Talk:List of tram and light rail transit systems

Manila

I tried to remove Manila from this article, since it's already in the List of metro systems, but IJBall (talk) twice undid my edits claiming that (as he wrote in his last edit' summary) like Los Angeles, Manila has a "mixed" system of heavy and light rail, and for this reason, it's present here and there. However, in Los Angeles case, the Metro Rail network is actually "split" in two parts, with some lines (i.e. Red and Purple) listed in the "metro" page and the others listed in this page, and the assignment is clearly explained (how and why) throght dedicated notes.
Conversely, Manila wholesome network consists (or at least consisted, last time it was checked ...) of three lines:

• Line 3 (or Yellow), which belongs alone to MRTC (Manila Metro Rail Transit System) ➡ the line is present here and MRT is present into the metro list;
• Line 2 (or Blue) and Line 1 (or Green), which belong to LRTA (Manila Light Rail Transit System) ➡ line 1 is present here and, as anyone can realize checking the data about LRT written into the metro list, is also counted into that list.

Therefore, unlike in Los Angeles' case IJBall mentioned, there's clearly an inconsistent duplication that should be amended either deleting Manila by this list (as I unsuccessfully tried to do) or modifying the other list.
AFAIK, the only meaningful difference between the three lines is that LRT2 uses Hunday-Rotem four-car EMUs while LRT1 and MRT3 use three-car or four-car train of rather similar LRV vehicle, which are only a little less capacious (1000-1200 pass/train, depending on the model, versus 1400 pass/train, at 6 pass/m² for standing) than the first ones: under any other technical point of view, the three lines have quite homogeneous infrastructural and operating features, and fit smoothly (the lighter two too) into the UITP definition and requirements of a metro system; therefore, I strongly stand for their removal from this page and keeping into the metro list.
I'd like to know what other longtime top editors (from both the involved wiki pages) - like SJ Morg, Mattximus, Ymblanter, oknazevad, Terramorphous, Jklamo, ... - think about it, in order to ascertain consensus on this matter. 93.57.255.93 (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Support Removal I think it was an honest error on IJBall's part as the name of the Manila system is very misleading; sort of like (but in reverse) many systems that are branded with a name with "metro" appended to it but are not actually metro systems. Based on my knowledge of the Manila system, all 3 lines do conform with the standards of rapid transit.Terramorphous (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Terramorphous: I don't really have a horse in this race. And I don't remember if there has been specific discussion about this, but I feel like there was several years back, and at that time it was felt that some Manila lines were heavy and some lines were light. That may have changed in the intervening years. At the least, I believe Manila is also listed at Medium-capacity rail transport systems – as long as it is left there, it can probably be removed from here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Neither do I in this case but from what I know all lines run completely in their own ROW. Also, (this will make your head spin) the MRT looking line with "heavier looking" rolling stock is called LRT 2 while the two light metro lines that are technically identical are called LRT 1 and MRT 3. Terramorphous (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I can't say I know a lot about Manilla's system, but I do recall that only part of it is full heavy rail, while other lines use light rail rolling stock, albeit with a high amount of grade separation. If that's the case, then it does seem like a split listing like LA, Boston, Philly, etc. is the right solution. oknazevad (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, checking Medium-capacity rail transport system explains why at least one of these lines should be considered "light rail" – 3-car trains simply doesn't get you to "heavy rail"-type ridership levels, regardless of grade-separation. So I basically agree with Oknazevad here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry it might sound rude, but IJBall statement it's doubly wrong: when we speak about capacity, firstly it doesn't matter how the train is shaped, but how many passengers can carry and then full grade separation - or better, ROW segregation - does count, since it's what allows to run more capacious (= bigger) trains with the same headway, or equally capacious trains with a tighter headway.

Now, let's cut the pleasantries and get to the point; I'm not sure which line you're speaking about, but I suppose it's MRT3 (due to your explicit cross-reference to the Medium-capacity rail transport system list): a train of their Ist generation rolling stock, Tatra RT8D5M (here the technical specifications), can carry 942 passengers (at 6 pass/m² for standings) - just for the sake of comparison: one of these 3-car trains that simply doesn't get you to "heavy rail" can carry almost as many people as a Paris Metro train (990 pass/train of a standard set of the most common MF 67) - and the line was designed to run a train every 3', which means a capacity of 18800 pphd (they declare 23000 pphd at 8 pass/m²). In the last years the system has worked with a reduced frequency - due to maintenance issues related, if I correctly understood, to a dispute between MRTC and DOTC - with a peak headway of 4'÷5', i.e a capacity roughly between 11000 and 14000 pphd (at 6 pass/m² for standings, with 3-car trains), but now things are improving (cfr. here) and some upgrades are under way in order to achieve better performances (24 trains/h = 2.5' headway = 22600 pphd). But even before these upgrades (2014), the average daily ridership of MRT3 was 560000 boardings (a single line that scores better than 11 out of 15 US “true HRT” systems): according to what you wrote, not an "heavy rail"-type ridership level ... really? And almost the same, in both capacity and ridership respect, could be said about LRT1 (the other indicted Manila's line): ironically, the weakest ridership (240000 pass/day last year, ~28000 daily boardings per mile) in Manila rail network is attained by the heaviest line, the only one whose “metro” status is unchallenged. 93.57.255.93 (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

