Talk:List of metro systems

What about São Paulo's Companhia Paulista de Trens Metropolitanos (CPTM)?

So I was looking and I found in São Paulo's Wikipedia page it states two metros. The actual metro of São Paulo and another rail service known as CPTM which as I read on is actually regional rail HOWEVER it looks like some kind of hybrid of a metro and a commuter rail. It actually really depends on how far away you are from the central station. Since São Paulo is such a large metropolitan region, one must not only think of the urban area as only the core city. Depending on definition it may be just on the border line between metro and commuter rail but either way, I think it deserves a mention on this list, don't you agree? Along with all other systems that are also on the borderline definition. Though I think that it must be pointed out with an asterisk their special situation.

P.S. The locals call it a metro too. The trains look a metro's, the tracks look like a commuter rail's, and the stations are either. Just check out the page for yourself. CPTM

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ThisguyYEAH (talk • contribs) 02:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Previous consensus, see Talk:List of metro systems/Archive 2#Brazil rail systems is that it is a commuter rail network. Mainly, I believe, because it isn't fully grade separated and off-peak service is infrequent. I'm sure someone can provide more info though. Ravendrop (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Valencia have no metro service

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valencia_Metro_(Spain)

The Valencian narrow gauge railway, or metrovalencia, is a modern amalgamation of former FEVE diesel operated suburban/regional railways. It is a large suburban network that crosses the city of Valencia, with all trains continuing out to far-flung suburbs. It also has destinations on lines that make it more closely resemble commuter trains. There is no street running, although a tramway system north of the Túria riverbed park is considered Line 4 of the MetroValencia.

This network consists of more than 134 kilometres (83 mi) of track, of which around 19 kilometres (12 mi) is below ground.

The system authority Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat Valenciana uses bilingual signage in Valencian and Spanish.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discusi%C3%B3n:MetroValencia

He sido el autor principal del artículo MetroValencia, y del de Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat Valenciana. Soy usuario DIARIO de Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat Valenciana, y conozco de sobra la explotación y toda la red, la cual NO puede ser de Ferrocarril Metropolitano porque no está concebida para ello, además es una red inaugurada antes de 1891, nacida como ferrocarril suburbano o lo que ahora se conoce como "Ferrocarril de Cercanías".

Para ver que NO es una red de Ferrocarril Metropolitano basta con:

1. No todo MetroValencia es subterráneo (no llega a 15 de los 143 km de la red total).

2. Las líneas 1,3 y 5 tienen trenes de Cercanías o de servicio suburbano (...seguramente la UT 3600 será mucho 'metro' cuando está concebida junto a la UT 3500 de Feve y Euskotren para servicios de cercanías o servicios regionales).

3. La longitud de la línea 1 de FGV NO es propia de "metro", sino más bien de suburbano o de cercanías.

4. La concesión para el servicio es de Ferrocarril Suburbano, como el que explotaba FEVE, explotó CTFV y la SVT ¿a caso pensaban en "metro" en 1891 (apertura línea València-Marxalenes-Bétera?

5. Las frecuencias de paso de TODAS las líneas NO son propias de ningún servicio de "metro", sino más bien de cercanías.

6. La empresa explotadora se llama MetroValencia todo junto, nada de Metro de València, ni otra cosas similares.

7. La empresa MetroValencia apareció el 18 de Septiembre de 1998, justo cuando se inauguró el tramo de Alameda a Avinguda del Cid de la línea 3.

8. Lo que ahora es la red de Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat Valenciana en València es la unión de varias líneas de ferrocarril SUBURBANO, que NUNCA han sido de METRO.

9. Los sistemas de señalización (FAP en la línea 1, y ATP en la línea 3/5) no son aptos para la explotación de un ferrocarril metropolitano.

10. Los políticos han intentado hacer creer a la gente que cogen un metro, cuando en realidad lo único que cogen es un servicio de cercanías. ¿Los vascos llaman "metro" a Euskotren?, to. ¿FGC es un "metro"?, no. Los únicos metros que existen en España son el Ferrocarril Metropolitano de Barcelona, y el Ferrocarril Metropolitano de Madrid, ninguno más. En "metro" no caben conceptos inventados recientemente como "MetroLigero" (MetroSevilla no es más que un tranvía), ni que a una línea de tranvía se le llame metro (ver TRAM de Alacant). Las líneas de Euskotren Bideak de Bilbao que pasaron a lo que hoy es MetroBilbao, fueron, son y serán de cercanías, al igual que las líneas de Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat de Catalunya.

