Jump to content

Talk:List of metro systems/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5


Subsums for each country are needed

Comparison between different country is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynxlea (talk • contribs) 15:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Improvement suggestions

Unlike certain Wikipedia editors (and at least one editor . . .), I am NOT willing to play the part of "NSDAP Member" when it comes to improving this list.

Now, having said that:

I think there should be - and that we can make, by consensus - reasonable distinctions between the following types of "fixed-track" or "fixed-rail" public passenger transport:

-"Rapid transit" (metro) systems -Light rail transit (LRT) systems -Automated Guideway Transport (AGT) systems -Monorail systems -Suburban and commuter rail (or "regional rail") systems

There also needs to be a distinction between "public" and "intramural" passenger transport. An "airport peoplemover" would be an example of "intramural" transport.

The lists above should not contain duplicate entries. Each system should be listed once, on only one list, with a "reference link" for "borderline" cases. I think we should put our "consensus energy" into deciding what system belongs where, rather than attempting to cobble together "all-inclusive" definitions.

Because this list will remain the "primary" reference for many people whose first language is something other than English, I think that certain "Americanisms" should be avoided (e.g. "defunct").

And, having said "that:"

--This list should probably be titled "List of metro systems" - because "metro" is the most commonly-used term worldwide. I'm aware of the ongoing debate over nomenclature on the main "rapid transit" page. "Rapid transit" was selected for the sake of "neutrality" - but it is nonetheless a rather flagrant "Americanism." It is not really a synonym for "metro" - and its use also opens the door for inclusion of "non-rail" modes (e.g. "bus rapid transit").

(I'll also note that the fact that "Mass Transit" redirects to the "Rapid transit" page suggests significant confusion about public transport terminology.)

Yes, this is an English-language page. But anyone who believes that we can blithely ignore certain "issues" that do not occur in the "English speaking world" would do well to consider the following. We will need to recognize and decide how to categorize something called "light metro." This is not at all the same thing as "small-profile metro." (London and New York have "large-profile" and "small-profile" metro lines; "large-profile" metro stock is "almost" as large as railway stock, while "small-profile" stock is narrower and shorter.) Basically, "light metro" implies tram-type or light-rail type vehicles, relatively short trains (2-4 cars maximum) - but no street track, and full separation (that is, no level crossings). A "light metro" might have several km of tunnels and several underground stations. Stations tend to be more closely-spaced than on a "full-sized" metro - but stations on most U.S. and Canadian metro lines are spaced much farther apart than on most European and Asian ones.

And yes, there is a "light metro" system in the U.S. - although it isn't called that. The St. Louis LRT system had all the characteristics listed above until it was expanded from its "original. The Los Angeles LRT Green Line is another example of a "light metro" (although its stations are "very" widely spaced.)

So: is "light metro" a subset of "metro" or "light rail transit" ?

A good way to answer this question - and also to distinguish between LRT and "other modes" - is to consider whether the vehicles are in theory compatible with operation in streets - today.


--Parsing the headings: Under "year opened, there should be either a year, a year with footnote (e.g. New York) or a very brief comment: "Under consruction," "Construction authorized," "In planning" or "Under discussion."

Or something else, such as "Start of construction postponed" (e.g. Kawasaki)

Or a reference to another list: e.g. "see List of regional rail systems.

--Parsing the systems on the list:

AFRICA SOUTH AFRICA -Johannesburg/Pretoria will be "regional rail." Gautrain will not be a "metro." Good to have a link from this page, however - as with the following.

ASIA CHINA -Hong Kong: Kowloon-Canton Railway should "not" be listed as "metros," but as "regional rail." Yes, there are good reasons why this system might be listed as a "metro" - but to do so would logically require similar listing for a number of Japanese rail systems.

INDIA -Kolkata Suburban Railway, Lucknow MEMU, MMTS Hyderabad and Mumbai Suburban Railway should "not" be listed as "metros," as KCR above.

INDONESIA -Jakarta Monorail should be listed on the "monorail" list.

IRAN: I'll have to check, but I believe that all but Teheran will be "light rail transit," perhaps better described as "light metro."

ISRAEL -Haifa-Carmelit should be listed under "funicular railways."

-Jerusalem and Tel Aviv systems will be "light rail transit;" perhaps better described in the case of Tel Aviv as "light metro."

JAPAN

-Chiba Monorail, Hiroshima (Skyrail Service), Kamakura (Shonan Monorail), Kitakyushu Monorail, Naha (Okinawa Monorail), Tachikawa (Tama Monorail), Tokyo Monorail and Toyonaka (Osaka Monorail) should go to the monorail list.

-Hiroshima (Astram Line), Kobe New Transit, Kobe New Transit, Komaki (Peach Liner), Nagakute (Linimo), Osaka (New Tram), Saitama (New Shuttle), Sakura (Yukarigaoka), Tokorozawa (Seibu Yamaguchi), Tokyo (Yurikamome), Tokyo (Toneri) and Yokohama (Kanazawa Seaside Line) should go on the AGT list.

MALAYSIA

-KL Monorail, JB Maglev Monorail, Penang Monorail and Putrajaya Monorail should go on the monorail list.

PHILLIPINES

-Manila Light Rail Transit System and Manila Metro Rail Transit System are goods example of "light metro" - should "probably" go to the LRT list.

SINGAPORE

-The so-named "Light Rapid Transit" systems are in fact AGTs.

TAIWAN

I'll have to check, but I believe that "some" of these will be "light metros," others "AGT" and still others LRT - or new tramways.


EUROPE ARMENIA, AZERBAIJAN, GEORGIA: Need decisions on "where" they should be located - "Europe" or "Asia." The fact that the people consider themselves as part of Europe does not determine geography. (There are a number of people in Hawaii who consider themselves "American," and Hawaii is an integral part of the U.S. from the political standpoint - but by no stretch of imagination is Hawaii located in "North America.")


AUSTRIA

-Serfaus: "Dorfbahn Serfaus" is very much "urban" (in spite of the small size of the village) and is therefore "legit" - but it needs a footnote.

BELGIUM

-Antwerp Pre-metro should be listed either as "light rail" or (modern) town tramway.

-Charleroi Pre-metro should be listed as "light rail."

DENMARK

-Copenhagen S-Train belongs on the "regional rail" page.

FINLAND

-Helsinki commuter rail belongs on the "regional rail" page.

FRANCE

-Laon: POMA 2000 is a stretch, but it "does" belong because it does serve an "urban transport" function.

-Paris-RER belongs on the "regional rail" page. Otherwise, for the sake of logical consistency, one would have to add huge portions of regional rail systems in . . .

GEORGIA

-New Athos: This is (evidently) an "intramural" operation and therefore does not belong on this list.

GERMANY

Ach . . .

The case for "not" including anything other than Berlin U-Bahn, Frankfurt U-Bahn, Hanburg U-Bahn, Munich U-Bahn and Nuremberg U-Bahn has already been made.

The remainder are variously light rail transit, light metros, modern tramways, or regional rail. The two "classic" S-Bahn systems (Berlin and Hamburg) "might" - or "might not" belong on this list. They do, however, have a distinctly different character than "other" S-Bahn systems.

Further discussion is needed!

One thing is certain: Wuppertal is a monorail, and so belongs on the "monorail" list.


ITALY

-Genova Metro is a very nice example of a "light metro." It even uses a former tramway tunnel . . .

-Milan-FNM: this is a regional rail system.

-St.Christina - Gardena Ronda Express. Here's one I hadn't heard of!

PORTUGAL

-Coimbra - Metro Mondego: This will be light rail (or "tram-train).

-Lisboa - Sul do Tejo Metro: This will be "light rail" (or "light metro").


RUSSIA

-Moscow: Moscow Metro 2 does not belong on this list - except perhaps as a footnote.


SERBIA

-Belgrade - Beovoz: This is a regional rail system.


