Talk:List of metro systems/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Naples Arcobaleno Line

The Naples rail transport system is rather complicated, and seems to have evolved in recent years in ways that are not yet reflected in Wikipedia articles (new operator for some commuter lines, new line numbers). While trying to make sense of it, I've taken interest in the Naples–Aversa railway, a fully subterranean line in the Northern suburbs, opened in stages between 2005 and 2009. It is categorized as a metro line (Line 11, "linea Arcobaleno", that is "Rainbow line") in the official system map published by the Naples Mobility Agency. Clearly, line 2, that they also present as a metro line, is just a higher-frequency commuter line, but line 11 is fully separated from the regular railway network and seems to have rather high service frequency (10 to 15 minutes according to its article, I haven't checked sources directly). I haven't found previous discussion regarding this line in the archives. Would it make sense to include it in the totals for the Naples network on this page? GDarley (talk) 11:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Inclusion of Valencia, Málaga, Sevilla, Granada and Palma de Mallorca Metros

When I realised these metros weren't in the list, I went to add them, but then found in the code a request to not add these transport systems since they have "deficiencies". Why shouldn't, for example, MetroValencia, fit in this list? Seems like a full metro system like any other to me. Maybe some clarification on this? These metro systems are included in the Spanish wikipedia, for example.

Valencia is branded as a metro system but in fact, it's more of a tramway system. --Bouzinac (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

The Flags need to go

As per MOS:FLAG, the flags in the table need to go as they are unnecessarily distracting and provide no encyclopaedic use. Canterbury Tail talk 17:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

This was just discussed above. The flags stay, as there is copious precedent for their inclusion here and elsewhere. The guideline does not reflect that actual practice across dozens of article and needs to be changed, not the other way around. oknazevad (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I see the discussion now, but disagree with it's outcome. Ah well never mind. I disagree it's the MOS that needs to be changed, but flags have become a non-user friendly, distracting, unbalanced emphasis, creeping corruption that has slowly crept through the encyclopaedia over the years and adds little to no value. However I'll not bring it up again here. Canterbury Tail talk 19:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree --Qa003qa003 (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

should add Hangzhou–Haining intercity railway？

Hangzhou–Haining intercity railway basic like Hangzhou Metro. And it can be directly exchanged with Hangzhou Metro--Qa003qa003 (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Planned metro systems

Should metro systems that are about to start construction be added? Or do they have to be actively under counstruction?192.231.40.122 (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

They have to be under actual construction.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Shovels in ground, as the saying goes. Only way to ensure WP:CRYSTAL is kept. oknazevad (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Perugia Minimetro

What's the rationale behind Perugia MiniMetro not being on the list? Okay, very small cars but specific tracks, no pedestrian crossings, within a city, high frequency...--Bouzinac (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

That's a people mover. Same reason why Miami Metromover and Detroit people mover aren't included. --Rckania (talk) 01:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Chicago L, Oslo Metro, and Rotterdam Metro

So the Tyne and Wear Metro was removed, after a great deal of controversy, because it contains grade crossings. However, the Chicago L, Oslo Metro, and Rotterdam Metro also contain grade crossings. Should these systems be removed as well?

It should be noted that each of these entries contain a note explaining that there are grade crossings. --Rckania (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

It was removed in May 2021 with the comment "this is clearly a light rail system", and has been removed again with the comment "there is currently no consensus to add Tyne & Wear Metro". However, going by the May 2021 discussion, there was no consensus to remove it. NemesisAT (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

And older discussions here. Again I'm not seeing a clear consensus why it isn't a metro system NemesisAT (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Seoul Metropolitan system Length

I know that this had been a recurring topic on this talk, but I've noticed a lot of them don't come to a real conclusion, nor consider many facts which I consider to be reasons why Seoul Metro figures should include at least the Korail-operated lines, and perhaps even Incheon Metro. I noticed many arguments saying that regional rail should not be included as they are not included for other cities. However, these systems that many like to call "regional rail" have more to do in common with metro lines than rail lines.

Before I say anything further, I would like to say that I find it quite ironic that the list would exclude sections not operated by Seoul in length figures, yet cite the Hanam line for the last expansion of 2021. I feel this ironic because the Hanam line, despite being operated by Seoul Metro, is NOT owned by Seoul. Instead, it is owned by the Gyeonggi province.

With that out of the way, I would like to establish that some parts that are operated by other operators are integral to Seoul-operated sections. The best example is line 1. Line 1 is less than 10 km long, and there is not a single operating pattern, not even at nighttime, that operates Seoul-operated sections only. In other parts, of the network, the opposite is true. Take the Ilsan line, for instance, the line only stretches from Jichuk to Daehwa and doesn't even have its own depot, relying entirely on Seoul-operated sections. For this reason, I would say that tearing apart lines based on operators is nonsensical.

If splitting sections based on the operator is to be rejected, then what would you cite as the dividing line between "regional trains" and metro lines? Rolling stocks are a no-go because the rolling stocks for lines 1 through 4 have more to do in common for rolling stocks these so-called "regional" lines than lines 5 through 9. Platform height is another no-go because the "regional" services have higher platform height specifically for compatibility with metro lines. Judging based on whether or not other rail services exist may sound good, until you realize that vast sections of line 1 are shared by other rail services, including the KTX (this includes the underground Seoul-operated sections, as they are used by Korail locomotives to deliver new rolling stock to line 2, and they are treated as freight trains), not to even mention that that would include some "regional" lines such as the Gyeonggang, Bundang, Sinbundang, etc. You may turn to ownership, if a section of track is owned by Seoul, it counts. But this would cut off parts of lines 5 and 7 as well, such as the aforementioned Hanam line. Fare systems don't work either because these all share the same fare system and can be traveled by a single transit card.

Furthermore, I would like to ask a question. "What says that line 8 is Seoul Metro, but Korail-operated sections of line 1 are not?" Both line 8 and Korail-operated sections of line 1 extend outside of Seoul, they are both operated by Seoul-metro-owned rolling stock, and they are both called "Seoul Metro line #," including Korail-operated sections of line 1. It's not like Japan, where sections operated by other companies are called different names. They are treated as a single line, and the signages, network maps, and names all point toward these being single lines. In fact, line 8 goes further out of Seoul than Korail-operated Yongsan -> Guro service, which stays entirely within Seoul.