11. Por utilizar vía métrica NO se llama metro.

Dicho esto, es totalmente incorrecto llamar "metro" a la red de MetroValencia propiedad de Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat Valenciana de vía métrica, sólo puede ser una red de Ferrocarril de Cercanías o Suburbano.

Si eres valenciano de la València española, date una vuelta desde Villanueva de Castellón a Bétera en el tren (todo el trayecto seguido), y podrás comprobar como NO tiene ningún parecido con una red de metro. ¿Dónde se ha visto que una línea de metro alcance la longitud de 70 km? ¿y que tenga varios ramales? ¿y destinos intermedios?

¿Alguien es capaz de decirme que Villanueva de Castellón, Alberic, Carlet, Llíria, Bétera o Benaguasil son pueblos del aéra metropolitana de València? ¡Pero si están lejos, y además en otras comarcas diferentes!

"En el RAE: metro2. (Acort.). 1. m. metropolitano (‖ tren subterráneo)." Como he dicho, MetroValencia no es exclusivamente un ferrocarril subterráneo. "València. 5 lineas(3 de cercanías y 2 de Tranvías). 128 estaciones. 143 kilometros. Año de inicio 1888", y no debería estar ahí incluida. Además, es pura propaganda política. A riesgo de equivocarme yo, ¿conocéis bien las instalaciones, redes y trenes de Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat Valenciana? ¿Cuántas veces habéis viajado en FGV para saber que es una red de "Metro"? (yo probablemente pase ya de los 9000 viajes en trenes de FGV (haciendo una media de casi 1000 viajes al año en FGV) ). Me abstengo de editar artículos sobre los que no sé nada, pero en éste caso y en muchos otros, he realizado y mejorado muchísimos artículos de ferrocarriles en la wikipedia en castellano. Cuando busques alguna definición sobre algo de ferrocarriles no lo hagas en el diccionario general de la RAE, hazlo en el del organismo mundial que normaliza todos los ferrocarriles del planeta, la Union Internationale des Chemins de Fer, ellos marcan las normas y definiciones sobre todo lo que es ferrocarril.

Propietario de la infraestructura: Generalitat Valenciana Empresa explotadora de la red: Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat Valenciana Marca comercial para la explotación de la red de FGV en la ciudad de Valencia: MetroValencia Empresa propietaria de todos los vehículos ferroviarios: Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat Valenciana Características de explotación de las líneas de ferrocarril (sin incluír tranvías): Ferrocarril suburbano o de cercanías Características de explotación de las líneas de ferrocarril tranviario : Tranvía Sistemas de seguridad utilizados:

--85.55.30.82 08:40 19 ene 2008 (UTC)

Estimada Ip anónima 85.55.6.148: En primer lugar gracias por apropiarte del trabajo, no solo mío, sino de toda la comunidad al decir que eres el autor principal del artículo obviando todo el trabajo que, yo entre otros, hemos efectuado antes de tu llegada. Tal vez por eso sigas ahora tratando de imponer tu opinión pensando que es la única y absoluta verdad sin escuchar a los demás y sin darte cuenta de tus propios errores. Primero, el hecho de que el Metro de Valencia solo sea un una pequeña parte subterráneo (más de 20 km, no los 15 que dices tú) no influye para que sea considerado metro. Date una vuelta por otros mundos y comprobarás como sistemas de metro que nadie pone en duda como el de Londres o París tienen también tramos exteriores. Que en 1881 cuando empezó la construcción del trenet no pensaban en metro es obvio, pero también irrelevante. ¿Acaso las trece colonias inglesas que originaron los EEUU pensaron cuando se independizaron que acabarían siendo una potencia mundial? No importa lo que fueron, sino lo que son ahora. Dices que los sistemas de control (FAP y ATP) no son válidos para un metro. Siendo esto falso ya que el segundo es utilizado en los metros de Madrid y Barcelona e incluso es al que tienen pensado actualizarse en el metro de Londres . De todas maneras como este sistema apareción en los años 80 es evidente que antes no hubo ningún metro en todo el mundo ¿no? Pero sobre todo tu principal error es obviar la propia wikipedia. Si miras en la defininición de metro verás que no hay ninguna característica que MetroValencia no cumpla.--Embolat 13:11 19 ene 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.105.186.51 (talk)