SPAIN

-The RENFE "Cercanias" services might be "linked" from the "regional rail" list.


TURKEY

-Istanbul-Tunel is a funicular, and does not belong on this list. (Except with a "link" to the "funicular" list.)


UKRAINE

-Kriviy Rih Metrotram belongs on the light rail list.


NORTH AMERICA MEXICO

-Mexico City: The Xochimilco–Tasqueña tren ligero belongs on the light rail list.

-Monterrey: Another good example of a "light metro."


U.S.

ADD ST. LOUIS - FITS ALL CRITERIA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.129.71.52 (talk) 12:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

-Buffalo does not belong on this list. It has been described as a "heavy rail installation, modified to permit operation of trains on the street downtown" . . . but that does not make it a "metro."

-New York - Staten Island: Historic bit of trivia: this is, or has been considered, a "regional rail" line.

-Philadelphia-Norristown High Speed Line: This line does not belong on this list. It is a suburban railway that serves as a metro feeder. (Yes, I'm well aware that it is classified as "heavy rail" for U.S. federal transit statistical purposes . . . )

-Washington-United States Capitol Subway System: This is an "intramural" transport facility and therefore does not belong on this list.


SOUTH AMERICA ARGENTINA

-Buenos Aires: Trenes de Buenos Aires is a regional rail system - or systems.

BRAZIL

-Sao Paulo-CPTM: This is a regional rail system.

CHILE

-Conception and Valparaiso "should" go on the regional rail page.


OCEANIA AUSTRALIA

-Sydney monorail belongs on the "monorail" page. The rest "should" go on the regional rail page - although "links to" are certainly justified for Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth.

As I stated at the beginning, I am NOT willing to play the part of "NSDAP Member" when it comes to improving this list. I'm not planning to make changes other than certain obvious ones (monorails and AGTs) anytime soon. Ldemery 08:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I feel that the RER in Paris and at least a few of the German S-Bahns should be included in both regional rail and metro, having ridden on both the RER and the Munich S-Bahn I can say that there is very little difference between the U-Bahn/Metro and the S-Bahn/RER, at least in the city centres, and, in Paris at least, there is a seperate regional rail network, the RER is between the metro and the regional rail system, it should therefore be included in both lists. Kitchenerite 04:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Why the title "should" be "List of metro systems"

I'll try, try again to convince others that the term "should" be "metro:"

The world's first "rapid transit" railway was London's "Metropolitan Railway," opened in 1863. The lines on opened in the U.S. were called "elevated railways," "elevateds" or "els." Liverpool called its viaduct line an "overhead railway."

I don't know when the term "Underground" came into use in London. The "honor," so to speak, of being the first city to use the term "underground" for . . . well, an underground railway . . . might well belong to Budapest. The line opened in 1896 was called the "földalatti" . . . and that means "underground."

Vienna called its steam-worked urban railway, opened in 1898, the "Stadtbahn" (or "city railway"). Berlin's first underground railway, opened 1902, was called the "untergrundbahn," or U-Bahn, and this became the "standard" label in German-speaking countries.

However, in 1900, the first line in Paris was opened by an undertaking called "Compagnie du chemin de fer métropolitain de Paris." The "chemin de fer métropolitain" - ("Metropolitan Railway") was borrowed from the name of . . . yes . . . London's Metropolitan Railway. The French company became known as "le métropolitain," or "le métro" for short.

The French term "métropolitain" (or "métro") was borrowed by other Latin-based languages (e.g. Spanish, Italian, Portuguese; "Metrou" in Romanian) - but also by Russian ("Metropoliten") and other Slavic languages. It also became . . . well, "de rigeur" . . . in other countries as well. About the only exception in the 'Latin" world is Argentina, which uses "subte," an abbreviation for "subterraneo."

As noted above, German-speaking countries use "U-bahn." Denmark uses "untergrutbane" in general - but "Metro" for the one in Copenhagen. Sweden uses "T-bana" (short for "Tunnelbana") and Norway uses "T-bane" (short for "Tunnelbane")

As for the "others" . . . virtually every other country using the Latin (or Cyrillic) alphabet uses "metro" (the one exception I could find was Bahasa Indonesia). This will quickly become apparent if you click through "in other languages" on the Rapid transit page. All but the first line in Budapest are called "Metro."

It's "Metro" in Greek . . . but I'll admit that Japanese, Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese use "underground railway" in those respective languages. So, why not "metro?" Ldemery 09:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. The term metro is better. - Kildor 23:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Rodrjgw : User talk:Rodrjgw (reply on my talk) 13:00, 08 Setember 2011 (UTC) Well, the better name to describe that kind of system is rapid transit. That name may solve any doubt about metro, subway, underground, overground, "trem urbano" (portuguese to "urban train", a rapid transit or light rail usually supersedes the old railroad in urban area in Brazilian metropolis), S-Bahn an U-Bahn. Hence we may change "List of metro systems" to "List of the rapid transit system".

The page is broken

The notes to the European section seem to have disappeared. The in-table links to notes in the European section therefore jump to N America. And subsequent links jump to the notes after the section the one they should go to.

I don't know how back the reversion needs to go, but could someone look at it.

BTW, this is my first time here and I've got to say: you need to get the nomenclature sorted. You can't keep changing the title and moving things in and out. There seems to be enough international agreement (despite variations) and enough sense being spoken on this talk page to achieve that. Is the problem people who continually revert and tinker *without* discussion?

PS In case anyone is in doubt, imo this page should be List of metro systems. Klippa 08:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Should proposed metros be included?

There are now a number of "proposed" metros in the list i.e. Ahmedabad, Dublin, Kochi and Vilnius. Shouldn't these be excluded? Just because a metro is proposed doesn't mean it will necessarily be built. Many cities have proposals for metros which are never realised. Surely we should only include metros which either 1) have been built 2) are under construction 3) have been confirmed by the relevant government as under construction. Either way we need firm guidelines on what should and shouldn't be included. Valenciano 08:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

To put another way, unless anyone has any objections, I propose to remove those metros which are only "proposed." Valenciano 14:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Remove. In my opinion, only existing systems should be on the list. - Kildor 23:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I was using an axe and cut all systems that does not exist or are not in operation. A metro system may be in construction for 15-20 years, and there is no reason to keep these in this list. For simplicity, only systems that exist and are currently in operation should be included in the list. -- Kildor 23:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

New table for Europe

I have made a new table for Europe. It has a new layout, which hopefully is more readable. Columns with links to station lists and external websites have been replaced with system length and number of stations. Links to external websites and station lists are easy accessed through the individual system pages, and that information is not useful in a table when comparing different systems. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a link collection.

I have also removed systems that not meet the criteria of being a rapid transit system. There are many borderline entries still in the list, and some of them should perhaps also be removed. In my opinion, the following entries might be questioned:

I intend to make similar changes to the tables for the other continents as well.