Finally, if these were to really be separate systems, then what are the Yongin LRT, Uijeongbu LRT, and Gimpo LRT? You could argue that they are separate systems, all operated by their city. However, Gimpo LRT offers direct connections to Seoul Metro lines 5 and 9, as well as the Airport Railroad. Now, then, is Gimpo LRT a part of Seoul Metro or not? If Gimpo LRT is a part of Seoul Metro, shouldn't Incheon Metro also be a part of Seoul Metro? After all, the two lines both offer direct connections to line 7 and the Airport Railroad, and they share the same fare system; what is to say that they aren't a part of Seoul Metro?'

Before I conclude, I have noticed the "Korail-operated metro lines" figure on the list only includes parts of lines 3 and 4 and the Suin Bundang Line. To be frank, this is quite idiotic and ignorant. These lines use basically identical rolling stock, signals, etc. with Gyeongui-Jungang, and line 1 has exclusive metro-only sections running from Guro to Incheon and Cheongryangri to Soyosan. If you were to say these aren't "Korail-operated metro" because they have other services, what happened to the Gyeonggang line? what happened to the sections of line 1 used for metro exclusively? What happened to the Gyeongui line (Although the Jungang line is shared with other trains, the Gyeongui line is used for metro trains)?

Thus, it is increasingly more ridiculous to split these highly interconnected networks apart. For this reason, I would like to suggest one of the following: A) Include all three: Korail-operated sections, Seoul-operated sections, Incheon Metro, Uijeongbu LRT, Yongin LRT, and Gimpo LRT in the length figure and delete the Incheon Metro entry. B) Include at least Korail-operated sections and Gimpo LRT into Seoul-operated sections. It may be possible to add a disclaimer stating that this figure includes "regional" trains. Then, add separate entries for Yongin and Uijeongbu. C) If the editor base of Wikipedia were to insist on these being separate systems, add separate entries for Yongin LRT, Uijeongbu LRT, and Gimpo LRT.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Laggingcomputer (talk • contribs) 08:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Hongkong

Regarding the flag of China that is used for Hongkong Metro, I wanted the link for consensus discussion that took place on the talk page archive. Footy2000 (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Look at archives 3, 4, and 5. Those are where it was established. oknazevad (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Joburg, South Africa Gautrain system

Surely the Gautrain metro system in Johannesburg + Pretoria, South Africa should be included here on this list? 82.24.88.69 (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

It's considered commuter rail, based largely on the equipment type (the same as used on commuter services in other countries, like the UK) and schedule frequency. oknazevad (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Remove Chelyabinsk from "under construction" section or not?

Somewhat a Russian Wikipedia friend pointed me by a way, that the "Chelyabinsk Metro" project has changed to be a "rapid tram" (no idea whether I translated скоростной трамвай correctly) per some rg.ru reports: [1], [2]. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Tyne & Wear metro included on the map but not in the list

The Tyne and Wear Metro is included on the map of the locations of all the world's metro systems, but not in the list itself (it's the dot in north-east England). It's possible that the UITP considers the Tyne and Wear metro to be a light rail or rapid transit system instead of a metro, but if that's the case then it should be removed from the map. If it can be classified as a metro then it should be added to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.218.15 (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Is Wuhu Metro really suitable to be listed here?

In both panoramas of the currently operating system, and the recent-to-mid term plan, there are having no lines to be constructed as a standard metro system, only having monorail lines and probably somewhat tram-train like light rail lines, so I wonder if Wuhu should still keep here or not.

By the way, I'd love to see whether the statistics of Chongqing Rail Transit should try to exclude their Line 3 and Line 4 due to same problem. Also the removal of both Guilin and Liuzhou Rail Transits from "under construction" section should be considered. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Istanbul Tünel

Hello User:Ymblanter, What is the problem with Tünel? As it is a completely underground city railline, it is counted as the second oldest metro line in history. Is there a specification for metro systems like it can not be funicular? Or about length etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alasiyan (talk • contribs) 08:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

See talkpage archives.--Jklamo (talk) 12:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jklamo If really, and fully follow "talkpage archives", we probably need to remove Bangkok BTS and Hanoi Metro from main list, as well as to remove "Taichung Metro" from the under construction section, because all of em are light metros, right? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jklamo I checked, and someone answered as "Already included in the List of funicular railways." So if there is a multi-attribute company that produces both automobiles and airplanes, when we try to add it to "airplane producers" list, the answer is "it is already in the automobile producers list". Got it. Alasiyan (talk) 10:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I think whatever applies for Tünel applies for Dorfbahn Serfaus pretty much the same way. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Hobbitschuster

London Elizabeth Line

Should it be added on the list? I guess it should. --Fly2Blue (talk) 10:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose main part of that line was TfL Rail, so better to replace that TfL Rail entry in List of suburban and commuter rail systems, as it more face-to-face a commuter railway than an underground line. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

+1 ; it looks more like a "RER line"/"S bahn" line Bouzinac (talk) 09:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Portuguese Metro

The city of Porto in portugal has had a metro system since 2002 2.83.221.51 (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Porto Metro is a light rail system, basically a tram-like system. Not a rapid transit. FikkuFiq 10:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@Fikku fiq Then Valencia? If the Valencia should ditto not listed then I would ask for consensus on removing Bangkok's BTS from list. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

MetroValencia is a mixture of different types, so just list the lines that are considered as rapid transit/underground/subway. For Bangkok BTS, the Silom and Sukhumvit lines are both rapid transit and should not be removed, but the Gold line is not a rapid transit line (it's a people mover instead), and should not be listed (if it is listed there). FikkuFiq 13:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Bangkok BTS and RapidKL have nothing alike with Metrovalencia I do not know why this is being brought up. Terramorphous (talk) 08:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

You may want to read Spanish Wikipedia on why I support adding Metrovalencia back here: es:Discusión:Metrovalencia#Colores_del_artículo. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Ottawa Light Rail

Now I'm well aware that this list is for Metro systems and not "Light Rail", as defined in the header of the article, however despite being called "Light Rail", the system is basically a metro system in all but name. It is fully grade separated, has GoA2, the entire system is free of any pedestrian crossings either at stations or between stations, the only difference between it and a normal metro system is that the trains themselves are low floor trams rather than traditional High Floor heavy rail metros. For the record, I'm only talking about the current Line 1 and future Line 3, not the diesel Line 2 and future Line 4. 2607:FEA8:3A9D:8A00:0:0:0:3E40 (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, if this list should never list any "light rail"s, then we probably need to remove "Manila Light Rail Transit System". Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Despite its name, Manila's system is not light rail by technical definition. We don't rely on names for that reason. oknazevad (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Then Kyoto? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Valencia Metro?