If Manila's light rail is included, then Kuala Lumpur's LRT should be too because they're very similar in specifications. I agree that both systems are more like light metro and shouldn't be in here because they're run like metro except with a smaller rollingstock. If capacity is a criteria, then, Singapore's LRT, which has a much smaller capacity is not even included in this list. If that is dismissed because of its rubber-tyred status, I have counted at least one other rubber-tyred light rail in the list. Fauzi (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Aubagne tramway

Morphenniel (talk) reverted once more my edit about Aubagne tramway, listing it again under Marseille, and he wrote (in the edit summary) he added two reference that - in his opinion - make it clear that this will become an extension of the Marseille system. However, the second source doesn't say anything about this matter, it merely highlights that Aubagne is located east of Marseille (about 20 km, to be accurate). Conversely, the first one talks about the early Aubagne's tramway project, stating that, after the completion of third phase, Aubagne tramway would have been connected to the Marseille transit network (sera connecté ensuite au réseau de transports marseillais), and not to the Marseille tram network; anyway, both the second phase and the third phase of that project were later shelved . On Marseille side, there's actually the aim to reach Aubagne's “border” with the tram tracks, in order to connect the two systems, but A) it's postponed in the long term (beyond-2025 scenario) and B) according to the current proposal, rather than a single line they're thinking of two distinct lines (one Marseille-bound and the other Aubagne-bound) with an interchange terminus halfway. Therefore:

• Aubagne tramway wasn't in the beginning conceived as a part of Marseille one and no source depicts things this way; conversely, plenty of them clearly talk about a network serving the city/town of Aubagne and don't even appoint Marseille (e.g. [1] or [2]);
• extension plans that would bring the two sistems to touch each other are currently indefinitely on hold (Aubagne-side) or posponed to a distant future (Marseille-side);
• even when - if ever - those plans became a reality, it wouldn't mean the merging in a single system or the entrance of the Aubagne one into Marseille orbit; in the Rhine-Ruhr region there are some intertwined tram networks that are also managed together (VRR - Verkehrsverbund Rhein-Ruhr), and yet they're still regarded as separate and serving distinct cities (and are listed here consequently);
• as I already said , this list refers exclusively to the current operational set-up and, by now, Aubagne tramway and Marseille tramway are two separate and distinct systems, serving two different cities, run by two different operators and managed by two different authorities.

Rebus sic stantibus, I really don't see how the current version of the list could be logically sustained and instead strongly reiterate my support to the previous one (two completely separate rows, one for each system); I wonder what IJBall, SJ Morg, Mattximus and other main contributors of this article think about it. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I am abstaining from this discussion, as I don't know anything about the Aubagne project/system and don't have (don't want to spend) time learning about it so as to be able to form an opinion. – SJ Morg (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Probably where I am too – it loos like arguments can probably be made in favor of either arrangement. Personally, though, without knowing the details, two separate entries would seem to make more sense to me than both entries bundled under Marseille. But I don't have a strong opinion on it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I respect your choice of stepping out this discussion, nevertheless I still think that even from a fleeting glimpse the weakness and inconsistency of the current arrangement is evident and I don't see which arguments (at least, which well grounded ones) could be made in favor of it:

• Aubagne and Marseille are just 20 km away? There are also other "tramway cities" so close to each other - about 20 km between Galați (~250000 inh) and Brăila (~180000 inh), about 25 km between Erfurt (~210000 inh) and Gotha (~45000 inh), etc. - and yet they have separated entries in the list;
• Aubagne and Marseille tram networks may be both extended to a common interchange point or even to connect each other (albeit not before a decade from now)? There are systems that now are connected/entagled together, where one's lines reach the center of the other - the already cited case of Mülheim (~170000 inh) served also by a line from Duisburg (~490000 inh), Bonn's (~320000 inh) stadtbahn tunnels used also by two lines from Cologne (~1.06 Minh), etc - and yet they have separated entries in the list;
• Aubagne and Marseille have recently become part of a single Métropole? Yes, but - as its name Métropole d'Aix-Marseille-Provence and its special status suggest - it's a polycentric metropolitan administrative entity where the cities that was formerly core of smaller separated administrative entities keep with Marseille a relationship in many ways very different from the one that typically exists between the main city and its suburbs/satellite towns (e.g. between Paris and Saint-Denis);
• Aubagne and Marseille tram networks will be soon managed by a common authority (the Métropole itself) and maybe both run by the same operator? There are also other such cases, and yet the systems involved have separated entries in the list.

