Talk:Urban rail in the United Kingdom

Birmingham / West Midlands

A lot of these networks serve more than one large urban area but they focus on a large major city. Therefore Bristol could be renamed to Avon and Manchester to Greater Manchester etc. but the fact is these networks only exist because of that large city (Birmingham) and has been expanded to bring commuters from Coventry and Wolverhampton. Therefore I'm in favour of retaining the Birmingham sub-heading and not re-naming it to West Midlands. I would appreciate the input of other editors and this may go to a consensus if need be. Welshleprechaun (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not quite as simple as all that. The two main datasets for this kind of information are:

• Travel to Work Areas based on the commuting data from the 2001 census, and is related to small Census Output areas.
• Eurostat Larger Urban Zone data - "an area from a significant share of the residents commute into the city, a concept known as the "functional urban region." It is based upon combinations of local authority areas.

Comparing this data for three areas currently within the article:

• West Midlands is a multi-centred conurbation, and the TTWA data shows that there is less cross-commuting between the three cities than might be expected without recourse to that data; indeed the cross-commuting that does occur is generally a two-way process. There are three separate LUZs: Birmingham LUZ, Coventry LUZ and Wolverhampton LUZ, whilst there are TTWAs for Birmingham, Coventry, Wolverhampton, Dudley/Sandwell and Walsall/Cannock.

• Greater Manchester is dominated by the central city, Manchester. Travel to Work data shows a single TTWA based around Manchester that includes the majority of the Greater Manchester Urban Area along with areas outside such as Macclesfield, whilst there are Oldham/Rochdale and Bolton TTWAs; and the Manchester LUZ is a single entity containing the entire GM county.

• Leeds/Bradford (which currently uses that heading in the article), has distinct Travel to Work Areas for each city, but a single Leeds-Bradford LUZ.

Therefore "West Midlands" is the most sensible heading, as the commuter data shows that to be the case, as well as the physical size of the three cities (2nd, 9th and 13th by population in England). They clearly need to be dealt with in one place in the article due not only to their physical location near to one another, but also the fact that they share a PTE. Greater Manchester is clearly focused on Manchester, so doesn't need to be changed, and Leeds/Bradford is somewhere in between. Fingerpuppet (talk) 01:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay I see where you're coming from but maybe there are statistics somehwere to show how many people use the network to commute to each of the cities and go from there? Welshleprechaun (talk) 11:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Easily available statistics tend to be of two forms: residents with commuting destination nodes, and residents by mode of transport, rather than the two combined. I'll see what I can dig out with both. Fingerpuppet (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

London

This one needs to be resolved before the sections get expanded as it will set how the London section expands; are the sub-surface Underground lines to be included? The Metropolitan Line (at its maximum extent terminating only eight miles from Oxford) and the District Line (Windsor to Southend at maximum extent) in particular meet any definition of "heavy commuter rail" I can think of – an A Stock train is considerably heavier than the Class 150s on the Gospel Oak to Barking Line, and runs a much longer route into open countryside unlike the GOB line, but including them would further blur an already shaky boundary. (Why is a National Rail service from Harrow and Wealdstone to Queens Park "commuter rail", but a Bakerloo Line train on the same route with the same stops "rapid transit"?) – iridescent 00:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to do with the London Overground, any trams or light rail should be on this article. Don't take the term heavy rail too literally. There's no rule saying trains over so and so tonnes are heavy! The same goes for commuter rail. The Underground does indeed attract commuters but it's light rail. Welshleprechaun (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"Heavy" in my post should have been in quotes – I'm not suggesting there's someone somewhere weighing the trains! My point is that the Metropolitan line, for example, shares tracks (and platforms) with Chiltern Railways which are bona fide "real" trains, while the North London Line accommodates everything from Eurostar to nuclear waste convoys. While it's spent the last century being rationalised, London's unusual history means there's still a bewildering array of joint-workings in the outer reaches of the system. – iridescent 00:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You need to look at the network rather than specific lines as heavy and light rail can share the same track, such as the Tyne and Wear Metro shares the track local Northern Rail services between Heworth and Sunderland. Welshleprechaun (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