The metro system of the city of Valencia, Spain seems to be missing from the list. Only the Madrid, Bilbao and Barcelona metros are present and the list says Spain only has 3 metro systems, despite the fact even the Rapid transit in Spain article, which is linked in the list itself, mentioning Spain has four metro systems. 83.49.218.238 (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

See talkpage archives. Jklamo (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

If so, then in the future for Guangzhou, we should probably exclude their APM line when updating statistics columns, right? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I would love to support re-adding Metrovalencia, as there are really having sections that are underground, big enough passenger capacities and exclusive right-of-way. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

But those are not separate lines, just segments of the same lines that have street running and grade crossings outside the tunnels. If the same train runs through on both, it's light rail. oknazevad (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Oknazevad You may want to read more reasons on why I support it on Spanish Wikipedia: es:Discusión:Metrovalencia#Colores_del_artículo Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Or probably, the Spanish-language Metro is broader than the same word in English, even restricted to rail transport. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

That may very well be the case. I don't speak or read Spanish, so your reasoning at the Spanish Wikipedia is something I cannot examine, but also a different language Wikipedia has no effect on this one. The point remains that while some of the Metrovalencia lines have rapid-transit-like underground portions, those very same lines also run at-grade outside those tunnels. A train doesn't change what type of train it is just because it goes through a tunnel. They're more akin to say, Boston's Green Line which has underground portions with metro-like stations but is assuredly light rail because of the at-grade portions. oknazevad (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I guess you may ask @EAP1221 on the definition of "Metro" in Spanish. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Valencia is a mixed system. It has two lines which are exclusively rapid transit (underground, metros every 5-7 minutes, grade separated etc.) Three lines which are tram lines (plus a 4th due to open imminently) and 5 lines which are light rail. Valenciano (talk) 07:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

So I still think that system can be listed here, but with largely excluding any statistics about trams and light rails, focus only on statistics of the real metro lines (at the very least, I treat the Metrovalencia as RapidKL-like). That's why I also asked below that some systems in China should polish their statistics. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

OPPOSE, vast sections of Metrovalencia outside the city center run on old (but upgraded) railway alignments that still have tons of at-grade crossings and limited frequencies. It behaves like a small scale Crossrail line. Terramorphous (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

A would also like to add large sections of Metrovalencia operate on single track with passing loops. So I really don't understand the logic of comparing it the RapidKL which uses fully grade separated automated metro trains. RapidKL or any metro system does not look like this [3][4][5][6][7] Terramorphous (talk) 08:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Attention please, its line 5 doesn't have any at-grade crossings at all. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Just remember, that the es:Línea 5 (Metrovalencia) already marked clear-than-god that Tipo (type): Metro, and based on its rolling stocks and its own right-of-way, I absolutely sure that that line is a metro line. If you think the line 5 is even not a metro, then why don't you be bold to change the Spanish Wikipedia? Eh? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Terramorphous Under such suggestions, I'm afraid that the Kyoto Municipal Subway should also be removed, as it also has tram sections. Moreover, if the "at-grade crossings" is the only reason you oppose, then I would instead propose to exclude Line 3 datas for Changchun Rail Transit, as it also has level crossings as far as I've visited. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:45, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Where the Spanish metros are?

Spain is a country that through the modern era has built many metro systems, which most of them aren’t on the list, some of them being metrovalencia, the metro of Seville, Granada… and I would like to know the reason that justifies adding metros that nobody knows about in Central Asia rather than the mentioned examples. ALZH08 (talk) 01:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand your point. In Central Asia, there are two metro systems, in Tashkent and in Almaty. They certainly exist, I have been myself to Tashkent and used the metro there. There is a lot of literature about them, to make sure they are metro system. This is why they have been added. In Valencia, there are zero metro sysytems, this is why it is not added. Barcelona metro, for example, has been aded. Ymblanter (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I meant that the Spanish metros are more relevant than the central Asian ones, and metrovalencia does count as a metro, or at least the line 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 9 does and I would like to know the reason of ignoring them, also, you haven’t responded why the metro of Seville, Granada, Malaga… doesn’t are in the list. ALZH08 (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

More relevant to what? Anyway, feel free to provide reliable sources on the topic about these metros. CMD (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

More relevant to the above discussions, I guess. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

For you all is just light metros ALZH08 (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Light metros?

What is the concensus on medium capacity rapid transition systems? Some systems like REM in Montreal are intentionally not listed, but systems that are functionally the same, like the Honolulu Rail Transit and the Vancouver Skytrain are still listed. In fact, tge REM uses the sane vehicles as those used on the Amsterdam Metro. Rckania (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Italian metro

The Italian wikipedia says that the Italian metro is 231.7 km long while here in the list by country it says 222 km. Aldromi98euro (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Metrovalencia

The metro, Metrovalencia, in Spain is missing. 137.22.161.190 (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

It is nor a metro. Ymblanter (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ymblanter es:Línea 5 (Metrovalencia) said something against "not a metro" claims. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Rename list of Rapid transit systems?

The renaming would make it more consistent with Rapid transit and History of rapid transit as well as “Rapid transit in …” country articles.

Any thoughts? Bluealbion (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd lead towards yes. Consistency, and the fact that "metro" is not a universal term. And I'm talking about in the generic sense, not proper just names of systems. In the English-speaking world, no one term predominates, which is why the main article is at rapid transit in the first place. This article really should match that one per WP:TITLECON. Plus it would cut down on the repetitious talk page discussions about non-rapid transit systems that use "metro" in their name but are medium or light rail and have already been discussed and addressed for years, like the one right after this section. oknazevad (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Vilnius Metro?