-- Kildor 11:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

There are three criteria listed for rapid transit systems

  • an urban, electric mass transit railway system
  • completely independent from other traffic
  • with high service frequency

Valencia meets all 3 criteria - it doesn't share traffic with any other form of transit, has trains every 7-10 minutes and is an urban,electric mass transit system. Berlin S-Bahn would also meet the criteria. Valenciano 12:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Only parts of the system fulfill those critera. T4 for example seems to be a street tramway! As far I can tell from the article, Valencia Metro seems to be similar to German Stadtbahns and other pre-metro systems. -- Kildor 12:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
T4 is indeed a street tramway but the rest isn't. The problem there as well is that if we start analysing all of them we will be able to find bits of the networks which don't meet the criteria, even the outer parts of the London Underground share track with commuter rail, while some of Barcelona's underground lines become street trams. The vast bulk of Valencia metro meets the criteria above thus it falls under the heading of rapid transit. Also in terms of sources, the usually reliable Urbanrail lists Valencia along with other transit systems [1] Perhaps we'd be better renaming this article list of metro systems? It would seem very bizarre to omit the Berlin S-Bahn from such a list as it difers little from London's District Line which is usually considered a metro/rapid transit system. Valenciano 17:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Metro bits [2] lists Valencia in its metro section, though only 32 km of the total 136 km. That is less than a quarter of the whole system. According to UrbanRail, only a small part of line 1 can be considered as metro, and the rest as suburban service. UrbanRail also classify line 6 as tramway. And the Valencia Metro article actually refers to the system as a suburban network / commuter train.
I agree on that there might be exceptions to the rapid transit critera. But in the case with Valencia, there seem to be too many exceptions. -- Kildor 00:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
As both Metro bits and Urbanrail cite Valencia as a metro i.e. rapid transit that seems good enough for the article since we have two references stating it. Anything else would be POV if we started getting into arguments over what percentage of the system needs to be underground etc e.g. Bilbao is still in the list but I know from my stay in the village that Plentzia (the last metro station) is 30km from the city. Newcastle and Berlin S-Bahn similarly are referenced in reliable sources. Valenciano 21:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
First of all, being included in the Metro bits list doesn't mean it is a metro. Metro bits lists all systems that have some parts that can be considered as metro. For example, the German Stadtbahns are included. And oddly enough, London DLR and Berlin S-bahn are not counted. When it comes to UrbanRail, Robert Schwandl does distinguish between metro and other systems. And yes, Valencia is in the metro section. Trying to find other sources, I found the LRTA world system list [3], which also lists Valencia with a metro system (together with a light rail and tram system). So regarding external sources, I guess you are right (although I personally think the large portions of tramway and regional rail characteristics "disqualifies" the system as rapid transit).
If kept in the list, the numbers should at least be adjusted not to include the tram lines and non-metro parts. Metro bits lists Valencia with 31.8 km and 37 stations, which seems to include main parts of line 1, 3 and 5.
When it comes to the definition, the distances and amount of underground stations is less important (or not important at all). What matters is if the system shares tracks or have level crossings. For that matter, I believe Berlin and Hamburg S-Bahns and Paris RER should be kept, and Tyne&Wear to be removed. Serfaus and Poma 2000 is more like a people mover to me, and should also be removed. -- Kildor 10:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Quote: "What matters is if the system shares tracks or have level crossings."
Doesn't work. The Bakerloo line of the London underground shares tracks with Silverlink trains (which go to Birmingham hundreds of km away) similarly the Metropolitan line of the same network shares tracks with national rail. Nevertheless London is obviously a rapid transit system and that's why we need to be careful with applying rigid criteria. I agree with you that number of stations is not so important. Valenciano 20:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Again - there can be exceptions. But if a system has large parts of shared tracks or level crossings, it shouldn't be considered a rapid transit system.
Anyway, I have now removed Serfaus and Laon (Puma 2000) from the list. None of these are listed as metro/rapid transit in UrbanRail, metrobits or LRTA. -- Kildor 00:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
http://www.urbanrail.net/eu/laon/laon.htm Sorry that's incorrect : Laon is in Urbanrail... 193.56.37.1 (talk) 08:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, that is right. But take a look at the main page for Europe: [4]. Laon is listed under the Other networks section, explained as Light rail, tramway or suburban railway systems. --Kildor (talk) 10:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for answering. Schwandl web site says :The "Poma 2000" in Laon, northern France, is a cable-driven mini-metro and the line is featured in his book about French metros. I think that Poma 2000 satisfies a lot of criteria, since it is the main transportation line of the city where it is installed, around which the bus network is organized ; it is in no way some kind of auxiliary system. Of course since the city is small, it is indeed small. Hektor (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
It is indeed urban, completely separated from other traffic, and has high frequency of service. But it has not high capacity. It is not a metro/rapid transit according to the definition in the beginning of this list, and external sources apparently consider this as something else (light rail, people mover, cable monorail (!)). But it is indeed an interesting and special kind of public transport. --Kildor (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Monorail systems

There are some monorail systems included in this list (and many that are not). Although some monorail systems meet the rapid transit criteria, I think that monorail systems are quite different and should be on its own list (List of monorail systems). As Ldemery suggested above, I think that each system should be listed only once, either as rapid transit/metro, light rail, people mover, people mover or regional rail/commuter rail. -- Kildor 17:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No one seems to have any objections to this. So, I have removed the remaining 3 monorail systems now. -- Kildor (talk) 14:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

New table format

I would like to compliment contributor Kildor on the magnificent job he has done on the "new table format", personally i would have left "under construction systems" perhaps, but it doesn't matter, also the "filtering" of "non complying" rapid transit systems is well done, it all looks very encyclopedic and superb, well done!! Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic

Why is the Santo Domingo Metro which is under construction and set to be finished on Feb 08' not listed?EdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Because it is not completed yet. Add it when it has opened!
Currently, only existing systems are on the list. And I think we should keep it that way. It is difficult to list all systems that are planned or under construction, and it might be difficult to verify if a planned system will be rapid transit or not. And many started projects are never completed. -- Kildor (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Notes on opening year

I have removed the note about the MTR opening year. Many systems have a rather complicated history, and it is often difficult to specify a definite date or year when the system was opened or became rapid transit (see the New York diskussion above, for instance). Details about different opening years / merges / conversions are not within the scope of this article/list - those rather belong to the separate articles about each specific metro system. This article would grow too large having all those details here... -- Kildor (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong numbers for Madrid and Barcelona and probably a lot of other.

Is there no source control or what, the madrid network is 281.780 km and the Barcelona one is 102.4 km. Until the extensions UC of line 2,3 and 5 are finnished 2009 the network in Barcelona IS 102.4 km

Please update the numbers if you have a more accurate source. It is not clear from what source the numbers in the Barcelona Metro come from. -- Kildor (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Paris RER, Berlin and Hamburg S-Bahn, Copenhagen S-Train

Ldemery suggests above that the Paris RER, Berlin S-Bahn, Hamburg S-Bahn, and Copenhagen S-Train systems might not belong to this list, or at least that the matter should be discussed.

It seems like all these systems comply with the critera specified in the beginning of the article. But I would rather categorize these systems as commuter/suburban rail networks. The primary reason for this is that these systems are commonly known as commuter/suburban rail. And for all these cities, there is another system that is the metro which have much more local/urban characteristics. Furthermore, some outer parts of the systems (except Copenhagen S-Train) have a daytime train frequency of up to 40-60 minutes, which is not metro-like. The systems also connect with one or more cities that are cities of their own merits rather than being suburbs to the bigger city.

When it comes to external references, UrbanRail only recognize Berlin S-Bahn as a full metro. Metro Bits includes none of these systems.

