Jump to content

Talk:List of metro systems

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 93.57.255.93 (talk) at 00:20, 5 January 2018 (→‎Changchun: removed a "prone-to-misunderstanding" adverb). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Importance of references

I noticed that in a few cases, lines of a metro system are excluded from calculations of the total for "not being a metro". This seems like original research which is against wikipedia policy unless a reference can be found that does indeed make this division. I have tried to put a citation needed tag but keep getting reverted. I will put it directly on the figure to avoid confusion. Mattximus (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But usually the reason for exclusion is clearly explained in a note right next to the name of the system - in Tehran case, it's Nb 37 - so it'd be pleonastic explicitly confirming it for each calculation: once you said that part of a system has to be excluded (giving a good reason) and there's consensus about it, it's obvious that this part will be also deducted from the chronology, the number of stations and the mileage (and from the ridership too, when possible); whether the deduction comes directly from the provided source or is calculated by a contributors, it'll be all right, since it'll be a routine calculation (see WP:CALC). Indeed, the opposite would be absurd: once a reliable source has allowed me (under WP policy) to make an assertion (in this case, a certain line not being a metro), should I be inhibited from drawing the necessary conclusions (in this case, make the division, as you wrote - being precise, make the deduction in each numerical data) only because no source does explicitly draw them. 93.57.255.93 (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, any figure presented needs a citation (if it is calculated based on the policy above, then the original numbers need to be cited). Mattximus (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see your point: independently of the whole “calculation issue”, the length of Tehran metro system is currently unreferenced, and as a matter of principle it does need either a proper reference or a “Cn” tag. But, as a matter of fact, it's not the sole record in the table without an adequate citation, and also some of those having it only apparently (wrong or old sources, dead links, etc.), and I highly doubt that adding a “Cn” tag at all of them, albeit formally the right thing to do, would really add value or contribute to improve the article.
The truth is that keeping a in good shape an over 400-reference-worthy wiki page is a daunting challenge, and I think the best way to do it (and to attract as many helpful editors as possible) is keeping the “somewhat loose” attitude this article had used to allow so far: adding “citation needed” to each data without a proper reference, or deleting all of them or reverting every unreferenced edit - like the same oknazevad (talk) did just before starting this controversy with you - will only increase the mess and deter potential contributors; IMHO, all those actions have to be limited solely to cases where there's a reasonable suspicion of facing a wrong/false figure. Conversely, we should leave things as they are (or better, find ourselves the missing citation). 93.57.255.93 (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Tyne and Wear Metro?

Some other user wrote that this was missing in the lead, and it triggered my memory. I have ridden this metro, it's indeed just like many others on this list, and I am wondering why the Tyne and Wear Metro is not on the list of metro systems. That does seem rather odd, it's right in the name. In fact, I recall that they said it was the second largest metro in the UK.... Mattximus (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Been discussed multiple times before. Search the talk page archives.oknazevad (talk) 03:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it needs to be reexamined if 2 users agree. It's very, very odd that the tyne in wear metro is not on a list of metros... Mattximus (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with Mattximus (talk): Tyne and Wear Metro should be in this list. 93.57.255.93 (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I searched the archives and most of the time it was mentioned, oknazevad says it was already discussed and ends the discussion. I went back to the early archives and it said it was excluded because it has some level crossings. Fair enough, but if that is a criteria, then we must remove the Chicago L system, since it also has the same level crossings. And maybe a dozen others on this list. Should we try to remove all systems with level crossings? Or add the Tyne and Wear Metro to list of metros?Mattximus (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the person who removed it (it's been off since before I started watchlisting this article, meaning this is long-standing consensus), nor am I the one who put he edit note about not adding it, so let's not make it about one person.
As for the actual inclusion, Robert Schwandl, a respected published author on the subject who operates the urbanrail.net website (one of our major sources here) describes it as thus:

The TYNE AND WEAR METRO system (77.5 km) is not a 'full metro' because of some level crossings, four along the branch to the Airport, one at Howdon, and three on the Sunderland line. Also, the Sunderland branch shares tracks with regional diesel train services.

