Talk:List of metro systems

Include Suburban Rail Loop in under construction

While I don't agree with it, I understand the reasoning for including the Melbourne Metro Tunnel in the under construction section for now. However I believe that the Suburban Rail Loop should also be included, as it is a completely seperate system with it's own unique branding and rolling stock, and is definitely a metro. This would be consistent with the main list where Tokyo has three seperate Metro Systems included. Jasgray04 (talk) 03:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes and they should also add the Tyne and Wear Metro in Newcastle, UK and the Palembang LRT, ik it's named as a LRT but it's kinda a metro system (I mean Penang Island is included in Under construction yet it's LRT) so I think it should be included in operational too Metrosfan (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Lagos MRT

I'm just curious if we have valid sources to include Lagos MRT as a metro system. From the few informations available online, it seems the trains are hauled by diesel locomotives and the frequency is quite low. If we don't have any sources to testify the fact that it's actually mass transit, I vote to remove it from the list. 89.64.66.81 (talk) 10:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The diesel thing is temporary. Theya are still testing the power systems.  Rckania (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

However, it should be noted that the Red Line (opening this year) will be suburban rail. We should probably clarify that only the blue line counts once the red line opens. Rckania (talk) 10:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Turns out they switched to electricity now anyway.  Rckania (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Add two metro systems that aren't there in operational list

Can someone add the Palembang LRT and the Tyne and Wear Metro into the operational list? The Palembang LRT is technically a Metro because it's a light metro system even tho it's an LRT,like how the Penang LRT is being put in the under construction section so I think the Palembang LRT should be in the operational list, and the Tyne and Wear Metro in Newcastle is considered a Metro system but I don't see it in the list, Thanks Metrosfan (talk) 09:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The Tyne and Wear metro is probably the most controversial metro system in the world. There has been constant back n forth with it on the list. It keeps getting added, and then immediately removed by the same few people. I think we need to reopen this conversation in good faith, because whenever it gets brought up, the "veteran editors" just say, it's already been discussed, and just shuts the whole thing down. Personally I think it should be added for the following reasons:

1: it is already listed on every other version of this list in other languages.

2: light railway in the UK means light metro, such as the DLR, the Glasgow Subway, and yes, the TW Metro (in fact, the TW metro is considered be a prototype for the DLR). It does not mean "light rail" in the American sense. Those are referred to as "trams" like Manchester Metrolink or Sheffield supertrams. This, I believe is the biggest point of contention as the UK government considers it a light railway. I feel like American editors (who probably never rode the system) see that, and just consider it a light rail system in the American sense, unaware of the meaning in UK English.

3: The grade crossings mean nothing. No one is talking removing the Chicago L, Oslo Metro, or Rotterdam Metro. Anyone considering removing those systems would be laughed out of the room, so why is it accepted that the grade crossings disqualify the TW Metro?

4: The TW Metro's own Wikipedia article calls it a rapid transit system. Not only that, but Newcastle shows up on the map on this Wikipedia article.

5: The vehicles. Do these look like trams to you? The TW Metrocars cannot run on city streets. These are railcars designed for a metro system. The replacement railcars will be even more "heavy", in case this point is up for dispute.

6: This might not be as strong of a point, but they call it "Metro" in all the branding. Metro usually has one mean: metropolitan rapid transit system. Basically, it if looks like a duck, quaks like a duck, walks like a duck, and tells everyone that it's a duck, it's probably a duck.

To be fair, I might be a little biased sense I have personally ridden the entire system.

As for the Palembang LRT, I'm not too familiar with that system, so I cannot say for sure, but I looks like it also qualifies. Rckania (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Apart from the level crossings, it carries mainline traffic at Sunderland. Lots of systems call themselves metros but are not metros in the sense used here. Parts of many suburban railway systems operate very like metros in places but are not metros, mostly because of mixed traffic and level crossings. We can't call them all metros. Obviously, Tyne and Wear metro is an edge case, but it has been decided on numerous occasions that it doesn't qualify here.--Grahame (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

It is a metro system, the train is a light metro not a suburban railway, the others may be a suburban railway system that claims to be a metro system but isn't, but not this, this is a completely different case, it completely qualify here Metrosfan (talk) 09:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

So, are we going to say that Bakerloo and District lines, or god forbid the Tokyo Metro, don't count? They carry mainline traffic. I just wish this list was consistent, and honestly, I feel like people have strange motives for removing it. At the end of the day, does it really matter to your average person who wants to know if there are any metro systems in Britain outside of London?

So you suggest that the correct classification is suburban rail, but it is never referred to as that anywhere official. Additionally, it is not regulated like a suburban railway. This is why Merseyrail does not count as a metro. It may be separate from true mainline traffic, but it is regulated as a mainline rail, so it's not exactly a metro. This is not the case with the TW Metro. Rckania (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, a more direct comparison is Line 3 of the Athens Metro. It does the exact same thing as the TW metro, but it is still on the list. Rckania (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The trains on the Amsterdam Metro are also the same and it's still on the list, this completely make sense why it should be on this list Metrosfan (talk) 13:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Exactly! I'm with @Metrosfan. Keeping the TW metro off this list for the stated reasons is just inconsistent. This list should remain consistent. Rckania (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Tyne and Wear Metro is metro system by all sensible criteria. It is completely self-contained. It has its own ticketing system. It caters for passengers going to, from and around Newcastle. It does not carry freight. One of the distinguishing points is that the service frequency is such that users don't normally consult the timetable. (Many users don't even know that the timetable exists.) OrewaTel (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

ive added the Tyne and Wear Metro along with the Elizabeth Line here, and apparently it haven't been removed, it only got did once but someone else re-added it and then it was never removed again Metrosfan (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. But the Elizabeth Line is not a metro line. It shares tracks with other network rail trains and uses heavy rolling stock Rckania (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Athens Second Oldest?

I have noticed that the Athens metro has been tagged as the second oldest metro system now in the main table, stating that the system first opened in 1869. This seems to be against the consensus on the issue for many years but I am happy to be corrected. It also appears that in the countries table they are still tagged as first operating in 1904, so not both of these can be correct.

It does appear that there was some railway line opened in 1869 but I am unsure as to whether it meets the criteria for a metro system. If anyone can say definitively the nature of the system first operated in 1869 this should provide some clarity, otherwise it might be worth changing the date back to 1904. Trainsandotherinterests (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Add Macau LRT on the list

i personally think the Macau Light Rail Transit should be on the list because it operate like a metro system, so it counts, it's bigger than the Rennes or Brescia Metros or the Taichung MRT, so it technically counts Metrosfan (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Plus I also saw that Macau is added in other languages version Metrosfan (talk) 10:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Change Penang Island to George Town

The name of the city is George Town, not Penang Island City Metrosfan (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Oslo Metro Shouldn't Be On Here

The Oslo Metro should not be on here as, despite being a metro, it does not have the characteristics of a metro system and instead falls into the category of S-Bahn or Commuter Rail systems. The network is heavily branched, with low frenquencies as well as having level crossings. If the Copenhagen S-train, which has no level crossings and higher frequencies, is not allowed on here, then the Oslo Metro should be removed. Qazzy52 (talk) 07:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Oslo Metro cannot be removed as

-Oslo Metro already has true metro origins with typical subway cars and it is not S-Bahn or Commuter Rail rolling stock.

- Metros can have heavy branches even the NYC Subway and London Underground has them on some lines

- Yes, it is true that Oslo Metro has Level Crossings and lower frequency but again it can't be removed since is has True Metro origin. This also why we don't remove Chicago L which also has Level Crossings and lower frequency branches

- Conversely, systems you mentioned like Copenhagen S-train has commuter rail origins which means it can't be on the list due to Wikipedia convention "Certain transit networks may match the service standards of metro systems, but reach far out of the city and are sometimes known as S-Bahn, suburban, regional or commuter rail. These are not included in this list" Mhaot (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Here we go again. The Chicago L and Rotterdam Metro gave level crossings as well. All the systems with level crossings have a note explaining such. Rckania (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

It has similar features to the Amsterdam Metro And the case for the Oslo Metro is why the Newcastle Metro should be added too Metrosfan (talk) 11:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi

There is a metro under construction in the Giza area in Egypt. I hope you add it to the metro stations under construction around the world in your article. Thank you. Amr aero (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Add Jakarta LRT and Jabodebek LRT?

According to the list of light metro systems page. It showed Jakarta LRT and Jabodebek LRT there, it looked like it is a light metro systems since it's slightly heavier than the metro systems in Lille or Lausanne, if the smaller ones are listed here, then these two should be included along with the Palembang LRT Metrosfan (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Remove Wuppertal Schwebebahn?

its a monorail/suspension railway and isn't used to replace a metro Metrosfan (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Being it was added just over a week ago, and there's been prior discussion that was against conclusion, I have taken it back out. oknazevad (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree that monorails should not be included on the list given that Wuppertal doesnt even have a metro and no Japanese monorail is on the metro system list Mhaot (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Regional rail tunnels are not metro systems

at the end of the various contruction projects being categorized as Under Construction metros in Australia and New Zealand, will the systems be considered "metros"? what is the difference between these tunnels and tunnels for the RER or Crossrail or Madrid Cercanias, all of which are categorized as suburban/commuter rail? 67.189.54.143 (talk) 21:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Switch New Taipei MRT to operational

I cannot find any sources claiming how the Circular Line in Taipei and New Taipei is operated by Taipei MRT instead of New Taipei MRT, the Wikipedia pages of the New Taipei MRT includes Circular Line, the Circular Line wikipedia dosent show it is operated by Taipei MRT, so if there are no sources that it is Operated by Taipei MRT, I will move the New Taipei MRT to operational list Metrosfan (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Circular line seems to be operated by both Taipei Metro and New Taipei Metro, according to both their websites (https://english.metro.taipei/cp.aspx?n=1BE0AF76C79F9A38 for Taipei Metro, https://www.ntmetro.com.tw/basic/?node=10069 for New Taipei Metro), similar to Guangfo line between Foshan and Guangzhou in Mainland China. Nonusme (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Map of metro systems