I suggest that these four systems are removed from this list, and moved to the List of suburban and commuter rail systems. And adding a "Systems not included" section to this article, mentioning these systems with an explanation. -- Kildor (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Munich S-Bahn is not like Berlin S-Bahn and Nuremburg S-Bahn, much of it is in the city not connecting to other cities. About more than 70% length of S-Bahn is in the metropolitan area. Fengzq (talk) 31 December 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 23:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
These are all tricky cases, and the confusion even spreads into matters of operation; on the RER, for example, the trains are driven by an SNCF employee part of the way, who then gets out and is replaced by an RATP employee. I don’t think any of them are really metros, though. As it happens, today I’ve been trying to make a metro-style map of the S-tog network, which has really drawn attention to how un-metro-like the service pattern is; I suspect they, along with many or all of the other such systems, belong with main-line railways as Kildor suggests. David Arthur (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps also Staten Island Railroad goes into the same category as S-Bahn/S-train/RER. It was definitely built as a commuter/suburban/freight railroad (but only passenger services today). It is independent from other traffic, but has a service pattern similar to most commuter rail networks. During daytime there is only a train every 30 minutes. More trains operates during rush hours, but some smaller stations still only have trains every 30 minutes in rush hours. The system is not counted for at UrbanRail.net or in World Metro List. And MTA does not include it in the subway system maps. And the system is not really promoted as metro - rather the opposite with railroad in its name. -- Kildor (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"Why isn't the Staten Island Railway in the list anyway? It's rapid transit" (comment from New York discussion below). I removed Staten Island from the list since no one objected to my proposal above. In addition to my arguments above - nycsubway.org also says it is a commuter rail line ([5]). -- Kildor (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
It does appear on the subway map, and uses subway equipment (R44s). It's also planned to become part of "MTA Subways", not "MTA Railroad", if the proposed reorganization ever happens. --NE2 06:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


The S-Bahns in Munich, Berlin and Hamburg appear on their cities' subway maps and are integrated into the fare systems and line numbering of their respective cities' transport systems. From a passenger's point of view they are fully integrated with the U-Bahns.
The major difference is that German U-Bahns are city owned, whereas S-Bahns are part of the national railway system because they evolved out of mainline services. But the latter is also true for e.g. the London Underground, so a historical connection to mainline rail shouldn't be a criteria for non-inclusion.
I think the same argument is true for RER. Anorak2 (talk) 06:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, OK. I haven't looked at the subway/S-Bahn maps, but I assume they're shown with differently-styled lines? On the NYC Subway map, the only difference is that there's no service label; instead it says "MTA Staten Island Railway" along the line. The other regional rail systems in NYC - Long Island Rail Road, Metro-North Railroad, and New Jersey Transit Rail Operations - are shown with thinner lines. All of these, except NJ Transit, are part of the MTA (thanks to an amazing coincidence relating to the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, but read The Power Broker if you want to learn about that). There is also Amtrak, which is essentially the [passenger] "national rail system", and owns several lines in the NYC area. All three regional systems use parts of Amtrak trackage (and Amtrak uses some Metro-North trackage), but the Staten Island Railway is entirely separate. The only connection to the national network is the Arthur Kill Vertical Lift Bridge, used only by freight, and I believe the SIRy gets an FRA waiver to allow them to use lighter trains because no freight trains actually use the SIRy. I just realized that this is almost exactly like the Port Authority Trans-Hudson, which is on the list. The only real difference is that a large part of PATH is underground, but the SIRy is almost completely at ground level, since it's in a less built-up area. --NE2 07:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


Berlin S-Bahn/U-Bahn map No S-Bahns and U-Bahns are in the same style, also note the map features logos of both systems. The only difference on the map are the line numbers, Sxy for S-Bahn, Uxy for U-Bahn. (The thin grey lines are mainline.) The user experience is that they are advertised as defacto one system, you change from one to the other like you change between two U-Bahn lines. It would be a bit unfair to omit German S-Bahn systems from the statistics while "counting" e.g. bits of the London Underground like the Metropolitan Line which connects to some very outlying towns, parts of which have switched operator several times between London Underground and British Rail (at times with steam locomotives), and which gives the overall impression of a commuter rail line. I'm in favour of counting this, but then the S-Bahns count to.
I'd also count Staten Island system as part of the New York Subway. It's on the system map, it uses the same fare, it looks like a subway, so it is one. Anorak2 (talk) 09:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd probably count it as a separate system, since the only connection is by the (free) Staten Island Ferry. It uses MetroCard, but so does PATH; the only difference is that PATH has no free transfers and is owned by a different parent authority. --NE2 10:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

S-Bahns are generally considered suburban/commuter rail networks (although the Berlin and Hamburg S-Bahns are of higher standards). And I also think they fail to qualify because of having low train service frequency on some parts of the networks. I know that it was me that brought up the map thing; but it should not really matter. A good public transport organisation have system maps with all their transit systems, and also have the same kind of tickets and fares on buses, trams, metros and commuter rail. Staten Island also have low daytime service frequency (every 30 minutes). -- Kildor (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this discusion is stupid, as it is focus more on the name of the system, than the actually caracter of the systems. Berlin, Hamburg and Munich S-Bahn is clearly much more urban transport than for instance Osle T-Bane or Amsterdam Metro. Just because they call it metro and T-bane it is included on the list without question, even though the systems are much more suburban than urban and almost plays no role in the transport around the city. While Berlin, Hamburg and Munich S-Bahn is automatic called suburban just because they use the S-Bahn name, even though they are much more urban than a lot of the systems on the list, and plays an important part in the transport of the cities. Copenhagen S-train is both an urban, suburban and regional system, so it can't be completely classified as a metro, but on the other hand, it is as much metro as Oslo T-bane and Amsterdam metro. It is completely seperated from other traffic, with no level crossings, have a higher frequency in all parts and plays a much bigger part in the transport within the city. For instance line F in Copenhagen is only running within the city, have a 5 minutes frequency in the daytime (and 10 minutes late at night), and meets all the definitions of a metro or rapid transit system, but just because it carrys the S-Bahn/S-train name it is not a metro, while the completely suburban line 50 in Amsterdam is, because is have the metro name. It makes no sence. --87.72.205.107 (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It is about service and technical level, and characteristics. And what other sources say about the system. Even though Copenhagen S-Train and Berlin S-Bahn might be of high technical level, they also spread out far from the city and, for instance, connects with other cities (i.e. Frederikssund and Potsdam). They are more similar with commuter rail systems in other cities, and are often referred to as such. I agree on that the Oslo T-Bane might be a borderline case. But it is certainly used for transport whithin the city (as well as to and from suburbs).
But Berlin S-Bahn (in particular) and also Copenhagen S-Train is used for transport within the city. I would say for Berlin S-Bahn that it is the main purpose! Many metrosystems reach far out - even the metropolitan line of London Undergrouns reach out to Uxbridge, is London Underground then not a metro?

I will say Copenhagen, Hamburg and Berlin S-Bahn is used a lot more for transport within the city than Oslo T-Bane, and definately more than Amsterdam Metro that is almost intirely a suburban rail that almost no one use for transport within the city. --87.72.205.107 (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

As suggested above, each system should only appear once among the lists of commuter rail, metro, monorail, light rail, and tram lists. And I believe that both Copenhagen S-Train and Berlin S-Bahn belong to the List of suburban and commuter rail systems. -- Kildor (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly; it’s the design and service pattern of a system that decides inclusion here, not its purpose. København’s metro and S-tog lines both serve similar (though not identical) purposes, but they do so through significantly different physical structures, line arrangements, timetables, and organisational strategies. Line F would probably be the easiest of the S-tog services to convert into a metro, but it doesn’t run as one right now. David Arthur (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
If Line F is not running as a metro, what it is then? It runs every 5 minutes, only in urban areas within the city and with a large number of short distance passengers. --87.72.205.107 (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

These are all tricky cases. They are transit systems with high standards, but still more like commuter/suburban rail systems, in my opinion. Many of these are running paralell to main line tracks and having platforms on main railway stations next to inter city and long distance trains. Yes, I know, for every non-metro feature brought up as objection to these systems, we can find a system already included in the list with the very same feature. London Metropolitan Line has it all - reaching far out of the city, sharing tracks, and have low train frequency on outer parts...