Last but not least, I didn't find a single source - neither the supporters of the current arrangement adduced one - that explicitly depicting or implicitly talking about the Aubagne tramway as it was a Marseille system: conversely, all of them say more or less clearly that it serves the city of Aubagne. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Marseille tramway opening year

@IJBall: Part of the current Marseille system - precisely, half of the line 1 - follows the ROW of the old line 68 - late remnant of the once extensive tram network that survived the widespread closures in the 50s and 60s - plying the same streets and running through the century-old tunnel toward the same underground terminus, Noailles: although officially often portrayed as a brand new tramway, stressing more on the global makeover carried out during three and half years of suspended operations than on the legacy features, it is conversely close to a renovation/expansion of the original one. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It suspended service for 3 years – in other words, it wasn't "continually operating" since the 1890s. This is akin to the Muni Metro situation – the new system that opened was fundamentally different than the old system. Even the operator (which is the source) quotes a 2000s opening date for the current system. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

However, some other sources seems to agree with me, quoting 19th-century opening date: beside the one I cited ([3]), also Mr. Schwandl (here); and these aren't primary sources, unlike the operator's website. Also the Lille tramway underwent a likewise major transformation during the early 90s, but there the "iconic" status of that system - it has even a nickname, Mongy (after its “father” Alfred Mongy) - led to describe the project highlighting the continuity instead of the novelty (contrary to what happened in Marseille). In Lille, in addition, the lenght and the role of the line made both feasible and necessary to opt for maintaining operations, albeit reduced and somewhat disrupted (two-months summer suspensions, hours curtailments, temporary single track sections and diversion) during the works instead of a complete service stop, which was almost unavoidable in Marseille's case; however, despite being fairly long-lasting, that service suspension was from the beginning part of the "new tram" project and when the line 68 made its last ride there was the certainty that it will have run again in a different form: I think there's a big difference between this and a decommissioning followed by an unrelated reopening of a new system.

Finally, even with regard to Muni Metro I am inclined to disagree those who set its opening date in the early 80s. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Other editors need to weigh in here then. What I can tell you from past experience is that your view is not the consensus one – we only list the very early dates for those systems that have been continuously operational since those early dates. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Should we thence switch the opening of San Francisco cable cars to 1984, due the long (almost two year) stop for repairs? How long a system can be shut down for whatsoever reason before losing its status of continuously operational? Yak79 2.0 (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Possibly – it would be debatable (though that wasn't exactly a "total overhaul" of the system's components... but it was a long suspension of operations)... The other option would be to remove it entirely as it's not strictly a "light rail" system... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I was only an example, removing it obvoiously wouldn't solve the conceptual problem: where and how to draw the line. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

A suspension for rebuilding or upgrading has traditionally never been considered to be the "closure" of one system and the opening of a new one, regardless of how long the suspension is (as long as the rebuilding begins reasonably soon after the suspension begins). In other words, suspensions aren't counted when one is referring to the opening date of a system, in my opinion. The Marseille tramway (Marseille tram system) article appears to be very out of date, but much of former line 68 is still in operation as part of the modern-day system; the section pictured in this 2017 Google Street View image looks almost exactly as it did when I saw it in 1995, being served by PCCs. Service was later simply suspended for upgrading, extension and fleet replacement. So, I definitely consider the Marseille tram system to have opened in 1876 (horsecars, or 1899 if we are only counting electric trams, but this list seems inconsistent on that point, and I have not wanted to spend any time discussing it) and certainly not 2007. Anyway, issues like this are one of the many reasons that I argued strongly against adding so much detail to what had been a very simple list until 2013. SJ Morg (talk) 11:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

By the way, for the same reason, I consider the "1980" opening date for San Franciso in the table to be misleading. There are portions of the Muni Metro system that still use mixed-traffic street running, just as they did before any upgrading from streetcar to LRT began. The Muni Metro may have opened in 1980, but the "San Francisco streetcar system" never really stopped operating, and it still exists, but having been mostly, gradually upgraded to LRT (e.g. with trains of articulated LRVs and gradual conversion from mixed-traffic street running to reserved-lanes street running or ballasted median track). The table really ought to include an entry for "San Francisco streetcar/light rail system" (but no article to wikilink to at present), instead of Muni Metro, with a parenthesized note immediately after it, reading something like "(surviving portion renamed Muni Metro in 1980 after the start of upgrading to light rail)". I don't believe the current footnote is sufficient. SJ Morg (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with SJ Morg (on everything but his opposition to a detailed list): not only passenger service, but also maintenance, repairs and upgrades are part of tramway operations and the continuity isn't undermined if a major one of those latter leads to a suspension of the first one. This also occurs when a system is forced to stop by overwhelming external reasons (natural or human) and the service can't restart until practical, political and economical circumstances allow to repair the consequent damages. Conversely, discontinuities that imply a system's closure and count when referring to the opening date are:

• a system ceases to operate permanently - and is, to a certain extent, dismantled - and then, after some time, a newer, unrelated one is built and opened (e.g. 1st generation streetcars and 2nd generation LRTs in USA - in several case the two generation have in common only the city or little more);
• the rebuilding/upgrading project that caused the service suspension involves a change in mode, from railway to tramway (e.g. Manchester Metrolink and Toyama Light Rail), from urban railway to metro/rapid transit (e.g. London Underground and Vienna U-Bahn);
• a newer and clearly distinct system coexists with an older one for a while, growing at the latter's expense, until the older one ultimately disappears: the survivor should retain is own opening date, although it might be seen as the heir of the other one (e.g. Stuttgart Straßenbhan and Stadtbahn).