Anyone have a translation of this? If I'm understanding correctly, the IP is claiming that the Valencia Metro (in Spain), despite its name, is actually commuter rail and doesn't belong on this list. Hasn't this one been discussed before?oknazevad (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it has been discussed before. And it was decided that it should be removed from the list. And I think it is clear from this picture that it is not a metro. --Kildor (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

No it wasn't decided. We have a reference in the article for what a metro is: reference number 3, the Schwandl site, urbanrail.net, so we clearly consider that to be a reliable and authoritative source. In that site Schwandl has a list of metro systems here. Note that he specifically separates some of those into mixed systems with an asterix stating that those systems are those "including light rail systems with metro-style underground sections." Valencia is not one of the asterixed metro systems. So what matters here is not whether individual editors have personal beliefs that Valencia is a metro or no but whether reliable sources consider it to be a metro and one of our main sources which define what a metro is clearly does believe it to be a metro. Valenciano (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but. If you actually go to the Urbanrail webpage about the Valencia 'metro' it clearly mentions that only a very small portion of it can be considered a metro (a 3km section on line 3; and a 6.7 km section on line 1). So the question is whether or not having 9.7/175km of metro like running makes the whole thing considered to be a metro. Ravendrop (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It clearly mentions nothing of the kind. Please read it again. The only mention of 3km on line 3 is "The city section was built as a modern metro line running underground from Palmaret into the city to Alameda (1995, 3 km)." But that isn't the only section as it goes on to say: "the first stretch of what was originally planned as line 5, opened between Alameda and Avenida del Cid (3.2 km) with a branch from Colón to Jesús (2.4 km) to allow through trains between Torrent in the south and Palmaret in the north. Another section towards the west (Mislata-Almassil, 3 stations, 2.4 km)" etc etc.

The problem here (and this doesn't only apply to Valencia) is that there appears to be a bit of "I don't think it's a metro so it shouldn't go on" on this talkpage. The question is not whether individual editors consider something a metro : that approach is explicitly ruled out by WP:NOR and WP:V, the relevant section of which says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true" (italics mine.)

So mainly what we need to consider is whether it is considered a metro by reliable sources. Of these, there are two which define what a metro is and both of them have answered your question: Valencia is considered a metro by urbanrail.net which distiguishes it from other systems. If you go to the second reference, the International Association of Public Transport, then there's a list of metro systems in that which includes Valencia. So we cannot use 2 references which explicitly say that Valencia is a metro plus our own POV to say that Valencia isn't a metro!

If there are concerns about length etc, that can be dealt with simply with footnotes mentioning that "system x (also) includes y kilometres of tram lines and z kilometres of light rail." That would deal with your concern about length / "non metro" aspects while still meeting our policies. Valenciano (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The page on Urban Rail clearly states that Line 1 is broken into 4 sections, of which only 1 portion is a metro-like service (the rest being suburban service). I'll admit though, it does not say that line 3 or 5 are not metro service (but it also doesn't clearly say that it is either). However, the UITP link you added is much more authoritative in my opinion (an international organization that uses the exact same standards as this page claims to use, rather than a person writing a book), and its inclusion of Valencia definitely makes it verifiable. Long rambling answer short: you've swayed me and I know support including the Valencia Metro. However, I still have concerns as to exactly what extent of it is a 'metro' as opposed to 'suburban rail', 'light rail' or 'tram'. Clearly the whole 175km network is not all metro, and anything that isn't needs to be excluded from the stats (as is convention for other mixed systems as well). Do you have any sources that may be able to shed some light on that for us?Ravendrop (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, on an aside, I propose we switch the reference for what a metro is from Urbanrail to the UITP site. It seems much more credible in my eyes. Ravendrop (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I've no problem with trimming down the route info to exclude the tram bits if that's what's being done for other articles. I had a look round and unfortunately there aren't any reliable sources in English, Spanish or Catalan which give this info: they just give the network length. Just for the record (as I'm not a reliable source) line 5 is almost entirely a metro, the exception would be a small section in the east from maritim serreria to neptu. Line 3 is a metro as far as Alboraia. Valenciano (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a question related to this that I wanted to ask and kept forgetting: how are the trains on the Valencia Metro operated. Do the heavy metro portions have completely separate services, or do trains start in the heavy metro tunnels and then continue directly on to the surface running, tram-like tracks. If the latter, then wouldn't this be more a subway-surface light rail operation, like the SEPTA Subway-Surface Trolley Lines, Green Line (MBTA), Newark Light Rail or Frankfurt U-Bahn? oknazevad (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Ottawa's O-train