If we add these five systems to list, we might end up with a list with a lot more commuter and suburban rail systems in the world. Currently, this list is almost the same as the one by Robert Schwandl at UrbanRail.net (red-dotted cities on the map), except for that he also count the Berlin and Hamburg S-Bahns as metro (but not RER, S-Train and SIRR). World Metro List doesn't count any of these (but does count a lot of other suburban and light rail systems that have any kind of tunnel or underground station). I've found a report from Errac (The European Rail Research Advisory Council), Light rail and metro systems in Europe, which not include the RER/S-Train/S-Bahn systems (it does not specifically lists system names, but from the table with data for each country, it is quite clear that the RER/S-train/S-bahns are not included). And I would say that these systems are generally known and described as suburban/commuter rail systems rather than metro systems. -- Kildor (talk) 10:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is really only one person repeatedly objecting to the inclusion of the Berlin and Hamburg S-Bahn in the list of Rapid Transit systems. Quoting the lack of inclusion of these systems in other websites is hardly authoritative. Nor is referring to criteria that are not even referenced in the main article. If you look at the Berlin and Hamburg S-Bahn lines, they generally have of a Metro - while they go to outlying areas that are sometimes in different political zones, they still service part of the same greater metropolitan area. "Commuter" services in Germany tend to be performed by other Deutsche Bahn Services such as ICE, Regional Express or Inter Regio. Interestingly the S in S-Bahn stands for "Stadtschnellbahn" which literally means "Fast City rail", which is what they do - stations tend to be more spaced than U-Bahn lines, generally they go faster. In some cases they connect outlying satellite towns or villages to the center, however this is a common feature of Metro systems. My vote goes to the inclusion of at least the Munich, Stuttgart, Hamburg and Berlin S-Bahn lines in this list. Hmette (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
If you are referring to the report quoted in my post above, it was actually made by the UITP. And the definition of metro by UITP, which is the definition quoted in this wikipedia article, is also the one used in that report. I believe that the Berlin and Hamburg S-Bahns could perhaps be included (together with Paris RER, Copenhagen S-tog, SIRR, and perhaps others), even though I think there are good arguments for not including them. But I have a hard time seeing how Stuttgart S-Bahn would fit in this list. A quick glance at the timetable gives that branches have trains only every 30 minutes during daytime (off-peak). And it seems like the Stuttgart S-Bahn shares tracks with other trains... --Kildor (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

India Railways

I have removed these entries from the list. They are suburban/commuter rail networks, and has now been moved to the List of suburban and commuter rail systems. Dehli Ring Railway is just a link to Dehli Metro that is already present in this list.

The systems above are referred to / known as local trains / suburban rail / commuter rail. UrbanRail does not classify them as metro. Parts of the networks are shared with long-distance trains, and daytime intervals between trains goes up to 60-100 minutes on some outer parts. [6] [7] -- Kildor (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

As per the top of the article, there are only 3 requirements to be included. All of these systems fulfil that requirement. Also, the Delhi Ring Railway is a railway system that is not associated with the Delhi Metro, but the ring railway does not have an article on wiki, so i found that delhi metro was the closest thing, even tho theyre completely diff. Nikkul (talk) 05:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
"All of these systems fulfil that requirement". How? They are all referred to as suburban rail / commuter rail in their articles. Some are sharing tracks with long-distance trains and on some stations, the service frequency is up to 60-100 minutes. That does not meet the criteria.
Wikipedia should not include original research (WP:NOR). So if you think these systems should be considered rapid transit / metro instead of commuter rail, there should at least be some references supporting that idea. -- Kildor (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible rapid transit systems in Stockholm

There are three urban/suburban rail systems in Stockholm that, as far as I am concerned, meet the three criteria. However, two of them are not found in the list: Roslagsbanan, 65 km, 39 stations and Saltsjöbanan, 18,5 km, 18 stations. I am not sure of their status so I will not edit the article before any discussion.Nirro (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Roslagsbanan and Saltsjöbanan are good examples of suburban railways. They are isolated right-of-way systems, but have many level crossings with road traffic. Thus, not completely independent of other traffic. And 20 minutes train headway, and up to 40-60 minutes between trains at some smaller stations, is not metro standard. (However, during rush hours, Roslagsbanan have a very good service frequency with 16 trains per hour on central parts. But mid-daytime service means 30 min between trains for many stations....) I don't think they qualify to be listed as rapid transit / metro. -- Kildor (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleveland-Boston disparity

Why is Boston allowed to consider its light rail Green Line as a "rapid transit" and Cleveland's Blue and Green Lines, are not? Boston rapid transit start date is listed as 1897 which is, of course, the start date of the (now) Green Line's famed Tremont subway. And in Boston's 64 mile total is included over 22 miles of Green Lines plus the PCC-trolley operated Mattapan connector. Meanwhile, this list acts as though Cleveland's Blue & Green light rail lines don't exist. Cleveland Rail's start date is listed as 1955 (and not 1913, the date the 1st Blue/Green section went into operation), the start date of the heavy rail Red Line, and the 31km Cleveland rail route mile total only includes the Red Line and doesn't include the 23km+ Blue/Green mileage. All this despite the fact that Blue/Green LRVs literally share the same tracks as the heavy rail Red Line. So why the double standard? Cleveland gets screwed in this analysis and is part of the reason this list is flawed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.226.69 (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is good then that we can make improvements to the list. Right? In my opinion, Boston green line should not be counted for (at least not the tram sections of the line). And the same goes for Cleveland blue and green lines. I'm not sure, but it might have been me that added the Boston/Cleveland numbers to the list. And the numbers are the one used in the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority article, specifically for rapid transit / subway. But the world metro list uses other numbers. So we should perhaps adjust the numbers in this list.
When it comes to the opening year, it seems to be a "well-established" fact that the Boston Subway is the oldest metro in the United States, and that it was opened 1897. Technically, that was only a tram tunnel? 1901 would perhaps be the more proper year to use for Boston in this list. It has been discussed before (see archive) and that discussion ended up with 1897 being used. World Metro List, UrbanRail and other sources also use 1897, so I guess we will have to live with that disparity.
It is impossible to make this list perfect. But at least, the numbers for Boston should be adjusted. -- Kildor (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
So you would adjust Boston's date to the opening of its first elevated, but you won't date New York to the opening of its first rapid transit elevated? You have no consistent logic to your reasoning. -- Cecropia (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Its about what is commonly written about these systems in external sources. -- Kildor (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
"Commonly written" in what external sources? Wikipedia policy asks for citations. What are your citations? -- Cecropia (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

New York date

I have revert reverted Kildor to restore accurate dating of New York City's rapid transit system. The title of the article specifics rapid transit systems, not subway or metro systems. Are you unaware of the history of New York's rapid transit, which was a full-blown system in the 1880s? The 1904 date is for the underground IRT only.

New York's rapid transit system has been operating continuously as rapid transit since 1870, when service on the Greenwich Street/9th Avenue el resumed. If we take a 1904 date for New York, we have to reconsider Boston, whose first subway was a limited access trolley trunk line, and Chicago, which was very similar to New York's system and had no subway until World War II. Using 1904 for NY rapid transit is simply incorrect. -- Cecropia (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have also provided a citation for the 1870 date from the operating company New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority-New York City Transit. -- Cecropia (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
This issue have been discussed before (see archives), and there was no support to change the opening year from 1904 then. Since you started that discussion also, it is suprising that you change the numbers without bringing it up for discussion again. But here we are.
I am not sure that the 9th av el can be considered metro/rapid transit according to the definition used in this article. First of all, it was not electrified. Secondly, what do we know about the service frequency? 1904 has been used since it is a commonly quoted year for the opening of New York City Subway. When it comes to this article, we could either go for what is commonly given by external sources, or we could settle the year when the system can be considered rapid transit / metro according to the definition currently used. If electrification is an important criteria, we might need to change the year for London Underground (1890?).
A couple of weeks ago, someone changed the opening year of Athens Metro to 1869, with the argument that ISAP, that is now part of the metro, was opened in 1869. ISAP was hardly rapid transit at the time beeing, so 1869 is not really a comparable year to use in this list.
Suggestions anyone on how to proceed with this issue? -- Kildor (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
What do weknow about the service frequency? I have to ask what do you know about the New York City system. If you knew, I doubt you would ask that question. The service frequency on the 19th century New York elevated was typical higher than on the modern subway, because they operated on visual principles on local tracks, without a block system. Now you are adding electrification as a criterion? Are you making it up as you go along? It was called rapid transit then, and still is. The Chicago L was also steam operated. I have given a hard citation from an official source. Where is your citation of "external sources" that trump both histor and the official site of the system? What is your rationale of the dat for the Chicago L? -- Cecropia (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I ask questions because I don't know the answer. If you have them, please share them with us. For example, what was the service interval in 1870? It is not me that adds the electrification criteria. It is part of the definitions of rapid transit / metro used in this article, that says it is an electric railway.