Vilnius is in the list as under construction but I don't see any sources the page for the metro itself talks about it as a proposal. what's going on here? 80.179.255.58 (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Good question. The Lithuanian article on it includes the following sourced sentence "On April 14, 2021, the Government of the Republic of Lithuania approved the conclusion prepared by the Ministry of Transport and Communications, which proposes not to approve the draft resolution of the Seimas to recognize the Vilnius metro project as a project of special national importance."

So, as it seems to be an indefinite proposal which never happens, I'm removing it from that list, which in any case says it is for projects "currently under construction." Valenciano (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Seville

Should seville metro be on here? Its fully grade separated, and though it's considered light metro so are a lot of systems in this list like Rennes and Vancouver 2A00:A040:19F:243:90D4:E0E2:E713:9C4A (talk) 10:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistent dates

It has come to my attention that the dates on this article are not consistent from place to place. Is it possible to make the dates more consistent, so that most to all metro lengths in this article, would be measured in 2021 or 2018 per se, rather than the year measured constantly changing depending on the metro? Because I'm not sure how and I do think that it makes the article more inconsistent overall. PoliticallyPassionateGamer (talk) 04:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Waiting for consistent numbers would just make the numbers even more out of date and you would never get numbers for some systems. As it is we have to wait to get figures for 2023 so that some consistency can be re-established after the pandemic. At the moment they are becoming more inconsistent as patronage numbers are entered for some systems for 2020 and 2021.--Grahame (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah, that makes a lot of sense. I don't know much about this topic so I'm glad I know now. Thank you! PoliticallyPassionateGamer (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Metrovalencia

Why was my edit reverted? Why does this list include many hybrid systems but not Valencia? It meets all the criterias set by UITP, is listed by UITP and Metrobits as a metro system, we have called it a metro system in many pages of this wiki. Not all the line is a metro obviously, but good portions of L1, 3, 5 are. If we exclude it for sharing some km of rail with regional trains or the fact that it uses trams on some lines then there are other Metros on this list that should be excluded as well. Sacesss (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Are any lines fully metro from end-to-end? Because the fact that the central trunk is metro-like doesn't qualify a system if the same vehicles continue on surface trackage with many grade crossings. That's a subway-surface medium-capacity system, which are included in the list at medium-capacity rail system. That's where Metrovalencia really belongs. oknazevad (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Probably this could be added, but with only line 5 and its related datas considered? Though I would re-ask @Terramorphous: on whether they accept such resolution, that said, its line 5 doesn't have any level crossings as one of my real-world friend travelled within it some months ago, that's distinct from its other lines. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Anyway @Oknazevad: by such standards, should we consider removing Wuhu Metro as it's nothing looks like metro-standardized, all of its lines, either in operation or under construction, are monorails. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

You're right. We have separate a list of monorail systems where that belongs. oknazevad (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Why do we keep trying to remove monorail-based systems from the list? Nothing about the definition of rapid transit or metro systems restricts the designation to only systems that run using traditional railways. Multiple systems listed are partially or fully made up of monorail lines. The systems included are fully grade-separated, they're fully integrated into their respective cities' transport networks and are treated by operators and agencies as on equal footing with metro lines. The header of the rapid transit article even states "Some systems use guided rubber tires, magnetic levitation (maglev), or monorail." The International Association of Public Transport, or UITP specifically says in their definition of metros (cited in the main explaining text in this very article) that "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."

I strongly believe that splitting systems up in this way based only on an aesthetic difference rather than an operational or institutional one is incorrect, and should not be done on this and other pages. Sbb618 (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

(as a postscript, I also don't love the whole "light metro" split but that's a debate for another time)

Mostly it's a matter of monorails being quite different technology than conventional electrified railways. It significantly affects design and construction of the systems. I think keeping systems with their distinct characteristics in their own list helps readers find and compare them more easily. oknazevad (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

But how much does functionally carry over once the line opens? In my view, a conventional line and monorail line are pretty much the same from a user's perspective, and probably in many aspects from the agencies' standpoint (such as scheduling, advertisement, etc.), and this list should reflect that. If you're a rider in Chongqing, is there really anything – fares, geographic coverage, branding, transfers – functionally different between taking Line 1 and Line 2? Sbb618 (talk) 03:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: No, Line 5 is not a metro line it's a service that shares tracks with Line 7 and 5 services that go way out into rural areas running single track and at grade. Valencia should not be on this list. @Oknazevad: Why do we keep trying to remove monorail-based systems from the list? The systems included are fully grade-separated, high capacity and many are operated like the rest of the metro network. The UITP even considers them to be rapid transit. By this logic, to be consistent we need to remove all rubber-tired metros, AGTs and VALs from the list too as they are nowhere near "conventional". Terramorphous (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't really care if they are included. But, they should be in the separate list too, as having monorails on one list makes sense. This then comes the question is why are some monorails included and others not? The Tokyo Monorail has long been rejected for inclusion by consensus (see talk archives), so why should any monorails be included? oknazevad (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Terramorphous and Oknazevad then Changchun Line 3? Under such requirements, we should consider excluding line 3 statistics for the Changchun entry. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Terramorphous just a correction, Line 5 of metrovalencia is entirely underground, multiple tracks. Line 7 is grade separated, no level crossings, double track. All the other lines are a mix of tram or stadtbahn type: underground in the centre then replacing commuter rail for the satellite towns. I guess the overall question is what you do with systems which has a mix. For example, another system I used to travel on daily is Panama Metro. Both lines of that are currently metro lines, but future lines will include tram lines. Valenciano (talk) 08:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

And if @Terramorphous's that go way out into rural areas running single track and at grade. requirement should be implemented by every contributors, then Nanjing Metro could also be a doubtful system, as there are several dozens of stations located in Nanjing rural areas, some are even built in small-and-barren towns. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I wonder why there are still no replies in the past 3 weeks? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Largest number of stations

Is it true anymore that new york has the highest number of stations? The article on Seoul says the line has over 700, though I don't speak Korean so i can't really verify the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.132.159.213 (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that number also includes stations on the commuter lines. Rckania (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Tyne and Wear Metro

Tyne and Wear Metro not on list? 2.102.0.1 (talk) 06:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

It is not a metro, it is a light rail system. Ymblanter (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

according to who? and why? It used to be on this list. And don't say because of the grade crossings. multiple systems on this list have grade crossings. Rckania (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, in the list by country it shows 4 rapid transit systems being listed which are the Glasgow Subway, Tyne and Wear Metro, London Underground and Dockland Light Railway. But then it only shows the Glasgow Subway, London Underground and Docklands Light Railway in the list of systems. This is confusing. Also as a result of this please don’t start the classic TW metro debate. What the TW metro falls into is quite a weird definition so it is hard to define it. Traingoodcarbad (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Moscow Number Of Stations Inconsistent

The number of stations on the Moscow Metro is listed in the table as 289.