Speaking about Marseille's opening year, I did some research finding the reason why in “my” source is 1893 instead of 1876 (horsecar), 1892 (first trial of electric traction) or 1899 (start of the electrification for the whole urban network): in the beginning, the line that later became line 68 and now is part of line 1 didn’t belong to the urban network run by the CGFT (Compagnie Générale Française de Tramways), it was built by the Compagnie du Chemin de Fer de l'Est-Marseille as an independent system with different standard - metre gauge, steam traction with Lamm & Francq fireless engines and a tunnel (the first underground tramway in France) - and opened on 23 December 1893; it was later (1904) absorbed by CGFT and unified with other urban lines. Hence, this line isn't directly related to the aforementioned dates: given that it was the sole to be spared by the closure and survived precisely due its peculiarity (i.e., mainly, the underground section), it make sense for me to adopt 1893 as opening year for the current Marseille tramway. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Poznań and Kraków Fast Tram

I'm accepting IJBall suggestion (diff) of taking the issue to the talk page, although I think there's very little more to say than what I already wrote in my edit summary: according to how Poznań and Kraków Szybki Tramwaj (Fast Tram) are portrayed in their Wiki articles (Trams in Poznań, Poznań Fast Tram and Trams in Kraków, Kraków Fast Tram) and in their operator's official website (here, for Poznań), they aren't independent systems, separated from the respective “conventional” city tram networks - as, for example, in Frankfurt (Stadtbahn and Straßenbahn) or Volgograd (metrotram and tramway). Instead, what we have in these two Polish city is a fairly common occurrence: in several legacy tramway systems existing sections have been upgraded or new extensions have been built complying (more or less heavy) with LRT standard; in some cases this went with a dedicated branding (Antwerp premetro, Milan metrotranvie, etc.) - and often the “special” part of the anyway integrated network has its own dedicated wiki article - while in other ones not (Zurich “U-Bahn” tram tunnel, Toronto St. Clair streetcar, etc.), but I doubt it means that the former ones do merit a separate entry in the list: the double (or more) row should be restricted to those cities which actually boast two (or more) clearly distinct/separated systems, whereas for Poznań and Kraków it should be applied, at least for consistency, the same “one system, one entry” policy already followed in similar circumstances (e.g. Antwerp's and Brussels'). Yak79 2.0 (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

While I lean towards leaving the "Fast Tram" entries in, I am more interested in how others feel about the subject. I asked for a Talk page discussion on this in hopes of getting a wider consensus on it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Then, we can ping @SJ Morg: about this (given the usual participation to this talk page discussions, I doubt we could collect other opinions, indeed with his contributions Ymblanter, whom I thank, proved I was wrong). Anyway, I'd be interested to understand why you lean towards leaving these entries in, and not dealing the same way with similar cases. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC) edited 19:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I think we can remove them leaving extensive footnotes.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me a good compromise: we should draw up an "unified footnote" for this purpose and seek for other potential candidates with similar features (currently splitted into two entries or not) Yak79 2.0 (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Philadelphia

The current setting of Philadelphia, which splits the Subway–Surface lines and the Girard Avenue line into separate entries, as they were two distinct systems, is fairly groundless and a bit WP:OR. Indeed, SEPTA itself doesn't make this partition - as can be easily seen in the list references ([4], [5] and [6]), they group together at last all the urban trolley routes (under the city-surface transit division) - neither APTA (and other secondary, reliable sources such as LRTA) does. More specifically, APTA accounts all the Philadelphia streetcars, unlike the somewhat similar cases of San Francisco (modern MUNI Metro vs. heritage E and F lines) and Dallas (modern Oak Cliff vs. heritage MATA trolley) as a whole unitary system; but whereas parting between urban and suburban lines is backed both by SEPTA official documentation and well-based historical and operational reasons, no one of these arguments can be brought to support the parting among the urban lines.