I was simply referring to previous discussions when I mentioned that 1904 is the most commonly known opening year of the NY Subway. And I was trying to initiate a discussion here on what principles we should use for the opening year in this article. I am willing to change my mind on this issue, but there should at least be more than two persons to decide this. Especially considering that there was a consensus to use 1904 for NY... -- Kildor (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a trial court of history where opposing sides decide what is correct. You have insisted on a 1904 date though anyone familiar with New York rapid transit history beyond what is published in tourist brochures and "everybody knows" web sites knows that rapid transit in New York long predates the first subway. But I didn't tell you that 1870 is correct because it is "common knowledge" on "external sites," I provided a citation (which is Wikipedia policy) from an official source. This is the way to go. -- Cecropia (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The name of the system is New York City Subway (as it appeared in the list before you changed it). An it is quite clear that the subway was opened in 1904([8]). The only thing you have shown so far is that there was an elevated railway in New York that opened 1870. Now, we need further support on that the elevated railway (as of 1870) actually can be considered rapid transit according to the definition used in the article. And secondly, is it relevant as a fact for the opening year of New York City Subway?
I am not question the fact that you have presented. But I question its relevance to this article. But I believe you have a point, and it is certainly worth discussing, but more as a general principle for the whole article. Because there is no good to change the meaning of opening year of one entry, with the rest unchanged.
Furthermore, I would like to quote some answers from the former discussion that you got the last time you suggested another year for the NY Subway.
Why don't you even consider 1904, which is the most qoted date? Anorak2 09:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Because it's inaccurate. That is the date of the opening of the first underground line, but a great deal of the system predates that, as rapid transit, and still exists now, including every line in southern Brooklyn. -- Cecropia 15:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
The Chicago L is dated to 1892, not the date of the opening of the State Street Subway. In that year, several still extent structures and a number of extant routes were already operated in New York. As I said, this is a list of rapid transit systems, not subway lines. -- Cecropia 15:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
The Wiki article as it currently stands gives the impression that the New York underground system is older than the Boston underground system, when the reverse is actually true.
Agree. I vote to change to 1904, since this is the first subway line. I mean, we could date back the Boston subway to earlier times if we're just going to throw in any little thing that's a part of its present system.--Loodog 00:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Further support, from Transportation in New York City article itself:
"It (NY Subway) is the second-oldest subway in the United States after the system in Boston."
--Loodog 01:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
This is rehashing the same ignorant arguments. This is a list of RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEMS, not SUBWAY SYSTEMS. "The only thing [I] have shown so far is that there was an elevated railway in New York that opened 1870." An elevated railway? From 1870 there was continual development of elevateds in New York so that by 1880 there were elevated lines the full length of 2nd Avenue, 3rd Avenue, 6th Avenue (from Central Park south) and 9th Avenue (on 8th Avenue north of 110th Street). Beginning in 1885 and before the IRT subway opened, elevated lines were built in Brooklyn on Park Avenue, Lexington Avenue, Broadway, 5th Avenue, Myrtle Avenue and Fulton Street. The arguments for 1904 impeach themselves by the inclusion of pre-1900 dates for Boston and Chicago. Please educate yourself from readily available sources. -- Cecropia (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Boston's original subway isn't even rapid transit... the problem seems to be that we don't have a consistent definition that we're applying to all the systems. --NE2 01:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the advocates for New York 1904 apply a different standard for other cities, and refuse to justify it. James Blaine Walker wrote "Fifty Years of Rapid Transit" about New York in 1917, dating his book from the first experimental el in 1867, not "Thirteen years of Rapid Transit" from 1904. -- Cecropia (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
There's also a problem with definitions; back in the 1880s or so, the definition of rapid transit was looser, and was applied, at least in Brooklyn, to any steam dummy line that replaced a horse car line. In Manhattan, I believe the only steam dummies were on els, and they were eventually removed from streets (most notably the LIRR Atlantic Avenue Line), so the term came to apply to grade-separated lines. So what we really need to do is hash out an exact definition we're going to use here, and then apply it to every city. It should be noted that we can't be too loose, or the LIRR's Atlantic Avenue Line would still qualify, now that it's fully grade separated. And if we do want to go by the characteristics of an entire system, the Manhattan els do count, but the early Brooklyn els don't, since they had access to surface tracks. (See also the grade crossing on the BMT Canarsie Line, but that's logically an exception rather than a rule.) The Staten Island Railway might be another good test case. So let's first come up with a solid definition, and then apply it. --NE2 05:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that the definition was looser, per se. Rapid transit evolved, and the definition evolved with it. The Atlantic Branch of the LIRR did operate a rapid transit service, characterized by frequent stops and (initially) rapid transit locomotives (which were optimized for fast stops and starts as opposed to long-haul ability). When electrified the LIRR bought Gibbs cars which were functionally the same as the IRT Gibbs cars. You cannot apply a 2007 definition of rapid transit, which is a generic term, to the 19th century. Especially we cannot apply it to this article as we need to look more at the continuum then at changing times.
A different issue is your speculation that the Brooklyn els might not be rapid transit because it had access to surface tracks. Well, so did Chicago. Until c.1958, most of the (now) Congress Line was on the surface with grade crossings. So was about 1/2 of Lake Street. And the Douglas and Ravenswood and Linden Lines still have surface running and grade crossings. But I think we need to separate the broad definition of rapid transit from the specific argument here. New York City rapid transit began continual operation in 1870. There was no magic moment that suddenly transformed it vast array of lines from something else into rapid transit. The definition of "subway" has evolved, in terms of NYC. Everything is now called a subway line, even existing lines such as the Broadway L, which is same structure (part upgraded during WWI) as in the 19th century, which produces the common but oxymoronic term "elevated subway line." As to the Staten Island Railway, if that is ever connected to the subway system it will be called a "subway line," too. OTOH if it is connected to HBLR, the very same right-of-way will probably be called a light rail line. That's how language evolves. -- Cecropia (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all - the main focus of this article is not history. For that we have History of rapid transit. This is a list of existing metro/rapid tranist systems, with some additional key facts; opening year being one. About definition - why don't use the one at the top of the article?

We won't be able to achieve a 100% clear and precise list on this subject. And it might be difficult to apply the modern definition of metro to historic systems. I suggest that we move the earliest rapid transit systems section to the History of rapid transit article, where all the different historic aspects can be explained in text. Perhaps it is even better not to have a ranking list at all.

When it comes to the opening year column of this list: It might be confusing to have an opening year other than 1904 for New York City Subway. It is perhaps not "fair" in comparison with other systems - but it makes sense. The other alternative is to find out in what year the New York system (and other) can be considered to meet the definition used at the top of the article (electric, railway, grade-separated, high daytime frequency (10 mins?)). That would be 1890 for London, 1901 for Boston, and something between 1870 and 1904 for New York... The New York City Subway article specifies three different years as opening year: 1863, 1868 and 1904. And the current version of this list have 1870. Something must be done...

BTW, I am going to change the system name in the list, from "MTA New York City Transit" to New York City Subway. Because it is the current name of the system, as well as the current name of the article. -- Kildor (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

--

Thinking about this, I realize that I might have been too ambitious when "cleaning up" this list. There was actually a footnote on the New York Subway before, that explained the different views on the opening of the system (see below). My initial idea was that it would be better to have this list clean, and leave the details to the articles for each separate system. But that is perhaps not possible if this is to be a stand-alone article being more than a simple navigation list.