I think Ottawa's O-train should qualify. Although it only has five stops, it is a completely dedicated line with no interaction with pedestrians or traffic. I have ridden it many times and it an above ground metro line in every sense.--CaperBill (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC). Contrary to the O-train Wikipedia article, it does not share the track with other users or freight. I lived on the campus of Carleton University for four years and could see the train from my room. Never once saw a freight train. I suspect what the article meant is that on extremely rare occasions, after hours, a over-sized piece of equipment is delivered on the track to the the National research council. I suspect this has happened only a handful of times in the history of the O-train, and should therefore not disqualify it.--CaperBill (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC. The O-train has much more in common with Vancouver's Skytrain (listed as a metro system), than Calgary's C-train (listed as light rail).--CaperBill (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It's diesel. By definition metros are electric. oknazevad (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Search the archive, it was already discussed before. Main problem is shared track with other passenger and cargo trains. --Jklamo (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The London Underground was initially steam and it counts... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's been electric for over a century. And Ottawa's still diesel, now. This list is for systems that meet the current definitions. While some discussion can occur as to whether frequencies are sufficient, or variations on track exclusivity (such as Chicago's grade crossings or the below-mentioned shared segments in London) are enough to exclude, no modern definition will accept anything not electric. The O-Train is diesel; it's out. oknazevad (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It does NOT share track with other passenger and cargo trains! If you have ever seen the system in operation you would realize that it is impossible to have other trains operating on the line while the 0-trains are in service. The track is therefore never shared. As i said, maybe one time in two or three years a single special delivery is made in the middle of the night (when the O-train is not running) to the NRC.--CaperBill (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC). Because there are only five stops, there are only two trains running at any time. They run back and forth on the same track all day making any other traffic impossible.--CaperBill (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

And actually the London Underground does share track on the Metropolitan line. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Tokyo in two

Why Tokyo subway was splitted in two?! Its were just two different companies that managed the lines... but why its were separated? This is not as in Berlin or Paris with S-Bahn e U-Ban or Metro and RER. Both are underground metropolitan services. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.105.186.51 (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Tokyo Metro and the Toei Subway are separately operated networks. So we list them separately, allowing the reader the most direct links to the individual articles. oknazevad (talk) 03:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Houston?

Why is Houston, Texas mentioned in this article. The system is a light rail system and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.125.113.3 (talk) 02:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, Hamburg S-Bahn

I believe the Hamburg S-Bahn should be counted as a metro, with the same line of argument as the Berlin S-Bahn. 113.2 km of the network are separated from other rail services, 31.9 km are operated together with regional and cargo traffic. About 12.5 km of the network lie within tunnels, 7.9 km are single-track routes. The 31.9km - operated together with regional traffic/cargo traffic - are actually an intermediate step in the conversion of this trunk from Regional train "R-line" to S-Bahn. This trunk to Stade is run by special trains, which have a dual electrical system, which can be switched from the 1200V DC third rail to 15KV AC overhead catenary outside the city. Previously these R-Lines would end at the endpoint of the "true" S-Bahn system and the passengers would have to change trains, now they can just pull in the pantographs and switch to DC and continue inside the city. Likewise, there are AKN-trains which can switch from Diesel-electric to third rail and run on the S-Bahn System inside the city, and these are also recent additions to make the AKN more compatible. Except these recent additions to spare passengers of R-trains/AKN the switch, the classical S-Bahn is fully separate from the regional network. It is expected, that these branches will later convert to "full" S-Bahn lines. This is how the system was historically growing. We can say that in the status of ca year 2000 or so the S-Bahn (except these "compatibility" additions, which are just a bridge solution), that means the 113km of fully separated lines, is a real metro. The daily use of this metro for Hamburg traffic is the same as with the U-Bahn, sharing stations with the U-Bahn, but not tracks, because they have different DC-voltages and third rail systems etc., but this is unnoticable to the passengers, they just go to the next platform, like when switching from one U-Bahn line to the other. Trust me I'm from Hamburg. 70.137.138.216 (talk) 13:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