However, in the tooltip note, this message is shown: "The number of stations is 202 if interchange stations (i.e. different sets of platforms) are counted as one station, or 258 if all stations on all lines are counted multiple times for each line."

On the article List of Moscow Metro stations, this text is shown: "There are 257 active stations of the Moscow Metro. Of these, 216 on Moscow Metro proper, and some additional ones that are marketed by Moscow Metro: 6 stations of Moscow Monorail and 31 stations of the Moscow Central Circle. Two stations have been closed."

Then later, the same article states: "Of the Moscow Metro's 236 stations,".

Finally the table in that article has 295 entries, however that is counting "multi-line stations" multiple times.

Would someone with more knowledge on the topic be able to clear up which number should appear on this table? Bradpatwalden (talk) 10:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi there,

The 289 stations currently listed in the article cover lines 1-12, 14, and 15.

The 257/258 stations comes from lines 1-12 and 15, and the 202 stations comes from counting each of the interchange stations from those lines once.

The 236 stations comes from an outdated version of that article from March 2020.

The 295 stations cover lines 1-15.

As for which number should appear on the table, I don't know. Nonusme (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

See also section

I think we should add a link to Metro (a disambiguation page) in the see also section, as it lists ‘metros’ other than rapid transit systems, like Adelaide Metro, which is a brand name for a public transport network/operator. It also defines the word metro in other contexts as well. Fork99 (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Montreal REM

Is the new MTL REM considerable as a metro ? Bouzinac (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure – it's medium-capacity transit, not rapid transit, but the definition of a metro is vague. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it easily fits the definition of a metro system or light metro (Other systems with small rolling-stock like Copenhagen Metro are listed on both the metro and light metro articles). Gracchus250 (talk) 04:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

New York Els

New York City in 1890 had an extensive system of elevated trains in Manhattan. If the Chicago el gets to be counted as opening in 1893, the New York Subway should count as opening first, especially since stretches from that era still exist now. 2600:1008:B039:ACDB:4CC5:C3F2:1967:1902 (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Melbourne Metro Tunnel - Is it a metro?

The Melbourne Metro Tunnel is set to open in 2025. This will combine Melbourne's Sunbury Line with the Cranbourne and Pakenham lines to through-run via the city. All level crossings will be removed by the opening date, and high capacity signalling is being installed. Trains will run in automatic mode through the tunnel section with platform screen doors at all stations. Would this count as a metro system? Does only the tunnel section count? I'd love to hear your thoughts Qazzy52 (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The article says that "[t]he Metro Tunnel project includes the installation of high-capacity signalling and platform-screen doors. With the delivery of other associated projects including accessibility upgrades, the introduction of High Capacity Metro Trains, and the removal of all level crossings across the Pakenham, Cranbourne and Sunbury lines, will allow the corridor to run to rapid transit standards." – I would say it does. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, I have added it as under construction Qazzy52 (talk) 06:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn’t V/Line and/or freight trains still share track with the Sunbury/Pakenham lines out in the suburbs? Fork99 (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

But the line through tunnel itself is rapid transit – that's also why LA Metro is on this page. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

the section up to Sunshine is also separated from freight trains - could that part also be included too? Qazzy52 (talk) 12:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

How frequent are the services, though? --SHB2000 (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

all trains in the tunnel continue to Sunbury and Cranbourne/Pakenham Qazzy52 (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

How often does a train arrive towards Sunbury during peak hour? That should define rapid transit. --SHB2000 (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

It is yet to be confirmed what Metro Tunnel frequencies will be, but currently it is every 6 minutes during morning peak Qazzy52 (talk) 03:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

If a train arrives every 6 minutes, then that seems like rapid transit to me. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

The original Metro Tunnel business case had 19 trains per hour per direction through the tunnel in the peak, so it's pretty frequent. Gracchus250 (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that it will share tracks with suburban trains. That almost always means it is not counted as a metro, although parts of the Metropolitan and District lines in London share track with suburban trains.--Grahame (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

The section up to Sunshine does not share tracks with suburban trains, the Werribee and Williamstown lines have their own separate tracks before branching off at Footscray. Qazzy52 (talk) 03:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

It's tricky though, because for example almost the entire Tokyo Metro interlines/shares track with commuter and regional lines, so I'm not sure if it can be disqualifying. It seems more common in Asia, whereas in Europe the distinction is sharper due to usually having smaller metro stock. The Metro Tunnel corridor doesn't share with other suburban trains but does share with a few V/Line trains in the outer sections. Gracchus250 (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I can understand the argument that it's more of a suburban S-Bahn-style line, given the length of the eventual line (~90km) and that it stretches into the outer suburbs. But it also is entirely grade separated, automated within the tunnel, has high frequencies, has metro rollingstock, platform screen doors, and is entirely within the city area etc. Most of the corridor has been rebuilt with the goal of "rapid transit" in mind, with metro frequencies planned.