Providing a source or comment for every single number might be quite "ugly" and messes with the layout of the list. But the way Cecropia provided comments and sources for the New York Subway was neat and simple. Instead of having multiple sources/footnotes, we could have a single note for each system that provides the necessary sources and possible comments. Perhaps this is a good solution (example with the current list format and with the former comment on the New York opening year):

Location Name Opened Stations Length
Miami Miami-Dade Metrorail[1] 1984 22 36 km (22 mi)
New York New York City Subway[2] 1904 468 368 km (229 mi)
Port Authority Trans-Hudson[3] 1908 13 22.2 km (14 mi)

Notes

  1. ^ Sources and comments on the Miami system
  2. ^ The oldest right-of-way used by the New York City Subway system opened in 1863 as a typical regional rail line in Brooklyn. The first elevated structure opened in 1868 in downtown Manhattan, but has been torn down. The oldest elevated structure still in use opened in 1885 in Brooklyn. The oldest line in Manhattan that is still in use opened in 1904, and was the first subway line.
    • "New York City Transit - History and Chronology". New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority. 2007. Retrieved 2008-01-18.
    • "New York City Transit - Subways". New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Retrieved 2008-01-22.
  3. ^ Sources and comments on PATH

-- Kildor (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

1904 is still wrong. Maybe if we were talking about the "Manhattan Subway" it would be acceptable, but the NYC Subway serves four of the five boroughs. (Why isn't the Staten Island Railway in the list anyway? It's rapid transit.) Stating that the system started in 1904, when earlier construction still exists, is simply incorrect. --NE2 07:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
MTA says the subway opened in 1904, so it is not completely wrong. But if we are not happy with 1904, what should it be then? 1863, 1868, 1870 or 1885? Or something else? (about Staten Island Railroad, see discussion above) -- Kildor (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's when the subway opened. That's not when the New York City Subway, which is an integrated system of subway and elevated lines, opened. --NE2 06:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Then lets talk about what year to use! And what principles to use for all systems. -- 23:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it the 9th Avenue Elevated that is the first elevated railroad in NY? Then we can perhaps also consider 1871? ([9]). That is also the year quoted by LRTA. If electrification is a requirement, then it will be 1902? Or were there other electric lines in NY before 1902? UITP says in their metro article that London opened the first metro line in 1890, referring to the electric deep-level City & South London Railway. Then we perhaps have somewhat comparable numbers. -- Kildor (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
A rational - and reasonable - way to resolve this matter is to retreat from the needlessly rigid "requirement" of a single date for each city. In "special" cases such as New York, use one date, perhaps 1904, perhaps 1871 - then add a table footnote to give other key dates. For example: open-air segments of the New York "subway" system (in Brooklyn) incorporate alignments dating as far back as 1862. Ldemery (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and this is the solution currently used in the article. A problem with the opening year ambiguity was that it affected the ordering of the sub-list of first opened rapid transit systems. Since that list was removed, I guess it is not as important what year is chosen in the list. --Kildor (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Amterdam metro

As far as I know, one of the lines on the Amterdam metro has crosssection and can therefor not be qualified as a Trans Rapid system, since it cannot be considered as completely independent from other traffic. Nirro (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Line 51 appears to be light rail, lines 50, 53 and 54 are rapid transit. I'll adjust the numbers in the list. -- Kildor (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I also just found that many of the Oslo metro-lines has several cross sections like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vindern_T-bane.jpg . According to english wikipedia this network is classified as a rapid transit system. Keeping in mind that most of its network is situated far from the city center and mostly above ground level, one can put this into question. In outer lines the Oslo "metro" runs only four times an hour in rush our. What makes the Oslo metro more rapid transit than e.g the S-train network in Copenhagen (which is removed from the list) which doesn't have cross sections and runs every 10 minutes? Nirro (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Oslo’s T-bane system does include some Tyne and Wear-style ‘almost-metro’ lines with level crossings, but its main services are fully-separated metro lines, which are why it needs to be included here. According to the article, too, there are plans for all of the remaining sections and convert to tramways anything that can’t be upgraded. The S-tog network isn’t here simply because it’s a regional railway network rather than a local metro — look at Merseyrail in Liverpool or CityRail in Sydney for parallels in the English-speaking world. David Arthur (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Oslo T-bane is as much a regional system as Copenhagen S-train. I think Copenhagen S-train have more stations within the city than Oslo, and Oslo T-bane reaches just as far out in the suburbs and cities away from Oslo than Copenhagen S-train does. --87.72.205.107 (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The S-tog network has taken on some metro-like characteristics, mostly because København was without a real metro for so long, and I can imagine it being turned into a metro some day — that’s what happened in Stockholm and, for that matter, how London came to invent the metro in the first place — but for the moment it still follows a fundamentally regional-railway service pattern. Oslo operates both metro and regional services under the T-bane name; it is the metro services that lead to its inclusion here. David Arthur (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I had a quick look at the S-train map. You can reach the town of Koge with the S-train network. This town is situated around 40 km from the city center of Copenhagen. The farthest station of the Oslo metro is Kolsås situated 10-15 km from the city center. I think that the farthest station of the Stockholm metro is Norsborg (around 25km from city center). Thus both the Stockholm and Oslo metro runs within the urban area borders, while the Koge and many remote stations of the S-train network runs outside these borders. On the other hand, the Stockholm metro and the S-train systems are fully separated from other traffic while some part of Oslo metro aren't. The interval between S-trains is on all lines (I think) 10 minutes, which would mean that the interval in the city centre would be very short since many lines share the same route (very metro-like). The interval between train departures in Oslo is 15 minutes (not so metro-like).
For the Amsterdam metro some parts of the network is considered as light rail and therefore these parts are not included in this list. Would it possible to include in this list only the fully traffic-separated lines of the Oslo metro and only the lines of the S-trains that runs within the urban area? Regards Nirro (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
What lines would that be? Line F has indeed metro-like service and runs within the city. The other lines have at least a couple of stations outside the city. But it doesn't make all the difference. I still believe that the S-tog is better described as commuter rail. And we will be able to find parts of many commuter rail systems that meet the criteria of being metro on the central parts. The central parts of commuter rail systems are often completely separated from other traffic and have high service frequency. And if we include those, how much of the system networks should be counted? But we should perhaps exclude line 1 from the Oslo entry in the list, since it is light rail (although it is not completely consistent to exclude light rail parts of metro systems and not add metro parts of commuter rail systems....)
BTW, I have found an interesting website with railway maps of Europe: [10]. At the Copenhagen map [11], you can clearly see the S-Train network marked with brown lines. -- Kildor (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This means that most part of a rapid transit network should run within the city. In connection with this it would be worth mentioning that the Stockholm metro is mainly suburban. About 75 of a total of 100 stations are actually situated outside the the central parts of the city. Of course, most parts run within the municipality, but this also includes suburbs. Considering the Copenhagen S-train, 20-25 stations out of 85 are situated in the city center: Fully comparable with the Stockholm metro. Oslo: 88 station of which less than 10 are situated in the actual city center. We have to realize that the distinction is not clear cut (btw rapid transit and no rapid transit). There seems to be several criteria but they only have to be fulfilled enough (since both Oslo and Stockholm metros are included). The weighting of each criteria seems to be a subjective judgement. Nirro (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
It is impossible to have a perfect set of critera to make a clear distinction between commuter rail and metro. But since you mentioned Norsborg of Stockholm Metro, lets compare with Køge of Copenhagen S-Train: Both are the farthest station of their network. Norsborg is 17 km from the city center (central station), Køge is 34 km from the city center (central station). Norsborg is 20 stops from the central station, Køge is 17 stops from the central station (although the E line to Køge runs express and only stops at 12 of these). The E line to Køge has trains every 10 minutes until 7 pm weekdays (until 3.30 pm saturdays), line 13 to Norsborg has trains every 10 minutes until 9.30 pm, every day, and every 5 minutes during rush hours. I believe these numbers illustrate the difference in character between these two networks.
Well ... perhaps not "impossible." One could exclude anything from the "metro" category that started out as an upgrading of existing suburban or "commuter" rail services operated by the "state railway administration" (or as part of the "national railway system"). That neatly excludes "S-Bahn" type operations (and also the Copenhagen S-Train system). However, systems that were "purpose-built" as metro systems, or totally separated urban-suburban systems (e.g. Bay Area Rapid Transit), would count as "metros." Systems that started out as "local passenger railways" (e.g. parts of the London Underground, the New York subway system) would also count as "metros." So would systems that began as upgraded tramway or (local) electric light railways (e.g. Oslo). Not a "perfect" scheme, but perhaps something to work with.Ldemery (talk) 06:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
That is an interesting approach. I am not sure if it "disqualifies" some systems currently on the list. Perhaps Tyne & Wear Metro and Valencia Metro (Spain)? Anyway, I believe it is important how the system is classified by other sources when there is a discussion about inclusion or exclusion to this list. --Kildor (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
When it comes to external references, I haven't seen Copenhagen S-Train included in any list of metro systems. And the Wikipedia article on S-Train actually begins with the following words: The S-train network is the commuter train network of Metropolitan Copenhagen. -- Kildor (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Naples Metro