Should we put Myanmar, New Zealand, Iraq, Mongolia, and Kuwait highlighted in yellow on the legend map? Those countries are due to have their own systems in the future 84.49.127.81 (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

No, they're not open yet. Cards84664 21:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It would be better to wait until the systems are actually under construction. As regards New Zealand, the current Auckland urban railway system may qualify as a metro.There have been discussions regarding building a light rail system for many years. After the recent general election, the light rail proposals will be buried for the foreseeable. OrewaTel (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

No, AKL doesn't qualify so NZ should remain grey on the map. The City Rail Link is just an underground suburban railway project that so happens to be NZ's first underground railway/subway-eqsue tunnel and is in many ways similar to many of Sydney's underground suburban rail tunnels such as the Airport Line, Eastern Suburbs Line, City Circle or Olympic Park Line. Grade-separated light rail systems also don't count as rapid transit. The current suburban railway doesn't qualify because it's shared by freight. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

How does it exactly not qualify? It may be identical to Melbourne Metro Tunnel once it's opened Metrosfan (talk) 10:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Metrosfan: do you have a reliable source backing up your prediction? In what way is it identical to the Metro Tunnel? If not, then no, it's not a metro is likely the answer per SHB2000. Fork99 (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Tell me what makes it a metro and I'll be convinced. I extensively looked through CRL documents and nothing indicated it would be a rapid transit of any kind. Melbourne Metro qualifies because it's entirely grade-separated, uses semi-automation, and has all the features required for a metro such as screen doors and advanced signalling. CWL has none of those except grade separation. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I read that the date of opening for the Ulaanbaatar metro has been announced: the system will open in 2028. Construction of the the metro will begin in June this year. I personally think Mongolia should be highlighted as yellow on the map, and so

should Saudi, Iraq and Myanmar. Does anyone know how to change the legend map, as in adding countries in yellow that have a metro that’s currently under construction. Why is Saudi highlighted in green on the map? Saudi has 2 metro systems that are currently under construction: one in Riyadh and one in Jeddah. Saudi has no metro systems that are operational. So therefore Saudi should be yellow. 84.49.127.81 (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

London's Metro System

In addition to the Tube, TfL (Transport for London) run the Overground and the Elizabeth Line. The Elizabeth line is regarded by most people as a tube line. This is despite TfL continually publicising the fact that it isn't part of the Underground and the popular quiz question, "Is the Elizabeth Line an Underground Line?" The Overground is owned by National Rail but is otherwise identical to the Underground lines.

Some discussion has been about the regulations in force. In UK all rail systems must comply with the full Board of Trade regulations. It makes no difference whether the line is a short heritage line or a full blown inter-city express line. Also in UK the term light rail means a line where the rolling stock is less robust. What other countries call light rail is called a tramway. A tram is a rail vehicle that is allowed to run on the public highway. All other track guided vehicles must run on a segregated track that is fenced off.

Since they fulfil all the criteria, I suggest both London Overground and Elizabeth Line be added to the list of metros. OrewaTel (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Im not sure about the London Overground but the Elizabeth Line definitely counts,I will add the Elizabeth Line along with the Tyne and Wear Metro on the list Metrosfan (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

i added it but it turned out it got removed by someone else Metrosfan (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Metrosfan @OrewaTel Elizabeth Line isn't a metro system, since it 120km network, also Reading is a good 30 miles from London and the definition of Metro on Wiki is that it doesn't really go outside of the city. London Underground Limited operates the London Underground LONDON UNDERGROUND LIMITED overview - Find and update company information - GOV.UK (company-information.service.gov.uk) Elizabeth Line is operated by MTR Elizabeth Line MTR ELIZABETH LINE LIMITED overview - Find and update company information - GOV.UK (company-information.service.gov.uk) Elizabeth Line is more of a suburban Railway than a Metro system also there is quite a few stations which get a low frequency and also Elizabeth Line is part of National Rail. London Overground and Elizabeth Line operate in a completely different way to London Underground. They is a level crossing at Twyford Station which Elizabeth Line passes near to. London Overground crosses over a few level crossings which makes it not a segregated system. Elizabeth Line for the most part shares tracks with other services like freight and the Great Western Railway Didcot Parkway to London Paddington stopper. London Overground and Elizabeth Line train drivers have to follow completely different set of rules to the London Underground drivers. Also Elizabeth Line and London Overground use AWS, TPWS and GSM-R which the London Underground does not use for there services. Tyne & Wear Metro is a Metro system Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Act 1979 (legislation.gov.uk) I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The minutiae of regulations do not determine whether a line is a Metro and nor does who owns the line. The problem is there is not a clear cut division between Metro and non-Metro railways. You could argue that the Metropolitan and District lines don't qualify as Metros. The Metropolitan line was originally meant to go as far as Oxford and to-day it still services Amersham and Chesham in the wilds of Buckinghamshire. There are three pedestrian level crossings on the District line and it shares tracks with National Rail. (It runs over former LSWR rails that are still owned by National Rail.) But any definition of Metro that excludes the Metropolitan Railway and the Metropolitan District Railway is not worth having. The Elizabeth Line runs as far as Reading but unlike the Metropolitan Line it does not run through open countryside. Reading is part of the London conurbation. I have found the level crossing at Twyford and it does not cross the Elizabeth Line. In any case level crossings do not invalidate UK regulations that require all rail lines to be securely fenced off. OrewaTel (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

A metro is a underground or largely underground system according to the Collins dictionary, Elizabeth Line and London Overground are both mainly Overground. Arguably the Metropolitan and District lines and the rest of the London Underground network are the definition of a Metro. Which branch are these level crossings on the District Line. The Network Rail sectional appendix shows no level crossings on the district line.https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/metro https://www.networkrail.co.uk/industry-and-commercial/information-for-operators/national-electronic-sectional-appendix/ I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 08:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Metro systems can go out of the city, all RapidKL LRT and MRT lines go outside Kuala Lumpur, there's even one line that's gonna be entirely outside Kuala Lumpur under construction, some metro systems like the Rotterdam Metro and Oslo Metro have lower frequency and more level crossings and are qualified on this list Metrosfan (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The pedestrian level crossings were the subject of one of Geoff Marshall's YouTube videos.They are on the Upminster Branch. Most of the London Underground is above ground. In particular the Dollis Brook Viaduct on the Mill Hill East Branch is 18 metres high and at Whitechapel station the Underground crosses over the Overground.Greenford station used to have an escalator to take passengers from street level up to the platforms. Aside from Waterloo & City and Victoria, all the Underground Lines go out to the countryside. The tube station in Theydon Bois is the only point in the village to have street lights. Meanwhile the point of rebranding the suburban lines as London Overground was to publicise their metro-style services. OrewaTel (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The Elizabeth line shares tracks with other mainline trains (including freight trains) and is regulated as such. It's out. The Berlin S-Bahn and Merseyrail are closer to being metro systems than the Lizzy line is. Rckania (talk) 03:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Even Merseryrail has freight trains interlining with it to get to Liverpool Docks. I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Bangkok MRT

The two new lines that opened in 2023 are actually monorail trains not metro trains, and we're somehow included in the datas,and monorails are not allowed here, since KL Monorail is not counted for Kuala Lumpur, I suggest Bangkok MRT data to contain only the Blue and Purple Lines Metrosfan (talk) 12:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

If so it should be noted in the footnote that it's excluded (like Shanghai and Beijing). Matthewmayer (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I would say that monorail are more of a grey area when it comes to rapid transit, because some cities like Chongqing, Sao Paolo and Daegu include them in their official counts while others like Kuala Lumpur, Moscow and Osaka don't. Nonusme (talk) 03:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say that there's no reason monorails should be inherently excluded from metro system stats, they're a fully valid form of rapid transit, but there are definitely systems that leave them out for other reasons (different operators or fares, for example) that we need to consider whenever they come up. Sbb618 (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Sbb618@NonusmeThen if this is the case it would mean the KL Monorail should be included for Kuala Lumpur, and the Liuzhou Rail Transit should be in the list of system list once it open next month these monorail systems are gonna be almost identical to them, as the KL Monorail and Liuzhou Rail Transit is almost the same to the Bangkok Monorail Lines, while the Guang'an SkyRail is a light metro monorail line, if Bangkok's monorail lines cannot be excluded for Bangkok MRT, then it would mean the KL Monorail should be included in RapidKL's data, and the Liuzhou Rail Transit should be in the under construction list because of it Metrosfan (talk) 08:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Then what should we do? Metrosfan (talk) 07:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The article itself explains its not easy to distinguish metro from light rail, but says the following

"A common way to distinguish metro from the light rail is by their separation from other traffic. While light rail systems may share roads or have level crossings, a metro system runs, almost always, on a grade-separated exclusive right-of-way, with no access for pedestrians and other traffic."

By that definition, i'd say the Bangkok Pink and Yellow line qualify. Matthewmayer (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Chongqing, Daegu and Osaka are Hitachi type real transport monorails. Moscow one is Intamin type that is designed for entertainment parks. It's a toy of previous mayor. It's working primarily as a tourist attraction with 30+ min headways. On most of its way it's running over a tram line with 3-4 min headways. Train consist of 6 single-door cabs with 6 seats each. Seating and total capacity less than a typical 3-section tram. So it's a light rail.