It's not just one factor, the crossings or the shared track, but the combination of multiple factors that keeps it just below the line. Also, as seen here, the UITP only considers the UK to have 3 metro systems, as our list does as well. So it's not just a few here, but major industry authors and international bodies. oknazevad (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of those multiple factors, if it was taken alone, would be enough to exclude a system from this list: otherwise not only Chicago "L", but also London Underground, Athens Metro, Oslo Tunnelbanen, Rotterdam Metro, London DLR and maybe others would have gone for good, due to having some level crossings, or sharing tracks with train/tram services, or not being classified as "metro" (and equivalent categories) under their Countries' laws/regulations. And in some of the aforementioned cases there's a combination of more than one of these factors: who decides where the tolerance threshold, beyond which the removal is appropriate, lies?

oknazevad (talk) mentioned R. Schwandl, but despite his reported words - in which, anyway, full metro is between scare quotes - he puts Tyne and Wear Metro among metro systems (blue square on the map) and not among tram/LRT ones (red square). In the UITP document which him provided a link of, this system is not even explicitly mentioned and it's unclear how (and if) they take it in account: in the "metro" part (p. 5) they considers the UK to have 3 systems and in the "light rail ant tram" part (p. 20) they considers the UK to have 6 systems, but in 2009 there was 10 systems overall (London Underground, Glasgow Subway, Docklands Light Railway, Tyne and Wear Metro, Manchester Metrolink, Croydon Tramlink, Midland Metro, Blackpool Tramway, Nottingham Express Transit and Sheffield Supertram): who knows which one is missing, and why?

Last but not least, scrolling backward both the article's revision history and this talk page archives, all I see is lots of attempts to re-enter the Tyne and Wear Metro in the list and several efforts to talk about it by many different editors, all stopped by the same few "watchdogs" - no offense :) - simply saying «this matter was already discussed»: IMHO, I doubt this could be defined long-standing consensus. 93.57.255.93 (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this statement. The only source oknazevad provided didn't actually mention the Tyne and Wear Metro one way or the other. I think we need to know exactly on what grounds it is excluded, and if those are also present in other systems such as the Chicago "L" (please see this random youtube video [1] if you don't believe the Chicago "L" is the same grade crossings as the Tyne and Wear Metro.) Mattximus (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. The anon is right about the blue marker on Schwandl's map, which I had not previously noticed. That is sufficient for me. That said, don't be surprised if some other longtime editor removes it, and please be sure to check other articles and templates for consistency, such as the light rail list and various UK rail templates. oknazevad (talk) 01:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Australian rail systems

Both the mostly-underground City Circle of the Sydney Trains network and City Loop of Metro Trains Melbourne meet the standards for metro rail systems; high-frequency, high-capacity, etc. While not all of both Sydney Trains and Metro are rapid-transit, nor is all of LA's Metro, yet the Red Line is still on this list. Should these be included? Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 05:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 35 external links on List of metro systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hyderabad and Ghaziabad

Anticipating CityOfSilver's (talk) intentions about to figure out what's going on with this, I did "some homework" ad cleared out the matter:

  • Hyderabad Metro ➡ they're really inaugurating it now (between today, the grand opening, and tomorrow, the start of commercial operations) the first line; or rather, the initial sections of two lines (1-red line and 2-blue) combined together, AFAIK temporarily, as a single one.
  • Ghaziabad Metro ➡ it seems that in truth it'll be part of Delhi Metro - physically part, since it'll be the extension (Dilshad Garden~New Bus Stand) of the existing Delhi's Red Line[1][2] - and, moreover, Delhi Metro already reached (two stations) the neighboring city of Ghaziabad on 2011 with the Blue line branch eastern terminus[3]. Therefore it's doubly unqualified to be among U/C systems list.