For a diagram showing how U-Bahn, S-Bahn, A-Bahn, R-(regional) trains are connected and related see following diagram

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Bahnlinien_im_HVV.png

of the Hamburg transit authority. You can see there e.g. how the branch of former R-bahn from Neugraben to Stade has been converted to S-Bahn, and how the A-Bahn AKN has been extended into the S-Bahn network to run to Main Station without switching trains by dual system. 70.137.138.216 (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

See previous discussions Talk:List of metro systems/Archive 4#Hamburg S-Bahn again.. (sorry), Talk:List of metro systems/Archive 3#Hamburg S-Bahn, Talk:List of metro systems/Archive 2#Paris RER, Berlin and Hamburg S-Bahn, Copenhagen S-Train; i do not think that there are new permises since them. Note that rule that systems with only some lines fulfilling requirements are excluded is still enforced. --Jklamo (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I have read these discussions. They seem to assume that the trunk to Suelldorf is running at level like a lightrail, which is not the case, trust me. Also the "rule" that low frequency trunks make the whole system into a non-metro, non-heavy-rail would exclude Berlin S-Bahn, and even New York subway, which is undisputed as a metro. This "rule" also ignores how metro systems have been historically growing in many places, namely by successive additions of peripheral lines from regional /commuter systems, followed by conversion to full metro. (Including even conversion from steam/diesel to third rail rolling stock. This is completely normal for historically growing systems) This has been the case in London, Berlin, Hamburg and many others. It is the natural way of growing a system in a growing metropolitan area, when the growing transport needs in the periphery ask for the conversion of lines to higher capacity. The usual targets of such conversion are stubs of intercity lines, regional train lines and commuter train lines, which then get converted to third rail and thereby eliminate the need for switching trains on the way into the city. The discussion also ignores, how integrated the Hamburg S-Bahn system is with the U-Bahn, really augmenting the U-Bahn line network and even sharing many stations with it. I would prefer if the editors would make themselves more acquainted with the matter of historical growth before making rules. Please before reverting look at the case of Berlin S-Bahn, which is much more spread out into the surrounding area and which entirely grew from successive conversion of stubs of intercity train lines, which got converted from steam to third rail once the traffic needs made this useful. 70.137.152.219 (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC) I admit that there are systems in the world which have not been growing, but have been set up as systems out of the retort. Many new smaller systems are like that. But the "classical" systems like London, New York, Berlin and Hamburg, in fact among the oldest systems (1908, 1912 etc.) have been growing "organically" along the lines of already existing dense infrastructure, which is typical for the highly populated and industrialized old metropolitan areas, by integrating existing multiple systems (3 separate systems in New York, more in London) and successively adding with growing traffic needs. This is clearly not the case if you build a traffic system on the green lawn or somewhere in the jungle. Besides the NYC subway has at grade crossings too. So this is a completely useless criterion. 70.137.152.219 (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment – The NYC Subway does not have any grade crossings; the last was removed south of the East 105th Street station in the late 1960s. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly correct, that was the one I thought about.(closed '73 according to Wiki ref from NYT) But it was a metro then, that is undisputed. So the criterion is faulty. The Berlin S-Bahn also has grade crossings. 70.137.150.170 (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment - It should be noted that what was the criterion 40-50 years ago may not be applicable today. Many modern rail systems have eliminated level crossings as cities have developed. -Multivariable (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