Now, new lines in Bangkok and Sao Paulo are running on Innovia type monorail. While those originated from entertainment parks, 300 series are full transportation systems. Elk Salmon (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Missing metro system! O'Porto Portugal

Besides the metro system of portugal's capital city Lisbon which is represented in the list, the mtro system from Porto city (2nd biggest Portugal city) is missing 85.139.24.110 (talk) 11:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Porto Metro is a light rail system, not a metro system, the rolling stocks are literally trams, so therefore it cannot be included in this list Metrosfan (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

As said - Porto is just a rapid tram network utilizing Eurotram and Flexity Swift trams, similar to many of those in France, Germany and many many more around the globe. And it has 30 min headways on some lines, which is very bad for transport system. Elk Salmon (talk) 11:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Valencia and Palma

Since the Elizabeth line and Tyne and Wear Metro are added to the list, should Metrovalencia (Only lines 1-3, 5, 7 and 9; as the rest are light rail) and Palma Metro be added to the list? Valencia is like the Elizabeth line in that some lines (1, 2, 3, and 9 specifically) extend far into the suburbs and into other towns. For compariason, line 1 by itself is over 72 km long, but is shorter than other metro lines such as Chongqing line 6, which is 85km long. Palma is like the Tyne and Wear Metro in that it shares lines with national rail lines, uses shorter trains, and has a level crossing (on Line 2, between Pont d'Inca Nou and Polígon Marratxí). Nonusme (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

As a sidenote, other systems in Spain such as Malaga and Seville aren't included in by post as, to me, they resemble light rail systems more than metro systems. Nonusme (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

im not really sure about Valencia, but I used to kinda feel the Palma Metro looks like a metro system Metrosfan (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Overall, looks like the Palma Metro does qualify, so therefore you can add it Metrosfan (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

planned metro systems

to shorten the article, I'd propose that the planned systems section be separated into a list or category of its own 67.189.54.143 (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

the list by continent as well doesn't really add any new information 67.189.54.143 (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Elizabeth line?

wgst is the reason for the Elizabeth line being listed undisputed all of the sudden? It uses heavy rolling stock, runs on mainline tracks for the majority of it's route, managed by network rail, and has a much longer distance than a metro line? Rckania (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

check the first comment in the London's Metro System discussion section about the Elizabeth Line Metrosfan (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Seoul Korail, London Elizabeth line/Overground, Moscow Central Diameters, Berlin S-Bahn, Paris RER, Tokyo Yamanote/Keihin-Tohoku/Chuo-Sobu, Tokyu etc

@Laggingcomputer: @Ymblanter: @Nonusme: @Metrosfan: @Rckania: @OrewaTel: @I Like The british Rail Class 483:

I can see User:Laggingcomputer has added [1] Korail line to the list. And I see a discussion about Elizabeth line above. So we need to bring this to broader question. First, let's see both UITP definitions. Older and newer one.

Metropolitan railways are urban, electric transport systems with high capacity and a high frequency of service. Metros are totally independent from other traffic, road or pedestrians. They are consequently designed in tunnel, viaducts or on surface level but with physical separation. Some systems run on rubber-tyres but are based on the same control-command principles as steel-wheel systems. In different parts of the world metro systems are also known as the underground, subway or tube.

— older

Metros: UGT systems operated on their own right of way and segregated from general road and pedestrian traffic. They are consequently designed for operations in tunnel, viaducts or on surface level but with physical separation in such a way that inadvertent access is not possible. In different parts of the world Metro systems are also known as the underground, the subway or the tube. Rail systems with specific construction issues operating on a segregated guideway (e.g. monorail, rack railways) are also treated as Metros as long as they are designated as part of the urban public transport network.

— newer

So to meet the definition a system should meet certain criteria:

1. A system should primarily service a city. Not a far suburbia or distant cities. So should not just operate mostly within agglomeration boundaries, but also intended to operate for agglomeration needs;

2. A system should be high capacity (heavy rail) (low capacity are trams (light rails));

3. A system should run isolated and on exclusive tracks.

Now, we do not include Moscow Central Diameters, because it's not running on exclusive tracks yet. It's sharing tracks with suburban trains for the time its infrastructure is being under construction. While I can see that both Korail and Elizabeth line are operating primevally within agglomeration, are they running exclusively of other service? Then, if we look at Berlin S-Bahn and Paris RER - they entirely meeting the definition - running within agglomerations, exclusively and isolated. All other S-Bahn systems are purely suburban and commuter systems, but Berlin's one is purely metro system. Let alone tones of lines in Tokyo. And in the end, if we look at many Chinese systems, we will find that they include some far lines, like 30-40-kilometer long airport express lines with just 1 or 2 stations in between of terminal stations, that definitely do not servicing the city. Elk Salmon (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Elizabeth line interlines whith Great Western Railway, C2C, Heathrow Express, rail tours and Freight trains. London Overground has a number of level crossings and also interlines with a number of different train services. Elizabeth Line at the Western end (Reading) is 36 miles 00 chains which 57.936384 km which is around 58 km from London Paddington. sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blob.core.windows.net/sectional-appendix/Sectional Appendix full PDFs December 23/Western and Wales Sectional Appendix December 2023.pdf sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blob.core.windows.net/sectional-appendix/Sectional Appendix full PDFs December 23/Kent Sussex and Wessex Sectional Appendix December 2023 .pdf sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blob.core.windows.net/sectional-appendix/Sectional Appendix full PDFs December 23/Anglia Sectional Appendix December 2023.pdf Realtime Trains | 1P77 0649 Didcot Parkway to London Paddington | 19/01/2024 Realtime Trains | 9U55 0714 Reading to Abbey Wood | 19/01/2024 I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Reading is pretty much an edge of agglomeration, so that is not the problem. Exclusivity and one level crossings is the problem. But if that are just few occasional trains per day, then it can be classified as an exception. As well as there are just 2-3 one level crossings over entire system. But if it's suburban and freight trains going all day long, then it's not eligible for the list. And if we remove exclusivity as a condition, then we would have to include dozens of lines from Tokyo, Osaka and Nagoya, if not hundreds. Elk Salmon (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

grade crossings aren't a problem (see Chicago L, Oslo Metro, Rotterdam Metro), but exclusivity is. Yes, the District Line and Bakerloo Line do share tracks with mainline trains, but they only share tracks with commuter rail trains that use similar rolling stock and infrastructure. For that reason, they get a free pass. The Elizabeth Line is sharing tracks with Intercity trains and freight trains. That's just not the same thing. If it was truly a metro, why does it have it's own identity and is not considered part of the underground by TFL? Rckania (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand your opinion, but Some metro Lines could get their own identity rather than being a part of the main system, this is the same case as why the Rinkai Line in Tokyo isnt part of neither Tokyo Metro or Toei Subway, or the Jakarta LRT isn't a part of the Jabodebek LRT Metrosfan (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok. It's a bit more understandable now. Can we at least make this a little more consistent? If we are keeping the Elizabeth Line (which it looks like we are), can we add Merseyrail and the berlin S-bahn, and maybe Metrovalencia? Rckania (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Metrosfan Having at least 60 freight trains per day interlining with Elizabeth Line trains makes it not a metro line and also there is at least 48 freight paths interlining with Merseyrail. Western Network Specification 2018 v9 (windows.net) Freight train capacity doubles to Port of Liverpool thanks to £8.3 million line upgrade - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Grade crossing isn't the problem when it's a rare exception. Elk Salmon (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Elk Salmon @Rckania West of West Drayton are not part of London and also the gaps between some of the stations are like 5 miles in some cases on MTR Elizabeth Line. Reading is a conurbation with Wokingham and Bracknell, Maidenhead is a conurbation with Furze Plate, Slough is a conurbation with Burnham. All are clearly separated by Greenland which is part of the Greenbelt. London Overground has at least five level crossings if not more. Three on the Romford Upminster Branch and two on the North London Line. There is at least one train per hour of freight Elizabeth line interlines with between Reading and Acton Mainline. A video of a freight trains and Elizabeth line interlining. Trains at Ealing Broadway [EAL] - GWML (29/06/2022) (youtube.com) Last time I checked the British Rail Class 444s are not commuter trains, to be fair they only use the District line between Wimbledon and East Putney for ECS (Empty Coaching Stock) moves and also diversion moves. Class 444 Passes Wimbledon Park *VERY RARE* (Passenger train) (youtube.com) I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm with you on this one. The Elizabeth line does not count. I just got tired of arguing since Metrosfan would not seem to let it go. Rckania (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not a part of London administrative-territorial unit, but it is a part of agglomeration. Very edge of it. If the line shares tracks with half a hundred freight pairs per day. The it definitely not eligible, just like MCD. Elk Salmon (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I though there was a long-standing consensus that KoRail (specifically Line 1 of Seoul Metro which goes to Incheon) should not be added to the list because it is also used by freight trains. Ymblanter (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

the korail lines are basically like S bahn lines. So a tunnel for mainline commuter trains. Rckania (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I want to note specifically about Berlin S-Bahn. Unlike other S-bahn systems, Berlin's one is operating within the agglomeration, fully isolated and running on exclusive infrastructure with third rail electrification. Same applies to RER. There are just few stations goes off the agglomeration. The system is isolated and serving the city. Elk Salmon (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: and I am sure there are more regulars who should be pinged. Ymblanter (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I remember the KoRail discussions. Definitely was consensus to omit them. (I also remember the harassment of a new user who was just trying to help. Could he have been a little bit more accommodating, sure. But the behavior aimed at him was totally uncalled for.)