• From the origins to the 1992, the routes that did use trolley tunnel and those that didn't use it have been part of a comprehensive streetcar network until the latter got the trolley service temporarily substituted with buses (formally, they weren't closed down or even suspended); thus, the present-days Route 15 could be seen as the direct continuation of the "previous" one.
• Currently, Route 15 shares a (short) stretch of tracks on Lancaster Ave. and the Callowill depot with Route 10, as well as the Woodland Maintenance Facility with all the other trolley routes.
• Route 15 has a dedicated fleet of heritage PCC II upgraded streetcars, but it's not uncommon, in other large legacy tram systems which rolling stock consists of different series of different-eras vehicles, to see specific (by age, length, etc.) models restricted only to some routes of the network: things are likewise managed here, and in fact Kawasaki K-cars 9xxx occasionally serve on this route (e.g. during heavy snowfalls [7]), and PCC II can run as well, out-of-service or in charter tours, along the other routes' tracks.
• In truth, the usage of heritage PCC cars on the reopened line was a product of the circumstances rather than a deliberate choice: in its first and more ambitious 1997 version, the reopening plan foresaw the purchase of some articulated trolley for the busiest “subway” routes that would have made available spare K-cars to employ on Girard Ave. However, funding shortage has then forced SEPTA to fall back on the rehabilitation of their old stored cars (which aging, ironically, had been one of the official given reasons for 1992 service suspension on the route). Right now, is still uncertain whether the planned replacement of the current fleet will include also Route 15 or not, and the future of Philadelphia “heritage” operations is unclear. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: if I understand correctly by reading the related source, the previous opening year for Philadelphia urban system that you reinstated yesterday - 1906, incidentally the same as that of suburban system - is nothing else but the one in which Route 11 (Darby–Center City), first amongst the existing routes, was rerouted through the “Subway Surface” tunnel getting its current itinerary. In principle, it's really an unfit criterion to determine which is the opening year of a legacy system with a long and complex history behind, mainly because it's a transient data, while the opening year should be inherently permanent - a system opens once in its “lifetime”, and the year when this happened will remain the same as long as the system at large (and not some part of it) stay operating; plus, the exact chronology of all the service modifications on a big and long-lived network is hard to find and to ascertain for sure (e.g. you can see the numerous minor discrepancies observable between the aforementioned source and a 1974 SEPTA brochure about trolley history).

Conversely, we must opt instead for a date that is both stable and meaningful system-wide, regardless if the specific route or line it refers to is still existing or not: in Philadelphia case, we can choose between at least four alternative: 1905, the opening of the Center City tunnel (as APTA do); 1902, when all the then-operating independent transit companies eventually merged into a real comprehensive integrated network, under the PRT; 1892, when an electric streetcar plied for the first time the streets of Philadelphia, or 1858, the (horse-drawn) streetcar “city premiere”. I picked up the third one because it seems SEPTA itself recognize that event as its starting point, since it's used to set anniversaries. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd possibly agree to 1905, but not the others – this list does not (and never has) used "horse-tram" dates for opening dates, and 1892 is for the line that stopped (i.e. not "suspended", but actually stopped/cancelled) service between 1992 and 2005 (IIRC). Also, be wary of using someone like SEPTA as a source for something like this – the WP:PRIMARY sources are good for things like system length, but are less reliable for things like "opening dates" due to the equivalent of WP:BOOSTERism... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, you need to be careful that the dates you are using are actually tied to the lines we're listing, and not to the "entire original system" – we're not tracking those opening dates, only the opening dates of the lines we have listed. (At this point, I'm starting to agree with SJ Morg, that listing the opening dates for these systems is probably more trouble than it's worth...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

This list does use "horse-tram" dates for opening dates in several cases (although IMHO shouldn't) and it's even explicitly written in the "Legend" section; 1892 is not for the line that stopped service between 1992 and 2005, but to the first electrified line (which was in South Philadelphia and I don't now when it was abandoned); 1906 isn't tied to the lines (infrastructure), but to the routes (service) currently operating - we list systems, and not single lines or, least of all, single routes - and this is very preposterous: if we followed this approach for the whole list, a good deal of legacy systems would suddenly rejuvenate (since a complete route "reform" is a quite common occurrence in century-old networks). But even if the opening year is tied to the oldest line (section of track) continuously used, the result can be odd: in several of the oldest system, the first-laid sections of tracks were later dropped during a continuous, seamless evolution and therefore the oldest part of the currently used ROW is a little or a lot younger than the system itself; moreover, we're speaking about data that are A) really difficult to find and B) not very significant: I highly doubt you can find a source that endorses this way to identify the opening year.

Last but not least, I don't think the "Year opened" column is more trouble than it's worth, at least as long as we avoid pointlessly complicated criteria and abstruse trifles, and conversely stick with common sense and sources; for example, simple, easy to verify and widely accepted criteria could be:

• the traction change from horse to electricity cause a system change, i.e. non more horse-drawn opening in the list;
• the opening year is tied to a system-wide meaningful event, clearly identifiable and recognized by authoritative sources as the system "dawn";
• a system continuously operate unless it close completely and definitively- i.e. closed with no doubt or intentions of a future reopening - and a subsequent return of tram/light rail in the same city is clearly called by authoritative secondary sources as a new (or second generation, etc.) system.