Now I'm going to edit the page accordingly to these facts, obviously providing the needed references; since it's indeed a piece of cake to find English sources for Indian systems (while the same can't be said about many of the countries listed here), I wonder if it could have been documented directly by those - 2405:205:1381:21f8::1580:a0ad (talk), Tjm94 (talk) and Ayushjain1202 (talk) - who start this "do and revert" ping-pong editing. 93.57.255.93 (talk) 12:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Am I getting called to account for something I did or didn't do? Most editors would have reverted this stuff not necessarily because they're bad but because these types of articles are constantly getting additions with no sources. I'm not sure but I bet I'm expected to revert on sight if this continues.
Your edits look good. The sources look good. Your apparent promise to maintain them via edit warring with (by your count and not mine) three different people doesn't look good. CityOfSilver 16:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you misuderstood my post - my bad, I should have been clearer - that didn't intend to blame you for anything. Contrarywise, what I meant was «Before other unsourced and clumsy edits force CityOfSilver (or other good reviewer) to intervene again, wasting their time in a menial task (since it wasn't truly an edit war or vandalism), I'll settle this "for good" with a properly sourced edit that solves the matter.»; hence I wanted to "help" rather than offend you, and I apologize that it looked the opposite.
I also never had the least intent to do any further action against those three people: my sharp remark was merely thought out loud (just in case they might read it). Best regards 93.57.255.93 (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Abhijay Jha (5 September 2017). "Govt orders fund release for Ghaziabad Metro". The Times of India. Retrieved 2017-11-28.
  2. ^ Sweta Goswami (29 December 2015). "Second metro corridor in Ghaziabad to take more time". The Hindu. Retrieved 2017-11-28.
  3. ^ "Day One: 30,000 hop on to Vaishali Metro". The Times of India. 15 July 2011. Retrieved 2017-11-28.

Indian metro systems ridership

When I noticed that ridership figure of Chennai Metro was actually calculated, and in a really odd way (extrapolated by multiplication from the opening month data), first thing I looked for a good replacement; however, I wasn't able to find one and reluctantly I couldn't do anything else but delete it, leaving an “empty” (n/a) cell.

Later, I ascertained that also the ridership numbers of other Indian system can't be directly read in their own citation: saving the Delhi's case, all other data seem to be an extrapolation and often it's even not clear (nor explained in a note) how this extrapolation is made. This modus operandi is clearly WP:OR and, in those case, also questionable - if not unfounded at all - from a statistical perspective, and I felt uncomfortable both to leave things as they was and to perform a generalized blanking; I hence tried to verify those annual ridership figures or to replace them thoroughly searching on the web, but the deeper I dug, the more became clear that finding such a data for Indian system is virtually impossible: the operators aren't required to publish ridership and revenue figures[1] (unlike in several other countries) and when they do it, voluntarily or under compulsion, they show a rather strong preference toward daily figures - often about a single, specific day or averaged over “some” time intervals (not always specified) - and however referring to periods different than one year (a month, a quarter, ...); and the same, obviously, appears on newspapers, magazines, blogs, etc. It seems to be a well established trend (with the sole exception of Delhi, as said) and nothing suggest that things are going to change in a foreseeable future: given that the current situation can't be left as it is, I think the better way to address this issue - unless we chose to give up on assigning a ridership figure at almost all several Indian metros - would be a sort of compromise. Therefore, I suggest we'll use average daily ridership to calculate (not to extrapolate) the needed data when:

  • it came from a reliable source, of course;
  • in the given source it's explicitly stated, or otherwise made clear, that the average is referred to a whole calendar or fiscal year and calculated from all the days in that year (mainly, no doubt it could be a weekday average);
  • the source's level of precision is adequate, i.e. it isn't more heavily rounded than to the nearest thousand;
  • any annual ridership figure - even older by far - is available.

I think this behavior wouldn't stretch the “routine calculation” concept to the point it falls under the WP:NOR policy, since it's somewhat the “reverse operation” of arithmetic mean, which is explicitly allowed, and the subsequent loss of precision is countered by the fact that the table shows ridership in millions.

By now, I already deleted all the inappropriate data and provided an effectual example (Namma Metro) of the “compromise” I suggested. 93.57.255.93 (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, after having devoted some time to improve Indian "section" of the table I've become aware that my early conclusions were overpessimistic: in thruth, I found that not only in Delhi's case, but at least also for Jaipur and Kolkata - notably, the very ones I didn't checked before starting this topic here (my usual luck...) - it's actually possible (although arduous) to find a source that reports annual ridership, two data which I already proceeded to put in place. However, what I suggest above IMHO retains its validity, and achieving consensus about it, albeit less impelling, would be useful for the article's developement. 93.57.255.93 (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ "Response to RTI Reveals Mumbai Metro's Ridership & Revenue Figures for 2014-15". Retrieved 2017-12-02.