True, but last they do it in some peripheral trunks with low train frequency , which are present in e.g. NYC. Berlin, London, Hamburg. And the removal of the last grade crossing somewhere close the end of a trunk line doesn't suddenly turn the whole system from non-metro into metro. That is obvious nonsense and nitpicking. A more useful criterion is really if the bulk of the system has typical metro characteristics. I believe this is dictated by the way metro systems are typically historically growing, see above. And (grin) what are 40-50 years in the history of so old systems, which date back to 1890 or 1910? Young people are sometimes really too modernistic, everything has to be invented new with every generation. Everything the old daddies once have built, their criteria, their terminolgy, that all is now outdated trash. We are young... You don't want to claim that the NYC metro of 1970 wouldn't be a metro with today's criteria, right? I would think that goes too far. 70.137.150.170 (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC) The same argument, only the other way around, applies to Hamburg S-Bahn. You don't want to claim, that the recent addition of a trunk of regional train line at the end of the then existing metro system, for future extension of the metro system, suddenly turns the existing metro system into a non-metro? This is the same kind of nonsense and nitpicking. In fact the metro system stays what it was, but it grows in the periphery with the growing needs of the growing metropolitan area. 70.137.150.170 (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Besides, your modern rail systems, you are likely thinking about, are in today's world mostly Chinese systems, which have been planned from scratch, almost on a green lawn or in the jungle, to serve these huge developing cities and metroplexes, which are almost growing like an explosion out of a few small industrial cities within decades. That is a different case and not typical for the slowly developing age old metropolitan areas/ metroplexes of the old industrial world. We cannot IMO set this as a standard how a real metro has to look like in the world, that is too narrow as a definition. 70.137.150.170 (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Frankly I think borderline cases should in general be included, as far more new editors argue for adding slightly borderline content rather than removing it. Obviously anything that is really not just borderline should be argued down, but I think if we accepted the borderline cases should be in the article we'd have less of an issue with people continually bringing up new systems.

The inclusionist position is backed up further by the fact that actually strictly the London Underground doesn't meet the criteria, both sharing track on the Metropolitan line north of Harrow on the Hill, and the Bakerloo line north of Queen's Park, and having a handful of stations without a service every 10 minutes, as required by the criteria.

Spending lots of time arguing against everything people try to add, or not giving their points justice is a waste of everyone's time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I too tend to be fairly inclusionist for this list (such as arguing for the Staten Island Railway above), and overly strict interpretation of the considerations is not a good idea. That said, I've also argued against some additions before. Here I'd be willing to let it stand, but I would like more info. Does the shared trackage constitute a significant portion of the system? Is it really shared trackage (i.e., the trains run on the exact same rails), or do they just run adjacent to each other in the same right-of-way? These haven't really been made clear in the previous discussions. oknazevad (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a recent addition (from Neugraben to Stade) to the end of a trunk line (formerly ending in Neugraben), which is not shared. The recent addition is a conversion from R-Train (regional train), which extends the reach of the S-Bahn by a few stations to Stade. This recent addition to the S-Bahn system is served by special trains, which can switch from third rail DC to overhead catenary AC on this extension. Later they will convert the extension to DC. This is how the system has been growing historically, in Hamburg, Berlin, London, NY, by addition to the periphery. Regarding the significant portion, it is about 20% of the track length, but only added to one line at the endpoint. More important, it is only a tiny fraction of the passenger volume and thereby usage and utility of the system. So it does not substantially change the character of the system as a metro. It just extends the reach of one line of the metro system to the next suburb, without the previous need to switch trains at the former end of the metro system. Previously the passengers would have to switch over to a R-train, now the S-Bahn can provide trains which run through to the new end point. I believe such additions do not turn the metro system into non-metro, it is just an elegant method (by dual electrical system trains) to serve further stations without switching trains. In principle it is a method of sweeping system extension by successive additions of more and more distant stations as the traffic needs in the periphery are growing, as the metropolitan area is growing. Indeed, even London Underground has the same methods, with additions running on shared tracks. This is the point I wanted to make, that it is a completely normal mode of "organic" growth of the old systems. So a too purist set of criteria does exclude the classical systems and allows only the recent small new systems which have been started from scratch on the green lawn and have not yet seen this slow organic growth. Look at them in 30-40 years, when a need for growth or extension arises, and you will see that they will likely convert what is there in infrastructure to arrive at a cost effective solution. They will just steal a track from the main regional rail system and add compatible electrification. Later, with increasing train frequency, they will need to exclude regional trains from this new stretch of the metro. Besides, currently the train frequency on the questionable new stretch of Hamburg S-Bahn is every 10 minutes in the traffic hours, 20 minutes outside the traffic hours. 70.137.135.49 (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems as if with increasing train frequency they have already segregated S-Bahn traffic from regional trains on the new addition, by running S-bahn only on rail #3 during hours of service, regional on rail #4 and #5. Previously rail #3 was shared. It is clear that with increasing train frequency you have to do that because you cannot shuttle in the regional or cargo traffic in a raster of 10 minutes or less, that is too tight. But maybe they are still running other trains in the night, outside service hours of the S-Bahn. 70.137.135.49 (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. So they took a track that used to be part of the R-Bahn commuter line (and it's stations), and grafted it on to the S-Bahn (which is temporarily using the old overhead wire immense segment until the third rail is extended). So now the R-Bahn trains, no longer needing to stop at those inner stations (as they're now served by the S-Bahn) bypasses them on adjacent tracks. Sounds similar to portions of the Orange Line (MBTA), Yellow Line (CTA).