Every recent discussion has basically said to omit S-Bahns as being really more commuter rail than metro. They may do the heavy lifting in place of metros in some cities, and they may run nearly as frequently, especially where they interline in city centers, but they're wider station spacing and lower frequency in outer areas, along with many still having physical connections to the national networks, makes them a separate thing. There's a reason German has a separate terms for U-Bahns and S-Bahns. Paris's RER is just a French name for an S-Bahn. The key thing is that nowhere will anyone find a source calling the RER the world's longest metro. So listing it as a metro is clearly invalid original research. oknazevad (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

You could make the case for the Berlin S-bahn, but only the Berlin S-Bahn. It runs on exclusive tracks and uses third rail. It's even more apparent when you look at the history. The Ubahn and the S-bahn were built by competing companies. It just happened that the S-bahn was brought under ownership of the National Railway Company when it was formed. Rckania (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Terramorphous: Ymblanter (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no clear cut definition of what constitutes a Metro. Instead we have a continuous range from Mainline long distance trains to short shuttles within a tunnel. Somewhere we say, "To the left are Metros, to the right are non-Metros." The word 'Metro' comes from the name Metropolitan Railway - the World's first Metro. And yet when people start nit-picking, it seems that they may have to exclude the Metropolitan Line. I'm reminded of climatologists who messed with the definition of Mediterranean Climate so that place such as Italy and Greece now have a Pseudo-Mediterranean climate. So what do we do? Do we include the frequently served Elizabeth Line that runs through tunnels in central London or do we exclude the London Underground because it dares to go above ground. I still remember a time when goods trains ran on the Metropolitan line to Smithfield meat market in the middle of London. (There were special sidings under the market where the car park is now.) If we start excluding real Metros because of some fancy definition, is this list useful? OrewaTel (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Going above ground was never the problem. The problem is that it runs on mainline tracks shared with other trains of various types. And it is clearly something different from the London Underground. The sub-surface lines of the Underground are literally the oldest underground railway lines in the world, so of course they are going to have some quirks that are grandfather in. They were built before the lines were drawn. As, frustrating as it is to some peoples who like rigid definitions and want everything to fit in a box, older metro systems get a free pass if they have oddities that would disqualify them if they were built later. This is why the Oslo Metro and Chicago L count (despite their grade crossings) while the St Louis Metrolink and Charlotte blue line don't. Rckania (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The Elizabeth Line is clearly different? Tell that to the thousands of commuters who go to their Metro station to ride home after work each day. OrewaTel (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Tell that to TFL. The Elzabeth line is one of the many commuter rail lines in London. It's part of that network. Rckania (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Then we have to include most of infrastructure in Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya and Moscow. It's also "their metro". Elk Salmon (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

At the end of the day, what it almost always comes down to, if you're not sure, is how they are regulated and managed in their respective country. The line 1 of the Soeul subway is regulated as a mainline railway and operated by KoRail, therefore it's not a metro. The Tokyo Metro has trains from mainline railways running on the system, but it's regulated like a metro and operated by the local transport authority, therefore, it's a metro. The Yamonte Line is owned and operated by JR East and is regulated as a mainline railway, therefore, it's not a metro. The london underground sub surface lines are managed by local authorities and are regulated as metros, they are metros. The Elizabeth Line is owned by Network Rail and is regulated as heavy rail, therefore, it's not a metro. The Berlin S Bahn is operated by DB, therefore, it's not a metro. Merseyrail is owned by Network Rail and is part of the national rail system, therefore, it's not a metro. The U5 Line in Essen is regulated as a tramway, therefore, it's not a metro. I could go on and on, but you get the point. Rckania (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the way this list is defined is too narrow and should be scrapped for a more inclusive "list of urban railway systems" Which can include metros and s-bahn like systems, but excludes light rail and trams. This will allow for the inclusion of not just Merseyrail, the Lizzy Line, the London overground, Metrovalencia, and the Berlin S Bahn, but it can also include things like the Wuppertal Monorail, and the Warsaw Commuter rail. If this list is truly beyond saving, this is my proposal for going further. Rckania (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

There's a wiki on fandom that's basically the same as this but they included some light rail, premetros and maybe even commuter rail systems on it, it says it does contain some light rail systems on it Metrosfan (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

"Korail Metros" were already within the list, but it had inconsistent details. What I did was mostly fixing these up, as there were inconsistent details about almost all systems in Busan and Seoul.

I think at least some parts of Line 1 should count, at the very least, and there is possible debate about other Korail lines counting for this list, but I think that debate is not a useful one. On one hand, I have added detail that implies that line 1 is counted as a metro (because it really should be), but I have also removed Donghae Line in Busan as a metro, as that has 30 minute headways and also shares tracks with freight and other mainline services.

For the most part, the mainline services on line 1 tracks are quite rare, with the exception of Gwangmyeong shuttle and the Cheonan-Sinchang section where line 1 does not have dedicated tracks for itself. However, most objections arise from the argument that line 1 shares the same corridor as Korail's mainline passenger and freight services. Despite this, line 1 does indeed have dedicated tracks for the most part and I think it should count.

Further, it should be noted that some Korail lines (namely, Line 3, Line 4, and the Suin-Bundang line), operate on 100% dedicated tracks and only shares tracks with other Korail "metro-style" services. I assume that would be the reason why it was included in the list to begin with.

I still have no idea how one would count 7 lines for Seoul Metro, though, the beginning part of this list clearly states that the criteria for dividing systems is mostly the operator, and there are quite clearly 9 lines operated by Seoul Metro, and 11 lines owned by Seoul city government (this is the figure I used). Laggingcomputer (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

also why is Bursaray on this list, it looks morely like a light rail system than a metro system, The rolling stock for Bursaray system is like the Frankfurt U-Bahn which is clearly a light rail/premetro Metrosfan (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

So? The rolling stock is similar but the services are different Rckania (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Fair i guess Metrosfan (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I am also sure we had a long-standing consensus that Tyne and Wear Metro should not be added, but I see it on the list again.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

not really. It was on this list for longer than it wasn't. It also included in every other language version of this article. It only got removed because of an argument that happened a couple years ago. Rckania (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

the Tyne and Wear Metro clearly must be added, You've already seen @Rckaniaproved that it's a metro system in another discussion thats not yet archived Metrosfan (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Also I saw that the Brisbane Cross River Rail and Melbourne Metro Tunnel keep on getting removed because people think it's part of a suburban Rail network Metrosfan (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

because they are? the tunnels in the end are being incorporated into the Melbourne and Brisbane Suburban Rail systems 75.148.89.93 (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I still see it's getting removed even though these systems has already been stated it should not be removed Metrosfan (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

They are basically S-Bahn tunnels, but it ultimately comes down to branding. Even though these systems might meet some (or all) criteria for being a "metro" the respective agencies make no attempt to claim these to be metros. Kinda like the JR East suburban services in Tokyo, where some lines -- especially the Yamanote line -- are basically metro lines but don't count for this list. Laggingcomputer (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

the Metro Tunnel has already been discussed as it qualifies on this list, and the Cross River Rail is the exact same as the Metro Tunnel, so therefore these systems should not be removed, the person who removed them even saw the note itself Metrosfan (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that there was actual consensus on Melbourne but that was based also on the complete removal of level crossings in the lines that will be using the tunnel, something which is not happening in Brisbane, which ought to disqualify Brisbane entirely. Additionally, I'm under the impression that the Melbourne system still shares tracks with longer distance diesel rail and freight, which should imply that it should be considered regional rail, if perhaps of a type closer to metro operations similar to the RER 2601:1C2:1400:5990:E06E:40BA:19FB:4908 (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Selection_criteria "Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources" we should not be trying to come up with our own "original" definition for "what counts as a metro", but instead should see what reliable sources say. If reliable sources say the Elizabeth Line is not a metro line, it is not. If reliable sources say it is, then it is. Matthewmayer (talk) 07:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The TFL says that the Elizabeth Line is a metro style service, the following link links you to the evidence https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/elizabeth-line/your-journey-by-elizabeth-line#:~:text=The%20Elizabeth%20line%20is%20a,be%20inside%20the%20ticket%20gates. Metrosfan (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Metro-style service does not mean it's a true metro. The line shares tracks with other mainline trains outside of the urban core which should give you a pretty clear indication that it's not a metro so please remove it from this list. EZ73 (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources encourages finding secondary sources, ie its less important what TFL call it as a primary source, and more important how other reliable, independent, published sources describe it. Matthewmayer (talk) 05:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is no one clear source of what is and is not a metro, different countries, different languages, and even different cities within a single country has different standards as to what is and is not a metro.

Not to mention that some "definitions" of metro will be... less than great. Consider that the Metropolitan line, the oft-cited "first metro line of the world" and the namesake of "metro" is not a metro until several decades or sometimes 1 or 2 centuries into its existence depending on how you define a metro. During the early days it was more of an underground mainline connection to the city, much like what can be seen in some Japanese private rail lines.

We could try to use local regulation to define what is a metro, but that leads to all sorts of silly results that get beholden to local regulation in the respective cities, not to mention that it is ambiguous as to what categories of regulation in each country should count as "metro".

Ultimately, I think the only solution to this conundrum is to get rid of most distinctions and use three, clear-cut criteria for "urban rail" and combine all systems as such.

As such, I propose the following:

1. Be useful and practical for moving from horizontally-separated points A and B within a single contiguous city, ideally using city-proper boundaries. This excludes heritage systems and theme park systems, which would be deemed impractical. Any gimmicky system that is slower than walking will be automatically excluded as they are not "useful". Horizontal separation clause exists to eliminate elevators. This also aims to exclude systems that are too expensive to be practical for urban transportation (i.e. HSR systems), as well as systems that are too infrequent to be useful (i.e. most regional and suburban rail systems. Frankly I think suburban and regional rail systems should be included if they can be used like a metro).

1a. The vehicle must come to a complete stop at the points where the hypothetical journey from A and B is set to board and deboard the vehicle. (This exists to exclude crazy ideas like hopping onto freight trains)

2. Be comprised of rail vehicles, which must have physical guidance of some sort, with more than one opening on a side, and a space for passengers to ride on, usually equipped with handles and seats. This excludes BRT systems masquerading as metros.

3. It must be open to passenger usage. Staff-only vehicles, mail rail, and other such vehicles do not count towards this definition.

An optional grade separation clause may be added to exclude tram systems, but seeing how some European "metro" systems are glorified tram systems, I think that is not needed. Laggingcomputer (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. My only gripe is the grade separation part. Here's how I think grade separation should be handled: If the system does have grade crossings, but has full preemption with gates and/or lights, it counts. This is in a way and "temporary grade separation." Stuff that is in the same right of way as a road and has to stop at red lights with cars are out. Even if these systems have full priority at intersections, there is no distinction between stopping for cars and stopping for trains. This eliminates most of the Stadbahn systems and stuff like it, but includes stuff like the TW metro, and the Edmonton Light Rail and the Valencia Metro.