Yak79 2.0 (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

On second thought, the only needed rule should be simply «Follow what common knowledge, consistency and sources in majority tell you»: this usually means matching with my abovementioned criteria, but not always, and adherence to reality, consistency and references are the pillars which Wikipedia is built on. If you want a paradigmatic example of our pettifogging reasoning blatantly conflicting with common knowledge and sources in majority, you'll find it just some rows under Philadelphia: the list says San Francisco "main" system opened in 1980, the start of commercial operations through the Market Street Subway, because it meant the first step of a conversion process to LRT standards under the Muni Metro brand. However, there are plenty of sources saying San Francisco boasts one of the surviving US first generation systems: how can a first generation system (which, in truth, not even shut down during upgrade works) date back to the eighties? This doesn't make any sense and it's, as SJ Morg rightly wrote in a previous discussion, misleading: it plain and simply means that the current "year choice" is wrong. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Then let's do what SJ suggests, and just "kill" the opening year column – it frankly is not worth the hassle it's generating for these systems where there's just going to be endless arguments about what constitutes the "opening". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Seem's we've run into a real-world example of Theseus's paradox.

I mean, what happens if a city opens a tram line, which is then joined by others, and over the decades constant upgrades to infrastructure and rolling stock keep it up to modern standards, but at the same time line alignment changes and redevelopment mean the first line constructed is no longer in existence. In no way does that mean, to me anyway, that the original opening date for the system is no longer valid, as the system as a whole has been in continuous operation since that date.

That's what we have here. Yeah, the Girard Avenue Line was shut down for a dozen years or so, but the system as a whole, meaning what is now the SEPTA City Trolley system (a grouping that SEPTA themselves use, and which includes the Route 15 trolley) hasn't ever been out of service since opening, even if little of the original infrastructure remains because of the decades of accrued changes. And the placing of the oldest line in the current system out of service does not mean the system as a whole began later. oknazevad (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Philly isn't the only example of this – another two examples can be found in San Fran.: What's the opening date for Muni (Metro)? And what's the opening date for the cable cars (i.e. there were cable cars in operation in San Fran. before the system that currently operates opened...). Thus, this gets back to: Theseus's paradox is not worth the hassle, and let's just kill the opening date column from here – SJ Morg is quite right that it's not necessary info to include at this particular list... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: I respect SJ Morg's (and, at this point, also your) opinion, but I couldn't disagree more strongly: with this attitude, we'll got a real-world example of heap's paradox instead. Two columns, an the infos they carried, were already killed from the table - admittedly, one (the “station” number) is fairly irrelevant for lots of systems, but the other one (the length) was removed, despite its objective value, because it's really impractical to keep it - and now you suggest to cut out the third one for similar reasons (the game not worth the candle); going this way, there's also the “Type” column that, although it might be more necessary, it's undeniably orders of magnitude more controversial and virtually hassle-generating: if someone opened that Pandora's box, it would results in another info dropping... and so on, since for each of the column, and for the presence in the list itself, there's some disputable cases that bring laborious and time-consuming consensus-building work. Moreover, I don't see why this particular matter (i.e. to identify the opening date) would be so troublesome as you depict it, would generate endless arguments, etc:

1. the principle illustrated by oknazevad is widely accepted, and it's likely to be followed by (virtually) all the external sources, so it could be peacefully acknowledged here too;
2. in most cases, the sources, implicitly or explicitly, accord on a date that represents a foundational turning point on the system “life”, thenceforth it somewhat began to exist: those dates may not refer to the same technical event for all the systems, but who cares, as long as there's a strong rationale behind the choice?
3. when the sources differ we can do as usual, weighing and comparing the rationales, the sources themselves, the consistency, etc. in order to reach consensus on which option to select.

Yak79 2.0 (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

In Philadelphia urban system case, the best referenced alternatives are 1892 - electrification, implicitly backed by SEPTA - and 1905 - City tunnel opening, explicitly adopted by APTA: the first one has maybe a bit stronger rationale behind, but (as you highlighted) is referenced with a primary source: the second one is well referenced, but is related to a slightly less significant event (technically speaking, hard to see as a “quantum leap” for the system). It's substantially a tie: I chose 1892, but since you insist on the other one I'll use it unhesitatingly. In San Francisco cable cars case, I feel “sources score” leans toward 1878, and since in the beginning there are a bunch of independent, standalone transit lines rather than an integrated system, I think it makes sense to use the opening year of the oldest active line (infrastructure) also for the system in which later they were consolidated; personally, I'd prefer the “heavier” 1873 - opening of the first line in San Francisco and also first successful street cable-pulled system in the World - but being the current (and APTA's) choice fairly undisputed so far, I think we can stick with it. The most commonly used opening date for San Fran. Streetcar/LRT is 1912 (birth of Muni): I found a (IMHO) convincing reason for this choice, but I'm not sure; although I'm aware that some sources refers to 1980 (or later) as “opening year”, there are, as already said, an overwhelming amount of examples that group Muni system among “first generation” ones, and this exclude such recent dates. In this case the best optionis to list 1912, following APTA footsteps, and to add an explanatory note about the later evolution of the system; it's close to what SJ Morg suggested in a previous discussion, though there's no need to change the entry's third cell, since that colum is for a “Relevant Wikipedia article” rather than a name that accurately describes the system. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Heritage systems in Australia and New Zealand