Why is Washington Metro included, S-Bahn is not?

In the considerations S-Bahn systems are explicitly excluded, as (to my understanding) they extend far beyond the city limits. With this reasoning e.g. Hamburg S-Bahn and Berlin S-Bahn are excluded. Hamburg S-Bahn has a total of 68 stations, 15 of which are outside of the city limits. Berlin S-Bahn has a total of 166 stations, 33 of which are not inside Berlin. Washington Metro on the other hand has a total of 91 stations, 51 of which are not in the District of Columbia. It seems to me, that the history of the aforementioned S-Bahn systems should be cited as the reason for their exclusion, Washington Metro should be included or the aforementioned S-Bahn systems should be included. Due to the nature of German S-Bahn systems with regards to being a metro system within the cities they service, I believe they should be included alltogether, if they meet the UITP criteria. Lennardskinnard (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

S-Bahns are typically excluded because they mostly have level crossings and/or track sharing, not because they extend outside city boundaries into near suburbs. Your understanding is incorrect. Look through the talk page archives for previous discussion. oknazevad (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of metro systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of metro systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changchun

Since Changchun Subway joined this list, after the Line 1 opening on June 2017, several attempts have been made to include also LRT lines (Line 3 and Line 4) in its figures: it the last one, Zhouchengbin (talk) wrote that the so-call Light-Rail is not like a streetcar in the USA, it meets the criteria for the definition of metro perfectly. This is certainly not true at all in the case of Line 3, that has several intersection with road traffic, as we can verify from Baidu Maps “Panorama” views - e.g. near the Weiguangjie (卫光街) stop - , even without traffic light priority:[1] it is like a LRT (no one has ever mentioned streetcars) in the United States; and consequently Terramorphous (talk) already partially reverted that edit.
However, he retained Line 4, which also in Changchun Subway Wiki article is labeled grade separated light metro (whereas Line 3 is repeatedly called light rail). I know that in Chinese technical terminology the word dìtiě (地铁) has a less extensive meaning than its English counterparts metro/subway, referring only to lines with very high capacity and at least partly underground, and contrariwise qīngguǐ (轻轨), rather than being equivalent to LRT, somewhat gathers all the systems that doesn't fit in other urban “rail” transit categories:[2] often (e.g. Wuhan Line 1) under this denomination falls lines that truly fit in the international (= UITP) definition of metro, and it's something they're aware of too,[3] but I don't think it's the case of Changchun Line 4. Meeting the criteria for the definition of metro doesn't mean merely being fully grade separated; there are also infrastructural and operational features to be taken into account, and the line we're speaking about:

  • is served by the same rolling stock of Line 3, three-elements 2000 series (28 m and 245 pass.) single or coupled cars and six-elements 3000 series (55 m and 525 pass.) single cars, every 5'; aside from the fact they're LRV (which, per se, doesn't matter that much), the provided capacity is by far under the metro/rapid transit standard (even the “light metro” one) and lies in the typical range for light rails and modern tramways;
  • is physically connected to Line 3 through non-revenue tracks near (again, thanks to Baidu Maps) the transfer stops at Linejie (临河街) / Weixinglu (卫星路).
  • along with Line 3, is treated by the operator itself as a “slightly separated” sub-system in respect of the “true metro” Line 1 (no direct transfer, different ticketing/fare systems, etc.).