TLDR: Stopping at stoplights = not a metro

So, ultimately, making this list more inclusive and including more metro-like systems is better for the average user who knows nothing about trains and is just trying to see if an individual city has a metro system or not. This list should probably be renamed to "List of Electric Urban Rail Systems" just to make things a little more clear. What do the rest of you think? Rckania (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

In fact, I'm going to create a new section to discuss this potential split further Rckania (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Also I'm pretty sure there was a time Orlyval was added, it meets like all the criteria's required and, the system is longer than the Lausanne Metro and Dnipro Metro in length and it has same amount of stations as Karaj Metro and more than RTS Link,it has high frequency, fully elevated and it's similar to the Toulose Metro, Lille Metro and Rennes Metro Line A, so why was it removed? its even listed on another language version of this article and on the low capacity metro system list Metrosfan (talk) 14:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Whether that is a metro or not is up for debate, but even if it is a metro, it should really just be considered a part of Paris Metro, being operated by RATP and having rubber-tyred wheels just like certain other Paris Metro lines. A potential argument against that is that it is disconnected from the rest of Paris Metro, but it does still have RER and tram connections which I think are enough. It definitely does not deserve to be its own system when it only has 3 stops. Laggingcomputer (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Orlyval is obviously an airport people mover. And it's appropriately listed on the List of airport people mover systems. It doesn't belong here. oknazevad (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think lines being separated from the main system in the city is a problem, Take Tokyo as a example, the Rinkai Line isn't operated by neither Tokyo Metro or Toei Subway, or why Jakarta LRT and Jabodebek LRT in Jakarta are different Metrosfan (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Also for the part of being disconnected, Singapore LRT (i know it isn't a metro but using it as a example) was completely seperated, none of its lines are connected to each other, one line is even in the west while two other lines in the east Metrosfan (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say it's a problem. Another way to put what I meant to say would be "even though OrlyVAL is separated from the Paris Metro, I think it should just be included as Paris Metro if you really want to insist on it being a metro. Thus, it should not be listed as its own system, and there should not be a separate list entry for OrlyVAL." Laggingcomputer (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

why it cannot be a different system? It should just be like how in some other cities like Tokyo, Seoul and Jakarta where a line is separated from the main system Metrosfan (talk) 07:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I would like to mention that this is an almost completely different situation. Tokyo and Seoul have distinct systems because they are operated by different companies. Frankly I am of the opinion that these should be merged into one system too but that's besides the point right now. These are often near-full-fledged metro systems on their own, which warrants the separate system distinction.

Compare this to OrlyVAL, which is basically an airport access shuttle, operated by RATP. There are only three stops on this thing for crying out loud. The only plausible argument for this being its own system is geographic separation and branding, and both are rather weak in my eyes. Laggingcomputer (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The Karaj Metro also has 3 stops only, and the future Johor Bahru-Woodlands RTS Link has only 2 stops, so I don't see why it's a problem Metrosfan (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I think I need to question/challenge the three criteria you have extrapolated from the UITP definition here.

On the first criteria, while I think that is a valid concept for defining a metro the UITP documents don't seem to actually include a definition of urban, so it is an assumption to say it excludes "far suburbs" (not a great term that seems open to debate) or even commuter cities. If we're taking the UITP definition, it seems to just be "urban" broadly defined. Depending on the definition and context, urban can have many meanings; quite often definitions of urban include all contiguous suburbs.

On the second criteria, again I would somewhat agree personally but the UITP definition does not say anything about capacity. And indeed lots of metros have smaller vehicles, so I don't think you can include this as a key criteria when it's not in the definition. That is a critera added on top of the UITP.

On the question of track exclusivity the definition says "operated on their own right of way and segregated from general road and pedestrian traffic", but you appear to have changed that to "isolated and on exclusive tracks", which in my view has a different meaning. It seems the UITP definition defines metro as separated from "road and pedestrian traffic" but not necessarily other train traffic, which makes sense given how often there are exceptions to this rule. Is the assumption that "own right of way" means "no other rail traffic", because that is not how I interpret that term and it seems like that is being inferred in the definition rather than read. Not even getting into the fact that multiple systems on the list already don't follow this.

So if we are actually using the UITP definition as the basis for determining this list then we should draw criteria that directly from the key components of their definition. Something like:

1. An urban guided transport system operating on their own right of way and segregated from general road and pedestrian traffic

2. Can operate in tunnel, viaducts or on surface level but with physical separation in such a way that inadvertent access is not possible

3. They may be known as the underground, the subway or the tube

4. Rail systems with specific construction issues operating on a segregated guideway (e.g. monorail, rack railways) are also treated as Metros as long as they are designated as part of the urban public transport network.

This would allow a lot more systems like the Elizabeth Line, which doesn't bother me personally. In my view, given the weak UITP definitions this page as it stands essentially constitutes OR and should either properly follow the UTIP definition, find a new definition or be changed to a "list of urban rail systems" using a broad definition like UTIP or similar. Gracchus250 (talk) 03:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

British Metro Regulation

It has been stated that the London Underground is run under different regulations from British Mainline services. There are some differences such as Mainline trains having 3 or 4 aspect signals and the Underground having 2 aspect signals. Mainline trains normally have an audible warning system when a signal is on. Underground trains have trip cock that applies brakes if a signal is passed at danger. In recent decades both systems have used continuous signalling where the correct speed is transmitted to the train. But these are superficial. Both systems still use an absolute block. Both systems can allow the block to be broken for emergency working.

Similarly, in Britain, light rail is effectively the same as heavy rail. The only difference is in the robustness of the trains. Light rail may have speed restrictions since the vehicles are not strong enough to withstand a collision at speed. Similarly there are restrictions and safeguards relating to running Light trains on Heavy tracks and vice versa. But there are still the same regulations requiring the track to be securely fenced off and the railway is responsible for ensuring that there are no trespassers. (Note: systems that are called light rail in other countries are called tramways in Britain.)

Aside from differences in style, what are the real differences between British metro systems and British mainline systems? OrewaTel (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@OrewaTel Mainline trains can run on two aspect signalling and london underground trains can run on three and four aspect signalling. Automatic Warning System isn't just for when the signal is on it is for whenever there is caution aspect and speed restrictions as well as the damger aspect you mentioned. TPWS doesn't always make a sound. Light Rail in the UK is more about having less leagl tape and also a lot of vechiles on light rail are heavy rail vechiles. I would say weather or not it interlines with a large amount of Freight and Elizabeth is 60 freight paths between London and Reading plus what ever is on the Great Eastern Mainline. Network Rail has a table which shows number of freight trains into three categories, less than 12 per day, between 13 - N, above N freight trains per day. I would say we should only consider a metro system ti be a metro system if it has less than 12 freight trains per day. I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

That is true. I was trying to answer people who were making a fuss about the different regulations but as I Like The british Rail Class 483 said, the regulations are basically the same. Whether the freight trains in the outlying areas are significant is another matter. OrewaTel (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Brisbane

I'm surprised that Brisbane's Cross River Rail is on here. Isn't the Cross River Rail just an extension to Brisbane's existing suburban rail network? Steelkamp (talk) 10:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It's the same as the Melbourne Metro Tunnel, even though people claim Metro Tunnel is a part of Melbourne's existing suburban Rail network, it is a metro system as it has true metro origins and meets criteria, so therefore, if that is on the list, the Cross River Rail should too, these two systems belongs on the list, the case for Metro Tunnel has already been discussed that it belongs here Metrosfan (talk) 11:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

What does "true metro origins" mean? What are these "criteria"? Steelkamp (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned by a user, I've looked up reliable sources for both, including project pages for both of them.

For the Metro Tunnel, this project page here does mention a 'metro-style rail network ... similar to major cities such as London, New York and Singapore.' This does not mean however, that it automatically is and becomes a metro system. Just because it has the characteristics of one, doesn't make it one, so as long as it is only part of larger suburban railway network, which covers a significant larger distance than a conventional metro system, and thus does NOT constitute a metro/rapid transit system by itself.

The Cross River Rail is even less so of a metro system as

• The new underground section is shared between multiple different commuter rail (explicitly) lines, that all connect up to different QR railway services.
• The project page emphasises on its supposedly 'metro-style characteristics', even less so than the Metro Tunnel. 'Cross River Rail is a second river crossing at the core of the rail network with capacity to run as many as 24 trains in each direction.' Note that despite it's high capacity...
• ...at the end of the day, the Cross River Rail is too, only a part of a larger suburban network, and thus can NOT be classified as a metro system by itself.

Even if this article were to be named 'List of urban rail systems', I would still disqualify the Cross River Rail at least, as it's even less of a 'metro system' than the Metro Tunnel.

And honestly? This article is too cluttered with unnecessary and excess information that would really cater to a minority, like the planned metro systems section, some of the planned metros having been canned for decades, and yet included in this article as if it's of any useful information to anyone. The point of this article to be a list of metro systems, not a "list of metro systems, including those that are under planning and have 0 concrete plans and or cancelled". Some of these sections look arbitrarily placed just for the sake of filling up the article and even look fake without a proper source at all! The quality of this article has really gone down the drain since last year...

I'll not revert any edits for the time being, but I will do so if it affects the overall quality of the article.

CCL-DTL (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

To add on to this, should the Kryvyi Rih Metrotram be considered a metro system? Despite the rolling stock, it has separate, right of way underground sections and have stations built to rapid transit standards (typical from the Soviet era). And if level crossings are an issue with this, then why are the Tyne and Wear Metro and the Oslo metro included, as the both of them have it too? CCL-DTL (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

the Tyne and Wear Metro and Oslo Metro have true metro origin, there's one talk section above for the Oslo Metro and you will see why it cannot be removed, the Tyne and Wear Metro has heavier rolling stocks than actual light rail systems,the Amsterdam Metro have literal light rail rolling stocks running on the system and its still counted as one Metrosfan (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

For the Cross River Rail, I guess fair enough, but the Metro Tunnel has already been discussed that it qualifies here so therefore you shouldn't removed them Metrosfan (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Japanese Rail systems

Does the Seibu Yamaguchi Line, Yamaman Yūkarigaoka Line, and Saitama New Shuttle qualify as a metro systems, the rolling stocks seems to have true metro origin and they seem to meet all criterias Metrosfan (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

List on planned metro systems should have a column for status

Add new column to indicate status of the project. Anttipng (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Noted, will be added soon Metrosfan (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Metro Tunnel and Cross River Rail

Consensus needs to be established in order to add these systems. At present, there is not consensus, and the only "discussion" involved one editor.

