stations origins from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.36.53 (talk) 11:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The distance between Neugraben and Stade is clearly more than 7 km. Take a look at google maps if you are not convinced. The figure 32 km btw is from urbanrail.net. And no, it is not "fully" separated from other trains and traffic. As I said above, 22% of the network is shared with other trains. And both the Stade and Wedel branches have level crossings (thus, it is not fully seperated!). And large parts of the network do not have a sufficient train frequency to be considered a metro system. Exceptions do occur in other systems as well, but to a lesser extent. --Kildor (talk) 23:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I looked at Google Maps only (the schematic maps are hard to read because their texts is unreadable with my eyesight on this screen). Clearly following statements from me were wrong. (1) Neugraben - Stade is far longer then 7 km. Probobly about the double (but not 32 km), and there are (2) 7-8 stations (?) after Neugraben where the "problems" begin. (But some stations is not build when the photos were taken - I write this to understate that my errors was not intentional). But this is still an extension of the S3-line. And before Neugraben there are eighter no parallell R-10 - or four tracks. This is all outside the city and state of Hamburg (in Niedersachsen as I wrote). I don't think this error is of principal matter and does not change the standard. Inside Hamburg is the system fully separeted apart from maintenance entries. That train run parallell is still of no consideration as long as there are two tracks for the S-Bahn. But are there other parts of Hamburg S-Bahn that is not fully separated ? If not my vote is for including the system and time will tell what if it's development goes towards an integreted system or not. (I would be different if this "S3-extention-issue" had occured in the central parts of the system)At present I think Hamburg S-Bahn is comparable to Metropolitan Line at London Underground. I shall however take a look at your

recommendation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.32.24 (talk) 00:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I hve now looked at the recommende map, wich I find to be the best I've found of Hamburg USA-system so far. But It's not scalable however. If I underestemated the distance I think You have done the opposite. And this map clearly shows "mixed service"

at the southwest end of the S3-line only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.32.24 (talk) 01:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all: The 32 km figure is from urbanrail.net (see link above) and not from myself. Secondly: The driving (road) distance from Neugraben to Stade, according to google maps, is 38 kilometers. The road goes near the railway, and it is therefore likely that 32 kilometers is correct. I think it is of principal matter when more than 20% of the network is shared with other traffic. And yes, also the branch to Wedel fails to be fully separated, since it has level crossings. --Kildor (talk) 11:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Please mr Kildor, I've never suggested that You invited the 32 km Yourself, only that You might have overestemated the track-distance. The road distance should be from Neugraben/Fischbek to Stade rather from Neugraben itself. The station S-Bhf-Neugraben is closer to Stade then what Neugraben (Neugraben on Google Maps that is, I've never been there myself). At larger scale, 30 km of craw flight from Stade gets You to central Hamburg (or atleast Altona), so I cannot quite agree with the alleged estimation. But even if the estimation is exact I still do belive that this S3-extension is not enough to erase the Hamburg S-Bahn from the list, not as the only one anyway (see later). Your own source (the good schematic map) clearly indicates that there is no other "mixed service" in the system but the S-Bhf-Neugraben and S-Bhf-Stade part. And the rather recent extention is of six stations only (but I cannot find them all at Google Maps) but of those S-stations that can be found (i.o "I can find") there is a clear separation of the station platforms - so the problem is of no more principal matter then the track sharing f.i. in London and Chicago. And apart from that, the "problematic part" is in the state of Niedresachsen only, not in state/city of Hamburg. I suggest that we wait for more comments - preferbly from people of Hamburg, southern Schleswig-Holstein and northern Niedersachsen - at least for a while. New info might then occur. If You are German Yourself please accept my deepest appologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.33.99 (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

After beeing asked for a comment on the de:wikipedia to help you at your dispute I would like to introduce myself: my name is Carol Christiansen (a male: "Carol" means a latin "Carl" in Germany), I'm living in Hamburg and am working for DB. If you want me to help you to verify facts: please tell me. On the other hand as beeing an editor of de:, not of en:, and as a part of DB - if I may say so - I would prefer not to take part on your desicion, but only to answer as good as possible. If this is OK for you: how can I help you? Kind greetings from Hamburg, --Carol.Christiansen (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