In April 2014 (diffs [8] and [9]), following a thorough and exhaustive discussion that achieved consensus about which systems to include in the “Down Under” list, three heritage ones were retained (Bendigo, Auckland and Christchurch); but after less than a year, around January 2015 (diffs [10] and [11]), they were removed altogether. I suppose that the last change went unnoticed, and that it should have been reverted: after all, the heritage character has never been per se a decisive reason to exclude a system for other continental tables, and Oceania shouldn't make exception. However, it's been a while since then and some things changed: Auckland dockline tram service, already cut to the bone (in recent times, it operated a very reduced route on Sunday only), was eventually suspended indefinitely in August 2018; Bendigo Tramways doesn't provide any actual transit: they explicitly gave up due to the rather discouraging outcome of the “commuter service” trials in 2008/2009, although the idea resurfaces from time to time. Conversely, Christchurch tramway reopened after a long suspension in the aftermath of 2011 earthquake: the operator still runs it daily and, besides the typical tourist-oriented tickets, sells also an annual passes clearly intended for habitual users (an indirect hint that there is actually some “transit” ridership). Hence I'm going to re-add this system, but not the other two, to the list. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd support that – while "tourist-y", it seems like the Christchurch tramway comes close to being a bona fide "transit" service. The other two really don't, and belong in the list of heritage tram systems. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

 Added. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Cairo

There was too much of a hurry in giving the Cairo tramway system up for dead: unlike Helwan, whose lines are now gone for good, Heliopolis still (presumably) has some operational service, although it's just a short remnant (one line 3-km long) of the once extensive network. I found some references, dating after the 2014-2015 drastic curtailment which several sources took as the end game of this system, that shows something of it survived; above all (both in German):

• 2017 report about a tram-tour in Egypt,
• a 2018 article from the July issue of Straßenbahn Magazin.

I also found a some news about a couple of accidents involving the tramway occurred in late 2018 (written in Arabic, I hope Google Translator did is job well): not really “good news”, but at least the fact they happens implies that tramcars are still running. Hence I'm going to put Cairo again in the list, unless someone submit a newest source saying it closed in the meantime. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

2020 Update

Ultimately, even the last bit of this system was literally ripped off from Cairo' streets. Ironically, they're going to celebrate the heritage they've just destroyed altogether. Now we'll have to permanently remove it from the list, too. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Yak79 2.0: Trams in Greater Cairo needs to be updated as well, then... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@IJBall: that's why I was searching for the closure date, without much luck indeed. Considering the couple of sources I found, that give us a terminus post quem - this one, dated 1 August 2019, says that "it was announced last month that the tram will be completely removed from the neighborhood" - and one ante quem - this one, at the beginning of this year, refers to the tram as a thing of the past: "(...) regrette qu'un 'moyen de transport durable ait été sacrifié pour plus de voitures'. [(...) regrets that a 'sustainable mean of transport has been sacrificed for more cars'] -, the "last run" should have happened in the second half of 2019. However, after a second thought, they might both refer to the tramway infrastructure, and the operation might have ceased even before, at some time after the 2018 article of Straßenbahn Magazin.

Hence I think that it'd be better to update Trams in Greater Cairo using a rather unspecified wording, akin to this:

Only a short section of one line in Heliopolis, between Court Square and the Tivoli Dome, continued to be operated. By the end of 2019, service had ceased definitively, with tracks dismantled in order to widen the neighborhood's roads.

So, what do you say? Regards, Yak79 2.0 (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

That seems fine to me – it's certainly supported by sources, without offering anything beyond what's in the sources. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Start dates

I wonder what’s the criteria, considering these two examples:

• Geneva — listed as 1862
  • 1862: created with animal traction … 1894: changes to electric traction
• Lisbon — listed as 1901
  • 1872: created with animal traction … 1901: changes to electric traction

What should it be, then? Tuvalkin (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

The general way this list has been organized in the past is that the 'Year started' has been the date of electrification of the tram system. But I think there was a more recent objection to that approach, so I'm not sure what we're going now... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

"Refimprove" maintenance tag

There's a change I’ve been considering for some time but, given that it’d be relevant and maybe contentious, I decided to seek consensus here beforehand: in my opinion, the issue flagged by this template has been largely addressed since May 2013, when SJ Morg (talk) placed it, in all but the European table; hence, I intend to remove the “global” template and to place a “local” one only for that section. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I have no objection to this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's OK with me. SJ Morg (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done: I made the change yesterday. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Beijing

Why there is not enlisted the tramway "system" on Qianmen street? I know, it's a parody of tramway system, but they have two cars on normal rails, going back and forth... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.103.124.242 (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Because it doesn't provide actual transit service, one of the few criteria for inclusion - the others are "running year-round" and "being currently operational" - clearly specified in the lead section. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

eBART

eBART is classified by the FTA's National Transit Database as hybrid rail (YR), a transit mode that APTA defines ... a mode of transit operated on the routes of intercity railroads and has operating characteristics of commuter rail. This service typically operates diesel multiple-unit vehicles with characteristics of light rail vehicles. and even, more explicitly, ... a subset of commuter rail.... Consistently, it has been listed in the "Commuter Rail" summary table of APTA's ridership reports since first quarter of 2019. Conversely, I checked a bit in the Bart official website and I wasn't able - as far as I digged - to find any instance of them naming it "Light Rail".