I do have one last question, about grade crossings. Does the new extension have any, and if so how many? oknazevad (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not know exactly, fellow rail fan, see yourself the train running on the new extension, from Stade to Neugraben, where it switches to DC third rail:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3a59MeNn9U

This gives at least the answer, what kind of train and rail system the new addition is. You see it is not a light rail system and is running in its own right of way. Yes, they grafted a stretch of commuter line on it, they are running it with modified S-bahn trains, which have a transformer, rectifier and pantograph added to alternately run DC third rail and 15kV AC overhead catenary, that is another graft too. 70.137.135.49 (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Here another video in 4 parts, showing the Hamburg S-Bahn 1988 (shown trains built ca. 1938-1950)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsASVHWzJ0E&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDHXpHcnufQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILGHMsfCKIU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPD6RDZ_scY&feature=related

Shows IMO clearly Hamburg S-Bahn being a metro. Notice shared stations with U-Bahn (passing, also U-station signs). The systems are integrated in the hamburg transport Authority HVV. 70.137.135.49 (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a tough call. The first video (which is a nifty cab ride video) is certainly suburban/commuter in character, with the station spacing, almost rural and tree- lined right-of-way. The others are more metro like, certainly, but are also reminiscent of parts of the Long Island Rail Road. So I'd like to see what others think. Anyone else with an opinion?

(I should probably also mention the need for reliable sources, not just out opinions, but that goes without saying.) oknazevad (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I would say it is like the Berlin S-Bahn in this respect. Also the suburban impression may be caused by the character of the city itself, which almost looks like a suburb of itself. See here, this is the city center:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Alsterblick.jpg

Don't you think, "what city,where is the city"? Hamburg (look at the pictures) is unusually spread out, green and park-like overall. No high rise buildings higher than approx 20 stories, to keep the historical character of the city, by ordinance. Practically all streets of Hamburg are tree-lined traditionally!

http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Osterstrasse.jpg&filetimestamp=20070618153818

It was heavily bombed in WW2 and the rebuilt parts as well as many old parts look like a park. This is why quarters of the city near center are highly priced living quarters, you can still live there and it looks like park with old 1890 buildings. see here, near center.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburg-Rotherbaum

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grindel_%28Hamburg%29

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karolinenviertel

Not like the hell hole of some modern cities. However, some buildings from the '40ies tend to have a sturdy robust look and are 9/11-safe! That is less idyllic. This is how you should build in the US.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburger_Flakt%C3%BCrme