@CCL-DTL: @Metrosfan: @Ymblanter: @Oknazevad: @Epicgenius: Please discuss. Cards84664 16:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the latter to really comment, but as for the former, I do not think it should be included. It's more akin to SEPTA's Center City Commuter Connection than a true metro. oknazevad (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

But the Metro Tunnel has already been discussed in July and August 2023, so I don't get why they have to remove it and not allow people to re add it Metrosfan (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking back through that discussion, there isn't a clear consensus to include. oknazevad (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Steelkamp as they initiated the Talk:List of metro systems#Brisbane discussion earlier. Fork99 (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I've participated in the previous discussions about this topic. However, I will note that the Cross River Rail article describes it as a "commuter rail line" that is part of the local commuter rail network. Similarly, Metro Tunnel's article describes that project as being for a suburban rail line. Neither of these seem to be true metros, but rather an underground segment of a mainline railway line, akin to the underground portions of the Elizabeth line or the Réseau Express Régional. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

That is exactly correct. Related, I am concerned that each system is being judged on a case-by-case basis by Wikipedia editors, which practically amounts to original research. We need to be using a database from somewhere else rather than making the decisions on what is a metro ourselves. Steelkamp (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

pinging @SHB2000 since he's also involved in readding them in the past few weeks Metrosfan (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

It was agreed upon last year to include Metro Tunnel for the reasons mentioned by Gracchus. No comment on CRR. --SHB2000 (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Gracchus250 as I remember off the top of my head that they were involved in previous discussions on this talk page and were just mentioned by SHB2000 above. Fork99 (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I will say, though: SEPTA's w:Center City Commuter Connection is more akin to Sydney's w:City Circle, ESR or Airport Line or Melbourne's w:City Loop rather than the Metro Tunnel which on its own has all the standalone features of a metro (signalling, grade-separation, platform screen doors, semi-automation, station distancing, etc) – the real question arises because of the rest of the line. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

And that's the thing. The rest of the line. Having a metro-like section in the city center doesn't make a line a metro if the rest of it is just an ordinary part of the suburban commuter rail network. A metro line is a metro line from end to end of its not a metro line at all. This idea that just because a tunnel section meets some metro design standard that means the city now suddenly has a metro system for that tunnel portion only is wrong. This is an issue we've discussed in the past. It's why some of the systems we left out were left out in the first place. oknazevad (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

^ Agree. Calling a part of a suburban railway network a 'metro system' is wrong, just because it has the typical shebang of a typical metro line doesn't automatically grant it 'metro system status'. CCL-DTL (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@CCL-DTLDid you even see the invisible note? The Metro Tunnel has already been discussed that it qualifies here, so you shouldn't have removed it before discussing first, you can't just remove something that's ALREADY been DISCUSSED and not allow people to re-add it without discussing when it's already discussed it qualifies here Metrosfan (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, no clear consensus to keep/add them. CCL-DTL (talk) 08:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

That's only for the Cross River Rail Metrosfan (talk) 08:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, CCL-DTL, but Metrosfan is right here. It was quite widely agreed upon after its addition and no one contested it until now. Only CRR is at issue here. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

exactly, however it might be unfortunate that he's still not gonna allow us to re-add it even after that, he keeps thinking there's no clear consensus to add it Metrosfan (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I concede - after reading a bit I will agree to keep the Metro Tunnel in here, as the entire section the Metro Tunnel is built upon will be converted into a rapid transit service (if I'm reading it correctly).

The Cross River Rail should still NOT be added back though, that's a whole different thing CCL-DTL (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you regarding CRR. Apparently some of the line still has level crossings further south (which will be removed eventually but not upon opening). --SHB2000 (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

What is "the rest of the line", really?

I could use a similar argument to say that Tokyo only has 3 metro lines (Marunouchi, Ginza, and Ōedo) since all the other lines through-run with other suburban rail lines and are therefore essentially just metro "core" of a larger, suburban rail system.

If you want to argue that the "core" section has to be expansive, well, just how expansive? 9 km is already longer than some of the extremely short metro lines, including the Waterloo and City Line.

I have already talked about this in my comment for "Proposed merge: 'List of Electric Urban Rail Systems'"; it is often not clear where a line ends and begins.

If you try to use percentage, you encounter the issue where an extension of a system causes the system to lose a metro line.

If you use a strict length (for example, that at least 10 km of the thing should qualify as being a metro), we are using arbitrary definitions that would qualify and disqualify some lines from being metros just based on what we think.

If you go off of how it's branded and displayed on a map, well, that's another arbitrary distinction that ultimately hinges on the municipality's whims. We have already agreed that "it's a metro because the municipality says it is" is not acceptable. Laggingcomputer (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, I literally put it as already discussed and not to remove without discussing however CCL-DTL keeps on removing them and claiming it's part of Melbourne and Brisbane's suburban railway network, he even saw the invisible note itself but yet he still removes them and don't allow people to re-add it, I re-added it the third time it get removed by someone else again and he just expected us to just start this new discussion about Metro Tunnel and Cross River Rail when it's already discussed Metrosfan (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Because the previous discussion didn't have consensus to add them. They don't qualify. oknazevad (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The thing is he already saw the note, if he dosent approve this he should have left those systems there and discuss first, then only remove after discussion ended Metrosfan (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

How does it not? For the CRR, ok maybe, but for Metro Tunnel, Gracchuss has already showed the reason why it qualifies, as mentioned by SHB2000 Metrosfan (talk) 08:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

After Gracchuss thoroughly explained what made it a metro system, no one successfully rebutted their statement. It was agreed upon to leave Metro Tunnel as-is and add or remove it once it opens as per w:WP:CRYSTALBALL. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that Melbourne Metro should be considered a rapid transit standard since

- Despite the claim to have full grade separation, there will still be pedestrian crossings

- Never in any plans that the using Metro Tunnel was intended to be a separate metro system

- Cranbourne and Pakenham lines already completely used high-capacity trains (they would be metro standards if using this argument)

- Regional and freight trains still will use the line

Yes, there are exceptions where they may breach some metro criteria (London Metropolitan line with the London Underground, Hong Kong East Rail Line with MTR, Oslo Metro Line 1 etc.) but they tend to be part of a wider metro network which have other lines that don't break any of the metro criteria and have true metro origin so they are given a pass compare to Melbourne which does not have other true metro lines in the rail network until Suburban Rail Loop. Mhaot (talk) 11:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Not really, They're a lot different to the existing Melbourne Suburban Railway Metrosfan (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The are only slightly different with the overhead voltage already but High Capacity Metro Trains were actually tested on other rail lines ,and Cranbourne and Pakenham lines will still be on a Main line railways since VLine service and Freight already and will continue to use the line. Tell me any similar metro standard line that will be similar to service of a Metro Tunnel. Mhaot (talk) 12:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Cranbourne + Pakenham do not use advanced metro signalling unlike Metro Tunnel, though. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge: "List of Electric Urban Rail Systems"

Given how un-useful the current definitions of "metro" and "rapid transit" are, I and a couple other users have proposed expanding this list and making it more inclusive. In my opinion, it's more useful to make this list more inclusive, not less. This will allow for the inclusion of systems like Merseyrail, Metrovelencia, and the Elizabeth line, the latter of which has become especially divisive. Here is a sample of what proposed list could look like:

City	Country/ region	Name	Type	Service opened	Last expanded	Stations	Lines	System length	Annual ridership (millions)
Newcastle	United Kingdom	Tyne and Wear Metro	Light Metro	1980	2008	60	2	77.5 km (48.2 mi)	29.3 (2022*)
London	United Kingdom	London Underground	Rapid Transit	1863	2021	272	11	402 km (250 mi)	1,026 (2022*)
		Docklands Light Railway	Light Metro	1987	2011	45	7	34 km (21 mi)	92.3 (2022*)
		Elizabeth Line	Frequent Commuter Rail	2022	2023	41	1	117 km (73 mi)
Liverpool	United Kingdom	Merseyrail	Frequent Commuter Rail	1903	2023
Valencia	Spain	Metrovalencia	Frequent Commuter Rail	1988
Calgary	Canada	O Train	Light Metro	2019

Rckania (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are clear and authoritative sources for what constitutes a metro, and whether a system meets those qualifications such as the UITP, the APTA, and expert authors like Robert Schwandl. And this article used to be heavily based on those. The problem is every local comes along and tries to add their city's new train because of some local pride thing, and that has watered down the list and its definitions. We've got folks trying to add commuter systems, light rail, and even street trams that happen to have a tunnel section in the city center as a metro, when they clearly don't fix metro characteristics end-to-end. Instead of watering down the title and bloating the list by putting different categories into one article, we should remove these systems that aren't listed in the authoritative sources.

oknazevad (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

that is what I'm trying to say before, but the Elizabeth Line people won't budge and will not allow it to be removed. Rckania (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Remove it anyway. There's clearly no consensus for inclusion, nor is it sourced as a metro. "Metro-like" does not mean "is a metro". oknazevad (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok. I just did. If metrosfan adds it again, we might need to enlist the dispute resolution team. Rckania (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

There are clear and authoritative sources for what constitutes a metro, but we are not using those sources for some reason? Steelkamp (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Oknazevad You seem to be under the impression that "metros" and "not metros" is very clear, but I can assure you that is not true.

And really, it shouldn't take much reading on this very website to realize that metros and not-metros have a very fuzzy, if not inexistent boundary. The boundary is perceived differently by each and every person, and it is influenced heavily by the person's background. Take AREX in Seoul for example, which I have listed as a metro line in this article and I truly believe that it is unambiguously a metro line. It has metro-like infrastructure, it connects the city to its two airports, serving the city's own interests, and some people even use it for commuting. However, per regulation, this is not a metro line, this is a mainline rail line, and it even has a history of high speed trains being operated on it. A lot of people would refuse to consider this to be a metro line, but I assure you these people will also quickly change their mind once they have a single ride on the AREX.