It seems to me it's very similar to the fully grade-separated LACMTA Green Line in Los Angeles, which is usually grouped with the other Metro's LRT lines and thus stays undisputedly out of this article's table; therefore, I think it deserves the same treatment; but before further editing it'd be better to discuss the matter on this talk page, maybe also listening to the opinion of long-term, committed editors, like Oknazevad and Mattximus. 93.57.255.93 (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't understand is the capacity argument being used here yet the Tyne and Wear Metro with its similar capacity 2 set (4 car) LRVs at 600 pax capacity and most of the network running at service headways of every 12 mins is "metro capacity" (Not to mention the at grade crossings and mainline railway tracksharing). While Line 4 even assuming the worst case running all 3 module 2000 series LRVs at 4 min headways[4] has a higher capacity and is fully grade separated is called into question.Terramorphous (talk) 04:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The general problem here is that we are trying to shoehorn in very different systems into the "metro" category. For example, the Chicago system, which nobody questions it's inclusion, has many at-grade crossings where vehicles cross the tracks. They have signal priority, but it's still very much like an LRT system. So if there are many at-grade crossings, should the system be excluded? I think not. I think if it functions as a unified system of rapid transit, that's mostly grade separated, and reasonably frequent it should be included here. Mattximus (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, there is some "play" with the definition for rapid transit. However, I don't know why you keep bringing up the Chicago "L" and act like it's the biggest LRT masquerading as a subway system. Less than 8 km of the entire 165.4 km system (~4%) operates in the manner you describe, the rest is very undoubtedly a rapid transit system. To put that into perspective the section of the Tyne and Wear Metro that runs on the Durham Coast Line is 13 km long in a system that is less than half as big. In addition these LRT-like sections are confined to the extremities of the Purple, Yellow, Pink and Brown Lines. You can make the case that it is older transitional infrastructure being grandfathered in. If your system has exceptions sprinkled all over it then it probably isn't a rapid transit system to be begin with. Which sets the stage back to Changchun, I don't understand how Line 4 can be called into question when there are way more egregious examples of systems that are not rapid transit being included into the list. Decide that Line 4 should not be counted, but please be consistent with the criteria for inclusion. Terramorphous (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you understood my point. There is no consistent criteria possible on such a diverse set of systems. The Changchun Subway should include all 3 lines in the tally, as they are all part of the same system, and numbered as such. Mattximus (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was mentioned (though it didn't actually ping me), I think lines 3 and 4 should be left out. Line 3 fits the definition of LRT almost perfectly from what I can see, and Line 4 is only separated by being, well, more grade separated, and does have non-revenue operational integration with Line 3 (though I mention that with the caveat that having a non-revenue connection doesn't disqualify anything, else the existence of the Linden Shops and South Brooklyn Railway would disqualify the New York City Subway, which is inherently absurd). The use of consistent naming conventions across multiple modes isn't particularly meaningful. The same can be said of Boston and Los Angeles, the latter of which also includes bus rapid transit in its color-based naming scheme, and no one would argue those are metro lines based on that. Indeed, the IP's above comparison to LA's Green Line is spot on. oknazevad (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ Mattximus - There are two kind of crossing between rail and road, with technical and legal intertwined differences.
  • Grossly speaking, in the first one (“train-type crossings”) the rail is “in charge” and road traffic flow (vehicles and pedestrian) “is allowed” to cross the tracks only when they're not needed; these grade crossings are compatible with GoA1 operations and even with them the ROW could be still regarded as exclusive (which are two mandatory features for metro/rapid transit), provided that they're few, well spaced and they don't affect the line performance (i.e., mainly, the road being minor enough to be “freely” interrupted). In both Chicago (where there are not signal priority, but full fledged half-barrier railroad crossings [2]) and in Tyne and Wear (although some whith no barrier [3],[4]) systems, at-grade crossings are of this kind.