It just seems hard to justify the inclusion of Sydney Metro (66km line with 31 stations) or, say, BART, which both run out into the outer suburbs (BART has 80-100km lines), and not include the Metro Tunnel line. Even some London Underground lines stretch quite long. So given the above I would say it merits inclusion, but I'm curious what others think. Gracchus250 (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The Sydney Metro entirely fits the purpose of a rapid transit system – trains every 4 minutes, fully automated, has platform screen doors, and serves soon-to-be-densified regions, FWIW --SHB2000 (talk) 01:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

are there any freight trains that use the corridor? I know that some lines (like Frankston) have the occasional freight train (although freight still has to yeild to passenger trains) Qazzy52 (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Nope, Sydney Metro is entirely for rapid transit only. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm referring to Melbourne Qazzy52 (talk) 11:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

My bad – your reply was directly underneath mine, which was about Sydney Metro. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I personally vote for including the metro tunnel corridor as under construction. I want to hear everyone else's vote for whether we should include it or not Qazzy52 (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

As I stated above, I'm also for it. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The Metro Tunnel does not form a new separate metro system. The Metro Tunnel will just be a new central connection between some of the lines of the Metro Trains Melbourne suburban railway network. Some parts of the line will have metro standards. But as far as I understand, the lines serving the new tunnel will still share tracks with the V-Line services on the outer parts. And the daytime interval between trains on the outer parts are 20-40 minutes today. This is just like the Paris RER, London Elisabeth Line, or the German S-Bahn systems: a high quality suburban railway network. But it is not a metro system. And it should be removed from the list. Kildor (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The goal of the project is to introduce metro frequencies and convert those existing lines into rapid transit style lines, and lots of metro projects around the world involve converting existing heavy rail lines. Note that a lot of the corridor has been rebuilt. The question is whether the resultant system is a metro or a suburban system, and given regional trains often interline on international metro systems like the Tokyo Metro I don't see how it is disqualifying here. But that said, I think if there were still 20-40 minute frequencies on the branches when it opens that would suggest its more of a S-Bahn style suburban system.

As for removing it from the list, the under construction list introduction includes the qualifier: "Note that in some cases it is not clear if the system will be considered a full metro system once it begins operational service." So it can stay on that list and editors can assess whether it fits the definition of a metro when it's completed. But there does seem to be a bit of a issue here that what is a metro is poorly defined (and not well sourced in the article) and doesn't seem to be agreed upon. Gracchus250 (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

we really should come up with a better definition for a metro system on this page. It might mean some metros systems widely considered to be metros would be removed, and some that are currently considered light rail would be added, but right now there are just way too many arguments over whether {insert transit system here} is a metro system, or light rail, commuter rail, s-bahn, etc.

in my opinion, a metro should have

- No level crossings

- Service frequency 10 minutes or less

- No shared tracks with freight trains Qazzy52 (talk) 05:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Even if the Metro Tunnel project would come with improved frequencies, it would still fall under this passage from the Considerations section of this article: "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" And as far as I understand, there is no plan to brand it as a new transit mode for lines serving the new tunnel. Most likely, there will be the existing line names as part of the Metro Trains network, but with a different route through the city centre instead of running through the City loop.

And another argument for removing it from the list: It is listed as "Metro Tunnel". But a tunnel is not a metro system. It is just an addition to an existing rail infrastructure.Kildor (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Its a fair point but as highlighted above "reach far out of the city" is not a great defining feature to make a determination on, BART is longer than the Metro Tunnel line, and the Northern Line and Sydney Metro are similar. Who determines what "far out of the city" is? And that sentence you quote is unsourced, and seems to more reflect how Wikipedia has classified this stuff, the actual sourced definitions above that in the article do not include language like that (as far as I can see) and have much looser definitions. None of them seem to offer such clear delineations between metro and suburban rail, but tend to count electric and urban rail as one category, with grade separation the primary defining feature. I worry that a lot of these determinations are based on vibes and unwritten definitions. There's also several systems on the list that include certain lines and not others without being branded separately, other systems like the Hong Kong MRT has what it defines as rapid transit and suburban lines but all are listed.

I'm also cautious about categorising Asian, Australasian and North American systems according to the regimes of European cities which tend to have clear modal differences between metro and suburban in terms of line length. The urban structure of Australian cities is quite different, Sydney Metro at 66km is a longer line than many of the Sydney Trains "suburban lines" and 30-40km out of the CBD is still considered the urban area, there's no technical or statistical distinction between urban and suburban here. Sydney Metro and the Metro Tunnel line are both within the city boundaries of Sydney and Melbourne. Gracchus250 (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

"Far out of the city" (being "suburban" rather than "urban") is not the only dividing factor. But one of them. BART and Sydney Metro are completely separated and do not share tracks with other systems. Separating metros and suburban railways is nothing unique to Wikipedia. See the article for sources. UITP uses Paris RER as an example of suburban rail [8], which is very similar to what the Melbourne system is and will become. UITP is by the way an international organization. My point remains: The Metro Trains Melbourne system is better described as suburban rail than anything else, and does not belong to this list. A new tunnel through the city centre does not change that.Kildor (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

That link doesn't contain a definition of suburban rail. I was referencing the sources in the article, the UITP citation that is the main reference for defining a metro in this article says this: "Metro: 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." Fundamental Requirements EN.pdf

That UITP definition easily covers the Metro Tunnel line. Which UITP definition are you using that talks about sharing with other trains or an urban/suburban distinction? Gracchus250 (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I can't see how a service which operates on a route where the vast majority of trains are suburban services can be defined as a metro service. This is quite different from Tokyo which operates metro type services with some trains operating out of the metro service area or London where some services of the Metropolitan and District line operate a small part of their routes on routes used by suburban services. I see a much stronger case for treating the London Elizabeth line or the Berlin or Hamburg S-Bahns as metros than the Melbourne airport service.--Grahame (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

But what makes them suburban services? I would argue (depending on frequencies) the vast majority of the future route will more resemble a metro service, with occasional regional services like the Tokyo Metro (Currently its no more than 2 per hour). And the discussion was about the future Metro Tunnel corridor rather than the airport line. I'm very open to the idea that the future corridor is better defined as a suburban line but there doesn't seem to be a consistent definition being used here. Gracchus250 (talk) 04:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

This is a complex subject, and there are no strict definitions. But the difference between the Tokyo Metro and the Melbourne Metro Trains is huge, both when it comes to service frequencies and the type of areas they serve. Tokyo Metro is a complex thing with its through services. But as far as I understand, there is a clear distinction between the metro infrastructure and the railway infrastructure. The Melbourne tunnel is just another piece of infrastructure for the existing railway network, but with improved signalling technology. The Pakenhamn/Cranbourne/Sunbury lines will just be diverged into the Metro tunnel instead of the City loop. And will still be a part of the Melbourne suburban railway network. A tunnel does not make a metro system. The lines serving the tunnel will still run on existing railway lines (although with better separation) through suburban areas. And I agree with Grahame. We would need to expand the scope of this list with many more systems if it would make sense to also include the future Metro Tunnel lines. Kildor (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The Tokyo comparison is about through-running of regional services, Tokyo has many, many metro lines that share track with regional and commuter services.