On a side note, I observed that, when referring to eBART, the term light rail / LRT is used (rather sparingly, actually) mostly by general press/media, whereas specialized sources tend to either avoid labels or call it (diesel) commuter rail.

@IJBall, Mjdestroyerofworlds, Joeyconnick, and SJ Morg: on the grounds of both its own technical features and what reliable sources say, eBART is not a light rail system; we should take notice and edit accordingly all the related articles, this one included. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I would say if sources, esp. APTA, are calling it "commuter rail", then we should simply follow their lead. If everyone else is calling eBART "commuter rail", it would WP:OR for us to call it "light rail", even if, practically, it is generally indistinguishable from something like Sprinter (light rail)... Also ping Oknazevad for their opinion as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say if an authoritative source like the APTA says commuter rail, then we must follow. oknazevad (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Rather than everyone calling it “commuter rail”, the point is that not many call eBART “light rail” and, moreover, the weight of the sources that doesn’t call it “light rail” is far greater. As for how to classify this system once dismissed the “diesel light rail” label, we could closely mirror the APTA approach: we could categorize eBART as commuter rail (e.g. in infoboxes, lists, etc.), but specifying in the text or in side notes the “hybrid rail” thing. IMHO it’d be the most sensible choice, given that most of the sources (including BART itself) avoid to define it altogether and, on the other side, Wikipedia already uses the term commuter rail in a broader sense (including under it also European-style suburban rail services, whose operating features are quite different from their US counterparts and somewhat more akin to those of the hybrid rail).

P.S. Oknazevad, your opinion is obviously more than welcome; I really thought I included you in the group-pinging but clearly I did not: sorry, my bad. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

No offense taken. But I must apologize for reading too quickly. It does seem that the APTA doesn't call it any particular form of rail, using the catch-all "hybrid" term, while other news sources are vague. I don't know when or why "diesel light rail" was dismissed; it's a pretty accurate description of some lines (like New Jersey's River Line, the only one I've ridden). Hard to categorize, this is. oknazevad (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

For the record, while eBART is weirdly missing from the APTA summary lists of ridership by mode, it is listed as commuter rail when you dig into the breakdown of ridership by agency in the same document. Check out page 14 of the Q3 2019 numbers under "San Francisco Bay Area RTD": you have "AG", "CR", and "HR" (automated guideway, commuter rail, and heavy rail, respectively). --Jfruh (talk) 06:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Huh, actually, it's listed in the big commuter rail table on page 5 as well. I swear this wasn't true in earlier reports, but it seems pretty unambiguous. --Jfruh (talk) 06:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't have particularly strong opinions about it but following the lead of the APTA categorization sounds sensible. Maybe we should move it when the new APTA Q4 2019 numbers come out (should be in the next few weeks) and we update all the "U.S. [X] rail systems by ridership" articles. --Jfruh (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. We won't have to wait long for a more updated source, or their updated categories. oknazevad (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

References

List of tram and light rail systems in the world.

Can I list TEŽ ( Tatra Electric Railway ) in this article?! Vladimir Skokan1 (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

System length in European section

The numbers given in this section (column) are a bunch of different statistical numbers with a name System length, which means, the length of the network alongside the street axis. But the numbers given are absolutely different for different cities. For one city it is a single track length, with depot and service tracks, for another one is a correct number with real system length, then for another one, it is double track length, and for another one, it is a sum of all the route length.

The column gives wrong information to the user and not the same statistical number to be compared. Either this column needs to be removed or corrected.

Corrected number sources can not be officially found anywhere because tramway system operators do not provide all this information, some of them do, some do not. Because of that each system is measured by hand using the ARC GIS tools on the existing satellite map of the world and provided the same statistical number for every city. This is a work of more than one year then relevant information is slowly uploaded on the German page of Wikipedia of the same name.

If this is not the right and enough "source" then I suggest removing this column, it is better not to provide this information rather than provide a false one which tells you that Riga's tiny tramway network is 182 km long (real number 54 km) and huge Budapest one is 158.8 km long. When in fact Budapest one is the correct number of system length, whereas Rigas number is actually all the routes summed together (the real number of Riga network is 54 km).

Tramway networks are measured normally by three numbers, Singletrack length (with or without service and depot tracks), double-track length, System length,(which is the most important same as with metro) and route length (all the operational lines summed up).

This column should provide only system length and it is not doing so.

Well, I did correct it and provided current real numbers, but if it is not needed to provide corrected info, then let us just delete it.