  • In the second one (“tramway-type intersections”) road and rail “share” the intersection, whether the latter has a separated ROW or not, and the way-giving is ruled by traffic lights or traffic laws; although usually rail vehicles are somewhat “prominent”, there's the possibility (maybe remote, in case of traffic light priority) that they have to await or give way to road traffic flow; these grade crossings need some degree of on-sight operations (GoA0) and can't get along with exclusive ROW, thus they can be found in LRT systems, alongside the previous type - as in Manchester Metrolink, e.g. at Shaw and Crompton and between Bury and Radcliffe (tanks on Google Street View) - or not, but not in metro systems. In Changchun (Line 3), at-grade crossings are of this kind. 93.57.255.93 (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ Terramorphous - First of all, thanks for the source you provided, that set the peak hour headway on Line 4 at 4' (I wrote 5' according to the information, clearly incorrect or misinterpreted by me, I had gathered). However, I disagree on how you made the comparison with Tyne and Wear Metro: under a trunk-an branches scheme, whether the services are branded as distinct lines with a shared section (Newcastle, Copenhagen and Shanghai) or as a single line with multiple destinations (Milan), the figure to pick is the peak-hour throughput of the common trunk. In Newcastle, they run 18 train/h (cumulate headway 3' 20”) on weekday peak through the shared stations[5] and slightly more capacious (298 pass/train)[6] Metro cars now are always paired, whereas in Changchun they run 15 train/h with an unknown mix of short and long trains: assuming the worst case as you did, the ratio would be 2,9 to 1 in favor of Tyne and Wear Metro, assuming the best case (running all 6 module 3000 series LRVs) it would be 1,4 to 1. Anyway, I wouldn’t focus too much on this aspect: it's not that decisive, only part of a larger framework; basically, while there are enough legitimate (I mean Wiki-wise legitimate) reasons and references to split Changchun Subway separating Line 1 from the others, splitting it otherwise (between Line 3 and Line 4) would put ourselves beyond the limits of arbitrariness and WP:OR. Therefore, given that the two lines go together and that one (Line 3) can't be in the list - no matter how broadly you “play” with the definition of rapid transit - also the other one (Line 4) should leave. I didn't cite the Green Line case randomly: before considering anything, is the context that drives its classification among L.A. LRTs. Borderline systems like Tyne and Wear and Genoa Metro could be classified as metro because their features are the way they are and because they don't belong to a larger “undivided” network along with similar, but clearly LRT, lines - hence, these systems can be labeled as de facto under-performing (light) metro infrastructures.
Reading oknazevad's opinion, it seems we're of the same mind. 93.57.255.93 (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ 93.57.255.93 I am very well aware of the high frequency core section of the Tyne and Wear Metro. However, my point is that most of the network operates at quite low headways at peak. In addition, I can argue the same thing that no matter how broadly you “play” with the definition of rapid transit Tyne and Wear Metro shouldn't be on the list. I merely picked Tyne and Wear Metro to get my point across: What criteria allows for Changchun Line 4 to be out yet Tyne and Wear Metro to be in? At least Mattximus believes in a much more broader definition of rapid transit which I don't agree with (it is broad enough loopholes to fit the entire Tokyo Urban Rail Network into it) but at least he is consistent with how he applies the criteria, stating that all Changchun's lines (1,3 and 4) should be counted. Again I disagree as it basically opens the floodgates for very S-bahn, Cityrail, substantially built LRT etc to get on the list. Back to your argument that Tyne and Wear Metro is de facto under-performing (light) metro infrastructures, what does that and their features are the way they are even mean? Changchun Line 4 operates similarly to the Genoa Metro (fully isolated alignments using LRVs); how come that system is in an not Line 4. Having partial networks but full lines being counted is already done on several systems this list due to the age where "branding" takes precedent over what the system actually is. If de facto under-performing (light) metro infrastructures means substantial infrastructure running with low frequency, isn't Line 4 the epitome of this? What happens when the Changchun opens Line 2 and Beihai Lines this year and headways go down for Line 4 due to the increased demand from the network effect, is it metro now? Contrasting this to the Tyne and Wear Metro which has been operating for decades in its current level of grade separation and service headway while showing no interest with keeping Metrocar traffic separate from mainline or even road traffic in future expansion.[7] Like I said before I don't mind if Changchun Line 4 is omitted but that means other borderline systems shouldn't be in here to. Terramorphous (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant when I wrote de facto under-performing (light) metro infrastructures? I'll try to reply with two other questions about such systems:
  • Their structural features are compliant with metro standards (e.g. UITP's definitions adopted in this article)? Yes, albeit barely in Tyne and Wear case (at least, they haven't anything that actually compel the system into the light rail or commuter rail precincts).
  • Their operational features can be brought more roundly into (light) metro standards simply increasing service frequency? Yes, again.
If you want, I can justify these statement - although I'm not sure I'd be able to explain all my points in English (not my native language) and following Wiki rule of referencing everything - but (if I correctly understood) Terramorphous are blaming me mainly because, in his opinion, also Changchun's Line 4 would score two “yes” and he thinks I'm refusing to admit it, or at least to draw the necessary consequences. However, I never said that, despite having some doubts and perplexities - above all, about the actual GoA of operations, the use of low floor tramcars, the “design” capacity - that it'd likely be out of my league (as someone who don't speak Chinese at all) to dispel. What I'm saying it's that beside Line 4, there's Line 3 which gets two “no”: it's a thing we all more or less agree on (also Mattximus grounds his point on other reasons), and it's my criterion to exclude Changchun's Line 4, before further investigating and discussing about its other potential critical features, and not exclude Tyne and Wear and Genoa Metro altogether. In fact, a description of Changchun Subway which we could reach an agreement on is that it's made of three lines, a clearly metro one, a clearly not metro one and one which nature is less certain and definite: it's a situation that doesn't offer really satisfactory solutions, and requires the best compromise be reached among four alternatives:
  • excluding everything - would be conservative and rigorous but fails at represent the reality, a mandatory requirement for an encyclopedia;
  • including everything - would be easy and “libertarian” but based on criteria (a consistent naming conventions, a common authority/operating company) that could lead to blatant absurdities (as oknazevad pointed out, citing BRTs)
  • excluding only Line 3;
  • including only Line 1.
Putting aside the two first “extreme” options, I persist in strongly supporting the latter one because A) technical similarities between L3 and L4 outweighs those between L4 and L1, B) it follows a dividing line within the system that also external reliable sources adopt, whereas the only reference I found that makes a cut between L3 and L4 is in Wikipedia itself, and C) it's consistent with the way similar situations (Los Angeles, Malaga, etc.) are dealt with in this article. As anyone can see, none of this can be said in Genoa or Newcastle cases: if the expansion project that Terramorphous cited (and which I was already aware of) ever puts Tyne an Wear Metro in the same condition, or “worse” (in quotes, because there wouldn’t be anything wrong if it happened) transforms it on the model of German Stadtbahn, then that system will also have to leave the list. 93.57.255.93 (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ Moore, C. (September 2017). "Urban Rail in Changchun" (PDF). www.urbanrail.net. Retrieved 2018-01-01. ... the level crossings are not barriered but have traffic lights, with priority given to car/pedestrian traffic, and so the LRT service has to dutifully wait its turn to proceed
  2. ^ according to CAMET, apart from aforementioned dìtiě (地铁) and qīngguǐ (轻轨), these are 单轨 (monorails), 市域快轨 (commuter/suburban railways),现代有轨电 (modern tramways), 磁浮交通 (maglev) and APM (people mover); see: "城市轨道交通 - 2016年度统计和分析报告" [Urban Rail Transit - 2016 Annual Statistics and Analysis Report]. www.camet.org.cn (in Chinese). 中国城市轨道交通协会 [China Urban Rail Transit Association]. 28 March 2017. pp. 4–5. Retrieved 2018-01-01.
  3. ^ He Jibin, an Urban Planning official from Wuhan Municipality, says: "Do not assume only underground lines are metro, Line 1 is also a type of metro..." (“不要认为地下的才是地铁，1号线也是地铁的一种方式……”何继斌开门见山地纠正概念，他是武汉市国土规划局交通市政处处长……); see: 李斐 (March 2012). "那些年，我们一起追的地铁". 大武汉. 148: 33.
  4. ^ http://www.ccqg.com/html/zhandianjieshaogongpinglu.shtml?datasTypes=3
  5. ^ "Metro » Timetables and stations » Haymarket". www.nexus.org.uk. Nexus. Retrieved 2018-01-03.
  6. ^ "Strategic Outline Business Case: Metrocar Fleet Replacement" (pdf). Nexus. 2016. p. 29. Retrieved 2018-01-03.
  7. ^ https://www.globalrailnews.com/2016/07/20/new-trains-and-expanded-network-put-forward-in-tyne-and-wear-metro-strategy/

Nagpur

According to its own wiki page, Nagpur metro began operating on January 1st, 2018, but I can't find anything online. Can somebody check this information and, if it actually began operating, add it to the active metro systems? Baronedimare (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_metro_systems&oldid=818686569"