LRT

I know that commuter rail = heavy rail, but surely as the LRT systems in both Greater Manchester and the West Midlands (which are the two I know of) spend 90% of their time on former heavy rail lines and the LRT systems complement the heavy rail network then they should be at least mentioned, even if it's just as a passing aside noting lines and destinations? Indeed, Bury - Manchester - Altrincham Metrolink used the heavy rail track itself and could track-share with heavy rail? Fingerpuppet (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Metrolink and other UK tram networks are already mentioned in dozens of other articles. They are not really notable in this one, unless it's kept to bare minimum, such as Piccadilly/Snow Hill also forms as an interchange with the Metrolink/Metro (which maybe links the city centre with parts of the city not served by commuter rail?). A list of their lines and destinations would not be appropriate here. Please make suggestions on this talk page rather than editing straight away. Thanks. Welshleprechaun (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see where you're coming from with this. I'd suggest that the Metrolink and Midland Metro do link the city centres that they serve with parts of the conurbations that are not served by commuter rail, but I'm not particularly worried about having them in or not.

By the way, they were in the article before I got here - I just expanded what was already here. Fingerpuppet (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Light Rail systems do not form part of the national rail network - and for that matter neither do the "subway"/"tube" systems of which there are only 2 in Britain (London and Glasgow) - although the London Underground does share tracks with conventional trains at some points. So in the UK we have

- the National Rail network - the London Underground ("underground" trains which resemble conventional trains and "tube" trains built for the small-diameter tunnels under the city centre) - the Glasgow Underground (subway) - Light rail systems without street running - Docklands Light Railway, Tyne and Wear Metro - Light rail systems with both street running and dedicated tracks - Sheffield, Manchester, West Midlands, Croydon, Nottingham - street-running tram systems (streetcars) - Blackpool (though the Blackpool system does have a short reserved track section)

plus "heritage railways", museum tramways eg Crich, funiculars, cable trams (Great Orme, a similar system to San Francisco's), railways on piers, mountain railways (eg Snowdon)

of these only National Rail network trains belong in this article I think - but there is a case for including some London Underground services that go outside central London and are thus not strictly "urban"

This article is slightly strange - it uses a lot of US terminology - may need rewriting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exile (talk • contribs) 20:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

What specific terminology is US? Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Commuter rail is not any rail

Please don't write about light rail networks - such as the London Underground, Tyne and Wear Metro, Glasgow Subway and trams in Manchester/Sheffield/Birmingham and Nottingham. This deals with commuter rail which is heavy rail. It's fine to mention them saying that there are interchanges with these networks to commuter rail but this is not the place to go into detail about them. This also applies to mainline rail. I'd be happy to help anyone who is confused about the difference etc. Welshleprechaun (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if that is the case, i.e. commuter rail is heavy rail, let's have a proper reference/citation in the article for it. At the moment there is only a "claim" that it is true on this talkpage.Pyrotec (talk) 08:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I also removed the previous first reference - using a wikipedia article to verify another article does not constitute WP:verify.Pyrotec (talk) 08:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

FCC Farringdon

How exactly is Farringdon more important than say Finsbury Park, Wimbledon, Elephant & Castle etc? It is just an interchange with the Underground but i fail to see why this interchange is more important than other ones. Simply south (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Try interchanging with FCC at Kings Cross St Pancras. Also, very close to the City, unlike KXSP. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The same could be said for Blackfriars (ignoring the current situation). Also, FCC are not just found on Thameslink. Yes it has easy interchange but so do the others generally. London Bridge is also easy to change for access to City. Simply south (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Layout change

Owing to the provision of such a comprehensive series of thumbnails in the London section and the effect this caused in messing up the maps and images for the last two cities (which incidentally were already out of alphabetical order!), I have re-arranged the page a little and placed all the Greater London in one section, that does not graphically over-run into another city. I hope the makers of the London sections are happy with this. Easy to change it back of course, but a solution was definitely needed as the previous version was rather untidy.Mapmark (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I would agree having 8 photos of trains on the London section (one for each operator) is excessive and goes beyond the needs of simple illustration, the London photos should be limited to 2 or 3 max along with a map. Further the whole London section could do with a rewrite to expand the content and make it prose like the other cities and less a collection of bullet points for each operator. WatcherZero (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Other networks

What towns and cities should be included? Plymouth as quite a few local stations on the main line, same for Bournemouth and Poole. Middlesburgh, as well as having main line services terminate there, there are local trains along the line from Darlington to Saltburn as well as major improvements with one train an hour on the Esk Valley Line to Nunthorpe and South Bank on the former line regaining its services. Bradford has two terminii and a number of stations. Birkenhead has a major commuter network connected with Liverpool. I'm sure there are others as well. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 12:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Or how about those towns with 2 or more main stations connected by a short link, like Colchester, Lichfield, Stourbridge or Wakefield? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Wrexham, Ipswich, Reading, Slough, Darlington, Lowestoft, Newport, Falkirk, Livingston, Dundee, Chester. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 12:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking it might be a good idea to create an Other cities section for smaller cities, which have some degree of commuter rail. G-13114 (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Does this article even need to exist?