The project is a lot more than a tunnel, the entire corridor has been rebuilt to 1) upgrade power to allow for metro trains, 2) remove all level crossings and fully grade separate the track, 3) rebuild and expand platforms and 4) introduce new moving block signalling and 5) rebuild many stations. The new line is not interoperable with the rest of the metropolitan network but is a distinct system (the HCMTs can't run on the rest of the network). It is fully grade separated, will operate to a high frequency and operates within the urban boundary, all the qualifications of a metro in the UITP definition you referenced. Is sharing track with regional services enough to make it classed as suburban rail? Maybe, but we need to establish what external, reliable definition of a metro says that and also why other systems like Tokyo are exceptions to that definition... The "existing suburban lines" comment doesn't make much sense, as metro projects regularly convert existing suburban or other railway lines to run as rapid transit. See for example Sydney Metro, which did this but went further into full line-wide automation.

You could probably have a discussion about including things like the S-Bahn, except that those cities/jurisdictions explicitly describe and brand those systems as modally different suburban systems, something that reflects the way their urban form. In Australia and parts of Asia you have quite different systems and urban forms, and when you have a system that meets the RS definition and is branded as a metro service, it's a bit different.

And just to confirm, you're saying there is no UITP or other definition to support your earlier comments? Gracchus250 (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Has the Victorian government announced any intention to brand Pakenham/Cranbourne/Sunbury/Airport lines as a different service type than other suburban lines?--Grahame (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

It is rather the surface railways in Tokyo that shares tracks with some metro services. Tokyo is a special case, but no one questions the inclusion of Tokyo Metro here. It has on the contrary been some discussions on including more of the Tokyo railway systems. But you entire case for Melbourne Metro Tunnel is based on finding other systems with exceptions that legitimize the inclusion of the future tunnel in Melbourne. But for Melbourne, there are too many exceptions. The system is serving mainly suburban areas rather than urban (which is also indicated by the timetable, with more services towards the city centre in the morning, and out from the city in the afternoon). Outer parts have low service frequencies. And the lines that will use the new tunnel will not be using an exclusive right-of-way, but instead shares railway corridors/tracks/platforms with regional services. In Tokyo, there is a clear distinction between the Metro infrastructure and other railway infrastructure. This is also the case for the Sydney Metro. The HCMT:s are obviously serving the city loop today. So I can't see that there is or will be a distinction between a metro system and a suburban system in the future either.

UITP, APTA and other sources makes a distinction between urban and suburban modes. And that metro systems are using a separate/own/exclusive right-of-way. It is clear that S-Bahn systems, RER, Elizabeth Line etc. are not considered metro/rapid transit systems by UITP. I have not seen anything that indicates that the lines serving the new Metro tunnel will be any different. That's why we should not include it here. Kildor (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree given Metro Tunnel is just a rail tunnel with existing lines using the new rail tunnel which would be more like Crossrail in London which isn't included in the metro system. Should be converted back to Suburban Rail Loop as it is a completely dedicated rail line with metro rail stock more like Grand Paris Express. 2406:3400:31F:AFD0:937:8679:1745:4F38 (talk) 05:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Kildor It's important to note I'm not talking about the entire current system but about the new Metro Tunnel corridor, so referring to current frequencies doesn't seem particularly relevant. It is entirely dependent on what the new system looks like. I'd note too that there are multiple systems on the list where only lines that are considered to be rapid transit are included, so that seems to be common.

"In Tokyo, there is a clear distinction between the Metro infrastructure and other railway infrastructure."

What specifically is this clear distinction in infrastructure if not in signalling and rollingstock? There is quite a clear distinction between the new metro trains and the V/Line diesel trains, including that they use different signalling. Certainly as much as in Tokyo. I don't find this argument terribly convincing, the interlining seems quite analogous.

"UITP, APTA and other sources makes a distinction between urban and suburban modes. And that metro systems are using a separate/own/exclusive right-of-way."

Again, it would be great if you could link or quote these definitions you're referring to, as the UITP definition doesn't seem to support what you're saying. It would certainly help the discussion. As it stands the article is poorly sourced and may need a clean up, the key paragraphs outlining the definition do not have citations.