Another example I can cite from my personal experience is the example of Shinbundang Line vs Suin-Bundang Line. Both lines serve the purpose of connecting Seoul to its southern suburbs, and actually the Suin-Bundang line has higher within-Seoul ridership (i.e. people that use it for moving between two points within Seoul instead of using it to go to and from the suburbs). I'd actually go as far as to say that the Shinbundang is impractical for transportation within Seoul due to its higher fares. Despite this, a lot of Western transit advocates I've talked to, including some transit YouTubers, tend to believe the Shinbundang line to be a metro, but the Suin-Bundang line to be a not-metro, because the Suin-Bundang line is much longer, venturing far from the city.

I can cite at least 5 more examples of this, all with claims that the line is "unambiguously a metro" while the other side claims it to be "not a metro at all!"

In short, there is no such thing as a single, unambiguous, infallible definition of metro. It's like trying to color a map only using 3 colors. Common sense is defenseless against such blasphemous edge cases like the Keishin Line and regulations are always bound to have weird quirks. There is simply no way to include the Metropolitan Line -- the first and least-metro-like metro line -- while excluding the Yamanote Line -- the most metro-like line that isn't -- without coming up with completely arbitrary, made-up distinctions.

I think there is some practicality to be had in reorganizing this entire family of lists (including suburban, regional, light metro, whatever) into "List of Urban Rail systems in {continent name}", since the current list already suffers from being too big. North American metros generally tend to be similar to each other, and same goes for most of Europe and East Asia. That way, the different regions' different approaches to "metro" and the different connotations of the name can be implemented by having different inclusion standards per region.

I think it's useful for the North American and European lists to specify that "metro" lines should be mostly separated from the rest of the mainline system. If I recall correctly, the US government strictly bans "metro" systems from sharing tracks with other systems, while European systems just tend to be more isolated, with the notable exception of some London Underground lines. However, in Japan and South Korea, this isolation is simply not a thing. The European definition could include the grade-separation clause, both because European metro systems tend to be better grade-separated but also because of the pure abundance of tram systems in Europe. However, I think the Asian list could probably get away without including the grade-separation clause, as there are fewer tram systems in operation in the present day, and "metro" systems that fail to attain grade-separation is much more common. Laggingcomputer (talk) 05:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Ideally I think we could add a column e.g. "Sources" which shows which reliable sources state that the system is a metro. For example [U] could indicate that the UITP says its a metro, [A] could indicate that the APTA says its a metro, and [S] could say that Robert Schwandal says its a metro. Coming up with our "own" definition of what is a metro is original research. Unfortunately the UITP dataset seems to be behind a paywall - https://cms.uitp.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Statistics-Brief-Metro-Figures-2021-web.pdf - perhaps we could ask them if they'd provide a least a list of what they consider to be metros according to their definitions to help the Wikipedia article?

Matthewmayer (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

What are we gonna do when these sources disagree? For massive, interconnected systems like Seoul and Incheon Metros, some sources will inevitably cite them as single systems, while others list them separately? What is this list gonna do? Include both of them?

There is no single, trustworthy authority on what a metro is in the same way there is no one global standard for what a country is, or what a bus is. Different authorities are gonna disagree and then it's gonna be the same problem of arguments over and over again.

Further, consider my point that a lot of these "definitions" of metros are seldom useful. We need to consider what information we wish to convey from this list. Do we wish to convey a gospel, "this is the list of metros" situation that includes some very not-metrolike metros while excluding some very metrolike not-metros? Or do we want this list to be a useful list for people to look up urban transportation systems in different cities? Most English sources say that South Korea has 6 metro systems, but are we conveying a useful, practical information to the reader by separating Incheon metro from Seoul metro, despite the unified fare schemes, through-running schemes, and the interconnected nature of Incheon Metro, Seoul Metro, and some of the more metrolike suburban rail lines operated by Korail? Laggingcomputer (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The reason why I am suggesting to just completely abolish this list is because of this ambiguity in its definition. A "list of metro systems" is never gonna be as clear-cut as a "list of commercial passenger airplanes" or even "list of hotels in London," because the standard for a metro is fundamentally subjective. When asked for the criterion, most sources cite something like "good frequency", "high speed (compared to trams or buses)", "large capacity," well, exactly how "good" and how "high speed" and how "large"? The sources themselves have to draw a line somewhere and even these seemingly-robust, reliable lists will be filled with inconsistencies and disagreements between each other. And all of this is even before we get into the argument of what really counts as a "system" as I have questioned in my previous reply.

There is no comprehensive, unambiguous, infallible standard for what a metro is, because asking for a list of metros is like asking for a "list of good hotels in London" instead of a "list of hotels in London", how are you gonna define "good"? Laggingcomputer (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

So, you are in favor of the merge, but want to split it by continent, right? Rckania (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is correct. Laggingcomputer (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok. For The Americas, it can just be left as "Metro Systems", as frequent urban rail systems that use mainline tracks just don't exist there. For Europe, I do think it should be "List of Electric Urban Rail Systems in Europe", because there are lots of situations like Merseyrail and Metrovalencia that function the same as a metro, but technically aren't metro systems. This list should include those. Rckania (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but it might be better to call it "urban rail systems of North America" just for the sake of consistency with other lists. Some readers might wonder "why is there a metro list for NA but no other continent?" and we would have to explain it to them and all... Laggingcomputer (talk) 13:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I think combined, North and South Don't have too many metros that won't fit on one list Rckania (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but I still think we should just leave it as "Urban Rail Systems" for consistency, that was the main point. Laggingcomputer (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough Rckania (talk) 06:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Laggingcomputer: Oh, how would we handle Australia and Africa? They don't have enough metro systems to warrant their own list. Rckania (talk) 01:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

"What are we gonna do when these sources disagree?"

"Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree." from Wikipedia:Reliable sources Matthewmayer (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

That still doesn't solve the issue that most sources have a very vague definition anyways. Further, my point isn't that the sources disagreeing is a fundamental issue with using sources; instead, specifically in this list, there could be arguments (just like the ones we are having now) about which sources to believe. We already have tons of issues with arguments, and this proposal exists to attempt to solve these disputes. "Just use credible sources like" doesn't fix anything. Laggingcomputer (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to mention that APTA (one of the sources you suggested) doesn’t have a separate standard for metros either. They are split into buses, rail transit, and commuter/intercity rail. Laggingcomputer (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The APTA most certainly has separate categories for light rail and heavy rail (metro). See this 3rd quarter 2023 ridership report, which is what we already use as the ridership source in the List of United States rapid transit systems and List of United States light rail systems articles. oknazevad (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I just had some time to look at the linked UITP PDF, and I don't think that that source can be trusted. It lists Seoul Metro as having a total length of 527 km, and honestly I have no idea how one would even get such a figure. Seoul Metro + Incheon Metro as per the strict, "owned by Seoul" and "owned by Incheon" definitions are only around 420 kilometers, and even adding the other feeder light metro systems brings us nowhere near 500 km so where they magicked 100 km is lost for me. It also lists Tokyo as having 381 km of metro, which is awfully too high, once again. The conventional definition of Tokyo Metro yields 318 km, and even including several other lines that could be considered metro lines, I got nowhere near the required 63 km of extra length.

As per the definition cited at the bottom of the PDF, it says "Metros are high capacity urban rail systems, running on an exclusive right-of-way. Metro lines included in the above statistics run with trains composed of a minimum of two cars and with a total capacity of at least 100 passengers per train." Which is awfully loose, what is "urban", what is "high capacity"? It is technically possible to use the Shinkansen to go between several stations within the Tokyo Metropolis, is that urban? Does the "exclusive right-of-way" allow for level crossings or not? Why on earth would they exclude Japanese urban private rail companies when they fit most of these definitions? (And no, they didn't include private railways to get to the 381 km figure, if I included all private rail lines that fit this definition, it would be way, wayyy over 381 km.)

As I have already said, these definitions are in no way sufficient, and I stand in my belief that trying to rigorously define what a "metro" is a futile effort that will culminate in nothing. Laggingcomputer (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The UITP is the main international body. The fact that their definitions may be loose already allows for that fuzziness you mention. But most importantly, they're a reliable third party source, not original research. oknazevad (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Fuzziness is the entire problem. That's why there are arguments about this certain systems being included in here at all.

The Elizabeth line, in my eyes, perfectly fits those definitions, at least the core section that is. "Elizabeth Line Core" would be a valid entry in my eyes, as it is high-capacity, urban, and has exclusive ROW in the core, but I know many people would disagree with this.

The entire point of this proposed merge is to get rid of this potential for argument, and what your argument does is just adding onto this argument, instead of refuting it. Laggingcomputer (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd support a merge for the reasons given by Laggingcomputer and the point made by Steelkamp, which I 100% agree with, which is that, despite there being sources in the article, editors are often entirely ignoring what those sources say and making their own calls on what is or isn't a metro. That's the very definition of WP:OR. A unified list would solve that. Valenciano (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, given that quite a few people are in support of the merge, I created a draft for the Europe list. This does not mean a merge will happen, but it gives us a place to discuss this topic further and hopefully improve.