May I start with the distance between Stade and Neugraben? The 32 km value is correct. At Neugraben the 4-tracks-system (2 tracks for S-Bahn, two for the regional trains to Cuxhaven) ends; only 2 tracks for both kinds of trains, the S-Bahn and the regional trains, lead to Stade and Cuxhaven. Neugraben lies on track-km 179.19, Stade at track-km 211.18 Difference: 31.99 km. You may see yourself at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niederelbebahn. The scheme you will find there contains both values and gives you a correct list of all stations and their distances of that part of the train system. --Carol.Christiansen (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

And another hint: the trains from Neugraben need 33 minutes to reach Stade (and vice versa). This should verify the 32 km distance, too. :-) --Carol.Christiansen (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for theese facts. The main question do thow remain.

Does the S3-line extension to Stade excludes the S-Bahn from other metros in the list ?. Since simular solutions exists at f.i. at Metropolitan Line in London, and someone also mentioned "problem" whith Chicago, the S-Bahn i Hamburg is "good enough" for the list. Everywhere else the traffic is fully separated (maintenance entries excluded) - and since it's an extension in the far south/southwest with only 5-6 new stations after S-Bhf-Neugraben (by Fischbek) this schould not influence the total standard of the S-Bahn, I think. And by the look of Google Maps it lookes as there are dual platforms at theese stations atleast. Apart from this help I don't need any more facts - but the recommended link will be looked at, I promise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.33.99 (talk) 04:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

There are some new stations at that part of the S3 between Neugraben and Stade; in most cases they replace older "normal" railway stations to support the standards of S-Bahn trains (e.g. every of these stations supports an easy use by wheelchairs or blind persons. The regional trains do not stop at those stations; Neugraben and Stade are the only stations to change between those systems Both of these stations have their own platforms for the different kind of trains. The new platforms are placed on both sides of the tracks, that is correct. Kind greetings to beautiful Sweden from rainy Hamburg, --Carol.Christiansen (talk) 07:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"Does the S3-line extension to Stade excludes the S-Bahn from other metros in the list?" Yes, I think it does. Since it makes 22% of the total S-Bahn network shared with other traffic (I am pretty sure no other system is even close to that figure). Combined with other facts, like there are level crossings also on other parts of the network, the system is better described as a suburban railway system. --Kildor (talk) 07:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Mr Kildor, where are theese crossings ? I might support You if true. But perhaps (I do not eledge that You intentionally misunderstand) You are talking about the A-Bahn lines. On Your map no one level crossing seems to exist. So You have to be more precise about this matter. To Carol - Yes we have really nice wheather now at the second part of october... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.32.229 (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the level crossings are on the S-Bahn. Take a look at Google Maps near Sülldorf for instance (or take a look at File:S-Suelldorf01.JPG). --Kildor (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Well - first I failed to see what You ment by this picture. Then I assumed You mean that the picture shows the public exit/entries to the platform. Then I thought "this is a compleatly new issue" - I understand "one level crossing" as a traffic point where cars must stop for trains. This is different. (On the other hand at the station Hammersmith in London You have to walk across the street to change line, at least so it was in the mid 80's) But as You probably know Hamburg has not only the U-Bahn and S-Bahn, (and "common" trains) but also the A-Bahn. Take a good lok at the picture again, if You don't mind mr Kildor.