I agree with you that the added portion of the trunk line in the first video is commuter rail. The rest is suburb like, because Hamburg is its own suburb in character. The most authoritative source will be a geographic railroad map, showing the system being with exception of the new addition and the old Wedel trunk inside city limits. 70.137.157.164 (talk) 04:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC) Take a look with google map "Hamburg Germany", set to satellite view. The stations you think are commuter stations (which exceptions see above) are inside the city area. You can also see that the S-bahn stations in the center are close to each other and pretty dense. google map shows S-Bahn and U-Bahn stations at high magnification. 70.137.157.164 (talk) 04:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Comparison to LIRR shows, LIRR is much more spread out, longer rail network, much less passengers than Hamburg S-bahn. Hamburg S-bahn has 221 Mio passengers per year on 144km of rail, almost all traffic volume within city limits. LIRR approx 80 Mio, on a 1100km network. So Hamburg S-bahn is much denser and localized traffic, its traffic is 21 times more dense and localized than LIRR traffic. (namely factor 221/80 * 1100/144, comparing passengers per km per year) LIRR is more comparable to the added branch to Stade, the commuter train conversion. 70.137.157.164 (talk) 06:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

For a comparative study of the growth of this system, look at the historical development of the hamburg U-bahn system since 1912 here, you see a geographical map with U and S stations. Note that the U-Bahn also grew by successive additions over time, that may be interesting. But from this geographical map (only inner city shown) you can also see how the S-bahn network (pale green) fills the gaps between the U-bahn lines. The S-bahn grew just like that, by successive additions, I have to find a map of the time line.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Hamburger_Hochbahn_-_Entwicklungsgeschichte.png

70.137.157.164 (talk) 07:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

About borderline cases: I don't think that inclusion of more and more borderline cases will end the numerous discussions here. If we move the "borders", there will always be new borderline cases up for discussion. As for reliable sources: In the book Urban Transit Systems and Technology, the S-Bahn in Berlin and Hamburg, JR lines in Tokyo, Paris RER, and Sydney City Rail are explicitly given as typical examples of regional rail (pp. 551-552). --Kildor (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It is true that there will always be borderline cases, however if the border is slightly beyond the criteria, then it becomes much easier to argue against their inclusion, and by common sense people also won't bring them up/add them so you won't have to discuss them.

Sydney's City Rail for example shares a lot of track with other trains, as do the JR lines in Tokyo (other than the Yamanote line). So that doesn't really leave a big group. I'm not sure whether the RER shares track, but it does spread significantly outside the city of Paris (though how much that means is a little debatable).

Additionally its pretty difficult to argue against this logically when the London Underground fails to meet the letter of the criteria on the page as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, you are probably right! And I am really not that interested in discussing every borderline case every one or two months. --Kildor (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm only pushing this as I've just been involved in that borderline discussion on another page, and I realise how much time you waste on those discussions :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I may remind of the discussion of historical growth and extension patterns above. In this discussion it will become apparent that undisputed historical metro systems like the NY subway, London underground, Berlin and Hamburg U-Bahn have been growing organically, just like e.g. the Hamburg and Berlin S-Bahn. Above link to the Hamburg U-Bahn development timeline will prove that. So the mentioned S-bahn systems show a parallel development to the U-bahn systems in the same place. Also I would propose to look at a criterion of traffic density and localization, I have done this above with a calculation of passengers per year and km of track length (passengers/(year*km)) Hamburg S-Bahn vs. figures of LIRR. The difference is obvious, a factor 20. Of course for a thorough analysis of systems we would resort to a statistic of rides per localization, showing the percentage of commuter traffic to outside city limits vs. local traffic within city limits. I would propose a criterion for a metro which is based on high local traffic volume with these mentioned definitions of local traffic and with a high volume defined as one which is magnitudes higher than typical light rail service. Please, mathematically interested rail friends take a look at this approach and comment. 70.137.161.53 (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

To illustrate passengers/(year*km) as a measure of traffic localization and density see following example figures:

Paris metro 7 Mio

Peking metro 5.3 Mio

Shanghai metro 4.7 Mio

London underground 4 Mio

NY subway -route length 4.74 Mio

NY subway -track length 1.6 Mio

Hamburg U-bahn 2 Mio

Hamburg S-bahn excl Stade 1.9 Mio

Hamburg S-bahn incl Stade 1.53 Mio

Berlin U-bahn 3 Mio

Berlin S-bahn 1.2 Mio

LIRR 0.075 Mio

I think this is a criterion to distinguish metros from commuter rail. Please try out more examples!

70.137.161.53 (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC) 70.137.161.53 (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC) 70.137.161.53 (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)