Draft:List of Electric Urban Rail Systems in Europe - Wikipedia Rckania (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I also made one for all systems: Draft:List of Electric Urban Rail Systems - Wikipedia

We don't know if it will be by continent or all systems. Rckania (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

As I said in the above section, though, you can't do "core". It's either the whole line or not at all. That's always been the inclusion criteria. See entries for Boston or Philadelphia, for example. oknazevad (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

i believe that Istanbul, Tbilisi, Yerevan and Baku should be included aswell, since Tbilisi, Yerevan and Baku are kinda also in Europe and are similar towards the other Soviet Systems in Russia and Ukraine, while Istanbul Metro M1 kind of looks similar to the Tyne and Wear Metro Metrosfan (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

i debated whether or not to include Istanbul, but I decided against it because the rest of the Turkish metros won't be listed Rckania (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Support this idea. This list is clearly OR, the UITP definition is very broad and simply does not support the very narrow definition of metro applied in these decisions/discussions. I believe it is misleading in its portrayal of whether something can be easily determined to be a metro or not, it's also a narrowly European definition, which is why American/Australasian/Asian systems where both cities and rail cultures are different so often don't neatly fit into it. I think the term "List of urban rail systems" would suffice and electric can be specified in the text. Or they can be broken up by continent. Gracchus250 (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Laggingcomputer: @Valenciano: @Metrosfan: @OrewaTel: I created one of the drafts for a potential merge just in case. This does not mean anything will happen, but it's probably a good idea to a draft going, if anything, just to compare the two lists. Draft:List of Electric Urban Rail Systems in Europe - Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rckania (talk • contribs) 20:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

What constitutes a "whole line"? Where do you draw the boundary of a "whole line?" the whole through-running? the whole designation? the legal scopes of a single "line?" Sure, "Elizabeth Line Core" might not be a valid line, but Crossrail is, and it only encompasses the Paddington - Stratford/Abbey Woods section, while Elizabeth Line encompasses the entire service. These two things --while related -- are distinct and separate.

Most people would agree that the Tokyo Metro Tozai Line is a metro, even though this line features through-running services to the JR network that may potentially not count as a metro, and this applies to several other Tokyo Metro lines, so if it is branded separately, it is not a single line? Contrast that to the example of Seoul Line 1, Line 3, and Line 4 which many people are reluctant to consider to be metro lines. Until 2000, the Seoul Metro "core" sections of these lines and the Korail sections were displayed and designated as separate lines that simply through-operate, much like the Tokyo Metro example. In 2000, they simply started designating the entire thing as a single line, while changing nothing in terms of operations. Does that really mean that Seoul "lost" 3 metro lines in 2000? Does that not sound a bit silly?

And don't even try to argue that the Tokyo Metro lines with through-running shouldn't count, you'd leave Tokyo with a mere 3 metro lines.

Vagueness is the whole issue, and I, for one, am particularly against "whole line" definitions. Even without these through-running examples, it's easy to demonstrate this "whole-line" definitions' silliness. If a metro line fits all the definitions as-is, but the city builds an extension that violates some condition, "whole line" definitions rule that the city "lost" a metro line.

Further, a lot of this hinges on the branding, if Toei Tozai Line can be a metro but Crossrail can't, that seems to signify to me that once again, this definition would be beholden by the arbitrary designations given by the local transportation agency. We have already reached a consensus that "the city calls it a metro so it's a metro" is complete bogus; by the same token, "it is several different interconnected lines because the city says it is" should not be accepted either.

Even considering other modes of rail transport, this kind of "whole line" justification is rarely applied. Consider HSRs, some HSR networks operate services that operate high-speeds in some "core" or "trunk" section, while operating slower speeds on some other sections to provide HSR access to places that are not directly on the HSR. The KTX does this on several occasions, and even the Shinkansen does this on Akita Shinkansen and Yamagata Shinkansen services. These services are still considered HSR services. The fact that "metro" requires such arbitrary and counterintuitive definitions -- to me -- signifies that "metro" is not really a useful and practical category. Laggingcomputer (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

A merged list just changes the argument to "what is an electric urban rail system" instead of "what is a metro". Wikipedia:Verifiability says

"In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information... All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. ... Verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies."

Again, I'd argue that trying to come up with our own unique definitions is against these core content policies. Our own opinions of "what is a metro" are not important. We should be trying to agree on which secondary sources to rely on instead. Matthewmayer (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I think what is an "electric urban rail" is pretty clear, be electrified and function as a part of the urban transportation, be able to be boarded with the use of a transit card, etc. Compared to what a metro is, it is much less of a headache.

"Original research" argument could be refuted by saying that "electric urban rail" is a common sense term, like "bread" or "chair" and that we don't need credible sources, but I know this is a bit sketchy. Laggingcomputer (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

As a potential reliable source for Europe for example, https://projects.shift2rail.org/download.aspx?id=2977dbc6-c401-4b23-8c0f-5b4c908cbb81 sec 4.9.1 which is EU-funded research based on UITP data lists the following cities as having metros as of 2019. This could be cross-referenced against the current list Matthewmayer (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Vienna	Austria
Brussels	Belgium
Sofia	Bulgaria
Prague	Czech Republic
Copenhagen	Denmark
Helsinki	Finland
Lille	France
Lyon	France
Marseille	France
Paris	France
Rennes	France
Toulouse	France
Berlin	Germany
Hamburg	Germany
Munich	Germany
Nuremberg	Germany
Athens	Greece
Budapest	Hungary
Brescia	Italy
Catania	Italy
Genoa	Italy
Milan	Italy
Naples	Italy
Rome	Italy
Turin	Italy
Amsterdam	Netherlands
Rotterdam	Netherlands
Oslo	Norway
Warsaw	Poland
Lisbon	Portugal
Bucharest	Romania
Barcelona	Spain
Bilbao	Spain
Madrid	Spain
Palma	Spain
Sevilla	Spain
Valencia	Spain
Stockholm	Sweden
Lausanne	Switzerland
Adana	Turkey
Ankara	Turkey
Bürsa	Turkey
Istanbul	Turkey
Izmir	Turkey
Glasgow	UK
London	UK

Matthewmayer (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support Given how arguments have been made back and forth umptillion times here before (as there is no single clear definition), I think it makes sense to finally avoid any ambiguities by merging them together. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. Would you like to contribute to the drafts? Rckania (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support Support this endeavor given the well-established difficulties with defining metros in one specific way. Thanks for taking it on! I'd like to share two comments: (1) I'm not in favor of splitting the lists by continent as that would help introduce inconsistencies and would be somewhat duplicative of already existing country-specific articles like Urban rail transit in China and List of United States rapid transit systems and (2) There might not be a need to specify "electric" in the title of the proposed article as the overwhelming majority of urban rail systems are electric and since the specific power source is (arguably) not the defining feature of urban rail. Pyzirikov (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  There are currently tow drafts going, but it's taking awhile. The Europe list is nearly complete, while the list for the whole earth is untouched. I don't know if it will be by continent or not, so I'm working on both, to see which one people like better. I would love to see more people work on these drafts as articles that are written by just one person usually end up pretty crappy or have glaring oversights. Rckania (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Splitting it into continents is just a suggestive compromise for those who think that the combined list will be too big, and frankly I kinda agree with them. The list right now is already extremely large, and if we expand the definition it will become even larger, perhaps borderline impractical.

  I do see how it will be somewhat duplicative of some lists like the US list, but I'm not sure how the China list plays into this as even within just "East Asia", there are Japan and Korea to make the list different enough in my views, and within the whole of Asia (as it would be split into) resides India, another country with quite a lot of urban rail systems.

  Even with the US list, I think Canada and Mexico have enough transportation systems to justify a separate list, and we could always just merge it into "Americas" and include South America as well. Laggingcomputer (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  How will be handle Africa and Australia? Those continents don't have enough systems to justify their own lists. Rckania (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps we can do Americas, Europe, Asia, and "Other Continents" Laggingcomputer (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Laggingcomputer: @Valenciano: @Metrosfan: @OrewaTel: @Pyzirikov: @SHB2000: The Europe list is done. The draft is not even close to finished, but I belive I got all the systems listed. I am now moving onto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:List_of_Electric_Urban_Rail_Systems_in_The_Americas Rckania (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

List by continent removal

@Nonusme@Rckania@Qazzy52@Ymblanter@Oknazevad @Laggingcomputer@OrewaTel@Matthewmayer I propose this plan: Should we remove the list by continent section? It seems to be useless and only makes this page's quality goes down as it contains unnecessary information that we already have, since we have list by country section, we should probably remove the List by continent to remove some unnecessary information Metrosfan (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. It seems a bit unnecessary. Rckania (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it gives a nice overview but I do not have a strong opinion and if consensus is to remove let it be. Ymblanter (talk) 06:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I see now that it is indeed redundant with the list by country, so that it can go. We might want to add an extra column in the list by country listing the continent. Ymblanter (talk) 06:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

agree, add a continent column to the countries list and remove the continent lists Matthewmayer (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

i don't think a column to show the continent the country belongs to is necessary Metrosfan (talk) 06:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The whole point of having a sortable list is that we don't need redundant charts in the first place. Why are the country and continent lists even a thing? Remove them both. oknazevad (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Mecca Metro Line 1

@Matthewmayer@Nonusme@Ymblanter@OknazevadTo be honest, does Mecca Metro actually belong to the operational list, I know Mecca Metro Line 1 is using Monorail rolling stock but the trains look like they do have true metro origin, the Mecca Metro Line 1 is similar towards the Beijing Subway Line S1 and maybe Beijing Subway Capital Airport Express Line, so since these lines are included for Beijing Subway, I would say Mecca Metro qualifies and should be moved to Operational List Metrosfan (talk) 05:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

irs not a Monorail. You can tell just from looking at a picture of it. However, it runs 7 days a year. It's not an urban rail system used for transporting people for day to day activities. It's a shuttle train that is used for Pilgrims once a year. It's not a metro. Rckania (talk) 06:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that fails the "frequent service" consideration. It may be metro technology, but it's not metro service. oknazevad (talk) 10:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Auto people movers

@Rckania@Nonusme@Matthewmayer@Ymblanter@Oknazevad@OrewaTel@Fork99@Laggingcomputer Should there be a notice about which auto people movers (urban only) qualifies and dosent qualifies for this list, some apm systems like the Macau LRT and Bangkok BTS Gold Line (included in BTS Skytrain's data) were on this list, while some like Detroit People's Mover and Serfaus U-Bahn aren't, it will cause some confusion so therefore, there should be a consensus on which Urban APM is included Metrosfan (talk) 08:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

i'm actually not sure where the line is drawn. The Detroit people moved us not included but the French mini metros are. I think it just comes down to the length Rckania (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Two systems missing in Venezuela

The systems of Valencia and Maracaibo (both operating since 2006) are missing. 2806:106E:19:3EE4:F4FB:996D:CC13:64EA (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

They're listed at medium-capacity rail system. oknazevad (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)