I'm wondering whether this article actually has any place on Wikipedia. I've never heard the term "urban rail", the map which claims to represent this article is mostly cities which do not have "urban rail" systems at all, and frankly the whole thing is just a collection of random places saying "there's a train here!". -mattbuck (Talk) 00:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I would agree. Much of this is a WP:CONTENTFORK and the term "urban rail" to me means something like S-Bahn which we don't really have in the UK. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a useful overview of the commuter rail networks of the large conurbations. But it might be a good idea to rename it Commuter rail networks in the United Kingdom or something more specific. G-13114 (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it should be renamed Commuter Rail, with Merseyrail and London Overground removed and moved into any "metro" article. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:5C8E:C2FC:D6A7:F92E (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes this article is nonsense. It says: "Urban rail is defined as a rail service between a central business district and suburbs or other locations that draw large numbers of people on a daily basis. The trains providing such services may be termed commuter trains". London Overground is BIG, yet only one line runs into the centre of London. This precludes the London Overground from urban rail according to the definition. What is urban rail? It is any rail network that runs in an urban area, that includes Tyne & Wear Metro, Merseyrail, Glasgow Subway, London Underground, etc. The definition above is that Commuter Rail is one line in and out of an urban centre. Fine, OK with that. A "network" is a metro, that is: London Underground, London Overground, London DLR, Merseyrail, T&W Metro, Glasgow Subway.

Urban Rail is any rail in an urban area that is specific to that area - obvious. Urban Rail can be split up into two:

1. An urban network which is a Metro;
2. Lines in and out of the centre which is Commuter Rail. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:5C8E:C2FC:D6A7:F92E (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Urban rail in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081203130842/http://www.centro.org.uk/rail/railstations.asp to http://www.centro.org.uk/rail/railstations.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081216005911/http://www.centro.org.uk:80/corporateinformation/home.asp to http://www.centro.org.uk/corporateinformation/home.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090218110233/http://merseyrail.org:80/about/?sGUID=2a45e2d07d59c0d621570a918cb62195 to http://www.merseyrail.org/about/?sGUID=2a45e2d07d59c0d621570a918cb62195
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090206124018/http://merseyrail.org:80/documents/NetworkMap.pdf to http://www.merseyrail.org/documents/NetworkMap.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Plymouth?

Being a relatively small city with a commuter rail ‘network’ comprising of only one line, does Plymouth need its own section on this article?--95.146.78.204 (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The whole of this article is completely wrong headed

This appears to have been constructed largely by enthusiasts with limited understanding of railway technology and operations. As others have said it is nonsense.

First there is an issue of definitions which is confused in many areas. 'urban rial' is usually taken as any railway designed to operate in a predominantly urban environment. This includes heavy rail, but also includes metros, light railways, and tramways. Commuter rail has no common definition, but usually means any railway that is operated largely to provide computing services, which can be long or short distance, it is much more commonly used in the US than the UK. Suburban rail generally refers to railways that are designed or operated to bring people into the centre of a single conurbation. A suburban railway may be a commuter railway, but it may not.

It is very odd that Merseyrail is included (two lines of which are metros) but Tyne & Were isn't.

The supposed 'Advantages over light rail' have nothing to do with the characteristics of the supposed mode, but are simply operating choices, bikes, ticketing schemes, capacity etc.

Overall this is just a random selection of of services operated (mostly but not entirely) on the national rail/Network Rail network, selected on a basis that is not at all cler. The whole thing should be deleted and, if a page is needed, started again as "Commuter services operated on the UK National Rail Network" or something similar, which seems what this article is trying, but currently failing, to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.145.186 (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

South Hampshire

Should South Hampshire be included on this page? Its one of the largest urban areas in the UK and has around 30 stations which is more than Bristol which is included on here. Eopsid (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)