Does not something missing, to be an S-Station ? Where is the electricity ? No third track, no power above. I do belive this is a part of the A-Bahn (wich I belive to be diesel driven - not sure thow). But in any case at this platform no electrical train can run, can they ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.34.162 (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

But after looking at Google Maps very close, there is indeed a one level crossing with a road close to the Selldorf station. But is the picture from S-Bhf Selldorf ? "Your" schematic map also says that the S1-line run on single tracks after Blankenese. Now I'm confused, Google Maps shows two tracks... But I think the last 3 or 4 stations of S1 really is not running all along the line. At Blankenese the line "goes in and out" - my guess is that You have to change train at Blankenese - from electric dual track real S-Bahn to something equal to A-Bahn. This part (after Blankenese) cannot be counted as metro, so much I must agree. And I strongly doubt that the last part of S1 it's electrified. I.o. it should be mentioned as "A-bahn" if I'm correct. The Rotterdam metro seems to have been shortened at this list, dued to similarities as You've found here. I might suggest the same here, but on the other hand Carol wrote "new stations are beeing built". But to erase the whole system that fullfills all standards in the city just becaurse a perhaps temporary solution on the (rather far) country side is still not enough to erase the whole system - if You ask me, that is. Best reguards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.34.162 (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

After more "investigation" I'm not so sure that there is single track on S1 Blankenese to end of line. And there might be electricity aswell - today, but the photo is clearly rather old. If You look at the timetable (or what it is on the wall) there is an red S for the S-Bahn , but that changed to an green S later. Wich year I do not know, but it's not lately. So much can have happened since. There is a stright S1-timetable as it seems. I looked at "Fahrpläne" on the official site and found my guessing about A-Bahn to be wrong. And the S-Bahn has had some problems in this matters - as You suggest. But still only at the countyside at the far end of the lines. A good question is if all other metro systems on the list are "perfect" ? Thow road crossings are severe errors of a true metro system, I agree. Strongly. And if it had been inside the city I would had erased the S-Bahn myself. But since electrification (wich logically must has been done after the picture was taken), new stations (as Carol has told us) and a second track must have happened since the "S-logo" became green, so I still find it difficult to erase the S-Bahn whithout better knowlidge of what is to come. My point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.34.162 (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

And Carol once again, with apologies to the swedish IP: you will not like my news. Sülldorf is part of a (still) single-tracked, very old part of the Hamburg S-Bahn, it got a level crossing for the public traffic. and the S-Bahn trains are constructed to get their power from a third rail aside of the "normal" two rails, that can have interruptions of more than 20 meters without causing any technical difficulties. for example to let passengers cross the track without any danger. The single-rail-part between Blankenese and Wedel will not be extendend in the next years: it's one of the oldest parts of the Hamburg S-Bahn system, and houses, even skyscrapers (OK, he very small ones, up to 20 levels) have been build that close to the S1 line in that area that a second track, that would be very usefull, is not able to be build in the next decade. I addition, level-crossings for cars and pedestrians exist on the new part (since 2007) of S3, that had been theme in the first part of this discussion. In fact, DB is more interested to be a servicer for our customers and give them an easy and fast connection to the city than to be called a metro system. :-) Nevertheless I guess we are; but as I said before: as both, a citizen of Hamburg and a railroader I definitly am not neutral. Thank you to Sweden for your activity. Kind greetings, --Carol.Christiansen (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

With the facts presented above, I think it is now clear that the Hamburg S-Bahn does not belong to this list. It is better described as a suburban railway system, and it is in fact already included in List of suburban and commuter rail systems. Therefore, I hope we can conclude this discussion, and I will now remove it from the list. Best regards (also from Sweden). --Kildor (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, some words from Hamburg: You are right, but... you can find the same things at Berlin's S-Bahn. There are also level crossings 1), sections with only one track and even tracks shared with other, "regional" trains 2). Only 1 Line of Hamburg's S-Bahn, S3, goes on tracks which are also used by regional trains and even this only within Neugraben and Stade. The other ones, S1, S2, S11, S21 and S31 go on a network that is used by S-Bahn trains only. The Stade section may appear quite important for the whole network as it is more than 20 percent of the network length but it is not. Consider that the whole network is used by more than 200 mio. passengers/year. Less than 10 Mio. go between Stade and Neugraben.

• 1) http://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/berliner-s-bahn-kollidiert-an-bahnuebergang-mit-lkw/1965996.html
• 2) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:PICT1282.JPG Look at the overhead lines (for regional trains) above the track which also got a third rail for the S-Bahn.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgenstund (talk • contribs) 14:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)