My argument (if I'm making one) doesn't rely on finding exceptions, it relies on applying the metro definitions within the article itself (and the definition you yourself pointed to) and attempting to discuss the list as a whole and what features actually merit inclusion on the list. Frankly it's not good enough to say that it feels like a suburban system and base determinations on vibes and opinion. The only real feature you've identified is sharing with regional trains, and it seems to me to be a major issue that other systems on the list also do that. As I said I'm quite open to it not being included but the listing process here seems poor. We really need an external reliable definition, and absent that then discussing the features of a system is entirely appropriate. Gracchus250 (talk) 07:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Once again, a tunnel is not a metro system. Possibly, one can argue that the lines serving the tunnel could be considered a metro system in the future. But then we have all the exception I already mentioned in my last post. UITP/APTA definitions specifically mentions urban as well as separate/own/exclusive right-of-way. I can much better understand if you want to discuss to widen the scope of this article rather than just the inclusion of the Melbourne tunnel/system. That could better be discussed under a separate heading. But this has been discussed numerous times in the past, and the current consensus is to not include systems that are better described as suburban rail. Kildor (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, I don't know why you think I'm equating a tunnel with a metro. I've been quite explicit about different rail features that may or may not qualify a system, and you've lacked specificity in your responses. I think you're clearly broadening the UITP definition to support a series of qualifications that aren't present in any RS in this article. So either this article needs better sources, maybe from transport planning textbooks, that clearly spell out the difference between metro and suburban rail, or editors need to not apply their personal views of a system as if it's a consensus definition when no clear definition exists. The Tokyo discussion is a good example, as you pointed towards "clear infrastructure differences" but when questioned cannot articulate what those actually are. Obviously an encyclopaedia needs a better standard than that. Gracchus250 (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Two simple questions are determinative. One, will the trains continue to share tracks with suburban diesel services? And two, are you thinking of just the tunnel, and not the whole end-to-end service. Because the tunnel alone cannot be a metro if the services are still joining the physical national rail network outside the tunnel. Honestly, this sounds most like the Center City Commuter Connection in Philadelphia, which was also built to improve commuter services by allowing through-running in an S-Bahn like fashion. oknazevad (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I was talking about the entire corridor once the tunnel opens, it doesn't make sense to me just to talk of just the tunnel, but I can't speak for others as I didn't start this discussion. In fact I think the key difference between this and some other suburban tunnels is the works done to the entire corridor (new single fleet, level crossing removals, new stations, new line-wide signalling, platforms and power upgrades), which maybe places it somewhere between rapid transit and suburban rail. Gracchus250 (talk) 01:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Normally, I'm the person who would typically agree that a tunnel is not a metro system, but as Gracchus250 has stated time altogether, the entire corridor, not just the tunnel, is what is being converted into rapid transit. It'll be semi-automated, be entirely grade-separated, have improved signalling, or literally anything that a metro features. That's what makes the Sunbury–Dandenong Line rapid transit – not the Metro Tunnel by itself. --SHB2000 (talk) 01:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

i think the issue is that the list makes it seem as if the tunnel is the only part that will be rapid transit, which is incorrect. This is a mistake on my part Qazzy52 (talk) 01:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Then why not classify Elizabeth Line (Crossrail) as rapid transit standard train given this project is much more similar to Metro Tunnel. Plus the Sunbury–Dandenong Line still is part of the existing metropolitan rail system and would still share regional and freight trains. I haven't yet hear of any rapid transit lines globally that shares tracks with regional and freight trains. 2406:3400:31F:AFD0:A5A9:5962:B207:8573 (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

im pretty sure there are no freight trains running along the line (as freight trains usually use the standard gauge tracks on the craigieburn line and albion-jacana line) but correct me if I'm wrong. However it does share tracks with V/Line trains from South Yarra to Pakenham and Sunshine to Sunbury Qazzy52 (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The Maryvale paper train and any other freight towards the Gippsland region (not that any other freight really exists, but just saying) would use the Dandenong line. Don’t freight trains and other sorts of transfers of rolling stock, wagons, locos, etc also use the Sunbury line if they’re heading towards Deniliquin or Swan Hill-ish areas? Doesn’t the Albion–Jacana railway line have a junction at Albion, and thus on the part that is the Sunbury line? I think occasional grain trains go this sorta way, as well that there’s a major railway depot/yard/workshops in Bendigo for all sorts of freight operators and V/Line too. Fork99 (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there does seem to be freight services along some sections of the line. The freight trains from the albion-jacana line use the standard gauge tracks and are therefore separate from the passenger lines. There doesn't seem to be any other metro systems with freight trains, so this means the corridor likely does not meet metro standards (very close though) Qazzy52 (talk) 06:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Though as an example, the London Underground actually has some sections on the District line and I think maybe some of the other lines (I can’t remember which), in which it can share tracks with London Overground trains and even occasional mainline passenger trains. The Underground is definitely considered a metro system in this list, right?

I don’t know, maybe we shouldn’t get into the nitty gritty technicalities for this list, and base this list on general and broad consensus, including UITP or whoever standards.

Also, more importantly, consider WP:CRYSTALBALL. It states Wikipedia doesn’t make predictions. As far as I’m aware at the moment, there’s no reliable information on how the Sunbury-Dandenong corridor will share tracks between metro trains and freight and/or V/Line. Government reports may and well exist that are publicly accessible, but I’m personally not digging through multiple say 60-hundreds page reports just to find out this info, if it even is public. Maybe we should make these decisions when information comes to hand closer to 2025/26 when it’s scheduled to open and when we know more. Fork99 (talk) 07:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

the project has no plans to separate the freight and v/line trains from the suburban trains - only to remove the level crossings and install high capacity automatic signalling Qazzy52 (talk) 07:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes I’m aware of this, I said what I said earlier basically because some ‘metro’ systems run non-metro trains on its tracks outside of normal operating hours or so infrequently that it doesn’t really matter, whereas for this, we’ll have to continue to find a consensus. Fork99 (talk) 07:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Strikethroughed part of previous post, I meant that a clearer definition for a ‘metro’ still needs to be sought. Fork99 (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

In that case, it sounds similar to Chicago's "L", except that this shares tracks instead of having level crossings. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Chicago is not the only metro with level crossings. Oslo has them too, and there are likely others I haven't checked. Qazzy52 (talk) 06:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I have updated the list to make it clearer that Metro Tunnel refers to the whole corridor, not just the tunnel itself Qazzy52 (talk) 07:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Ottawa O-Train

Just an update, the O-Train is now no longer just a light rail, which opened in 2001. With the construction of the Confederation Line in 2019 and the upcoming 2023 expansions, it is now fully grade separated and thus considered a metro. Hwfr (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

There are other factors for considering what's a metro what what isn't – how is this different from just another grade-separated light rail project? I've reverted it for now until we have more discussion. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

List by country

List of countries having metro system should be done in alphabetical order or the the number of cities having it? (previously it has been there for many years but was converted to it by a user in the next edit) My preference is to the second because people here come to see which country has how many systems, not the alphabets. Would love to hear others opinions. Ku423winz1 (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It's a sortable table. Just click on the column header to sort it by number of systems. oknazevad (talk) 08:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Jinhua

What's the difference between Jinyidong line and Jinhua Rail Transit ? Bouzinac (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Several Metro systems in under construction section

How come the Bengbu Metro is placed there but not shown in under construction? Also how come the Jeddah metro isn't under construction? Metrosfan (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Someone update Navi Mumbai, the Navi Mumbai metro is now operational

Move Navi Mumbai Metro to operational as it's now operational Metrosfan (talk) 10:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)