The stats for Naples Metro was recently changed to include all the lines 1-7. However, only line 1, 2 and 6 seem to be metro, while the other lines are suburban/commuter rail lines, according to UrbanRail.net. The opening year was also set to 1889, making the Naples system among the earliest metro systems in the world. That is not commonly recognized. 1889 is only the opening date for an urban railway tunnel, and I have therefore changed it back to 1993 (opening year of line 1). Another year to consider is 1925, the opening year of a railway tunnel now used by line 2, though shared with intercity trains. It is unclear when metro services began on line 2. World Metro List states 1993 as the opening year of Naples Metro. LRTA says it was 1992. -- Kildor (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Image

I have replaced the symbol at the top of the article with a photo. The symbol was not really a symbol specific for rapid transit, so a photo is probably more appropriate. I chose a photo that shows some typical features of a metro system: a train, rails, underground station, and a crowd. And it is from the oldest and longest metro network in the world, so I think it is a good illustration of a metro system. The photo is however not perfect - it could be sharper, and a large portion of the image is an empty wall. Perhaps there is a better image available?

I believe one image is enough - there is certainly no room for pictures from every metro system in the world. The important thing is that the image shows a typical rapid transit sytem. -- Kildor (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Madrid metro

It is difficult to find a reliable source for the length of Madrid Metro. The current quoted article from the Community of Madrid says the network is 322 km including light rail. Subtracting the 28 km for Metro Ligero gives that the metro is 294 km. UrbanRail and MetroBits and the Spanish Wikipedia article says the metro network (excluding light rail) is 282-284 kilometers. But since those pages do not quote any sources, I think we should stick to the official source. There is an official page that lists the line length with centimeter precision ([12]), but that page is from January 1, 2007. Perhaps that page will be updated soon.

The number of stations is 231, according to MetroBits. That is if interchange stations are counted as one station. That number is confirmed by counting the stations of the official map.

I did also remove the Metro Ligero entry from the list, since it is clearly a light rail system. --Kildor (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Berlin S-Bahn

The Berlin S-bahn has to be included. It is not the classic commuter service. The commuter service/ RegionalExpress would be the RE or RB in the Berlin-Brandenburg metro area. The S-Bahn almost exclusively runs on Berlin city territory and fulfills several other conditions to be a rapid transit system. KJohansson (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It is perhaps not the classic commuter rail service. But it is certainly not the classic metro service. It has evolved from national railroads and still today runs parallell to main lines on many parts. It goes quite far out of the city, and connects with Potsdam for example. Outer parts of the network have 20 minutes between services, with up to 40 minutes between trains on one of the branches. And it is operated by a subsidary company of Deutsche Bahn. --Kildor (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
All of this is true for London Underground (except the Deutsche Bahn bit obviously :)). Anorak2 (talk) 09:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but to a much lesser extent. As far as I know, only the Amersham and Cheshamn branches of Metropolitan Line have anything less than a train every 10 minutes. And most of the Underground system is completely separated from national railroads, whereas the S-Bahn runs parallell to national rail at most of its length. --Kildor (talk) 10:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
For the given reasons, I have just undone an edit that added the S-Bahn to the list. --Tkynerd (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 Confirmed that KJohansson and Lear21 are the same editor and the sockmaster has been blocked indefinitely. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Switzerland?

Is there a reason there is no mention of Switzerland? I know Zurich, at least, has a rapid transit system. gren グレン 09:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Zurich? Do you mean Zurich S-Bahn or Zurich trams? Neither of those are rapid transit as defined in this article. --Kildor (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

San Francisco Muni Metro

I have removed the Muni Metro (and San Diego Trolley) from the list. The Muni is clearly a light rail system with lines that run in-street on some parts and underground on the central parts. Very much like German Stadtbahns. Metro (rapid transit) systems are completely separated from other traffic, which clearly is not true for the Muni. The fact that a part of the system is separated from other traffic does not make it a rapid transit system. In fact, the ability to mix modes (street running and tunnel/right-of-way) is a typical feature for a light rail system. UrbanRail.net and World Metro List do not include the Muni as a metro system. --Kildor (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's listed on urbanrail.net to me.....
It is mentioned on the page about San Franciso, but not as a metro system. It clearly says it is a street-car like system. --Kildor (talk) 11:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no black and white here. BART is a regional commuter rail line, that also partly runs underground in San Francisco. The Muni Metro is a rapid transit subway in part of the system and streetcars for the rest. You really seem to want to pigeon hole all systems as either this or that, but there are some systems that fall into a gray area in between. It is perfectly valid for a system to be listed under more than one category and in more than one list. You would be better off making a list of "Rail based urban transit systems" than trying to make definitive black and white lists of this or that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.163.124 (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am perfectly aware of that there is no black and white regarding this topic. Many systems are in the "gray zone", but the Muni Metro has never been discussed as such. Your rationale for adding the Muni Metro is that part of the system is segregated from other traffic. If that is enough to be included in this list, we should add almost every light rail system in the world. The definition used in this article and other similar lists clearly says that the system should be completely separated from other traffic (with some rare exceptions accepted). But large parts of the muni metro routes are in streets. It is clearly a light rail system and I cannot see why it should be included here. Please provide some source or references if you think it should be regarded as a rapid transit system. Please also note that the Muni Metro is not included in List of urban rail systems by length, Metro systems by number of stations or List of United States rapid transit systems by ridership. --Kildor (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


Fine, you want Muni Metro out? Then get rid of BART, as it's a commuter rail system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.163.124 (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
"rapid transit systems are primarily used for transport within a city" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.163.124 (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
BART is definitely in the "gray area". But since other sources regard it as metro/rapid transit, I think it should be included here. But this discussion was about the Muni metro. Do you have anything that support your idea that it should be included in this list? -Kildor (talk) 04:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
BART is not included in teh List of urban rail systems by length either, so why don't you take BART out? You seem to want to pick and choose what's convenient to supporting your personal point of view and leaving out what doesn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.163.124 (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, as said before: The BART is in the gray area. But it is listed as rapid transit by UrbanRail, World Metro List and LRTA (see links in the references section). The Muni Metro is not. And the muni metro does not comply with the criteria for inclusion of this article. This is not only my point of view. It is also the view of quoted sources, and is consistent with how the UITP and APTA define metro and heavy rail. If you want the Muni Metro included here, please provide a source or external references that support that point of view. --Kildor (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Have it your way, I don't care anymore. I have life, you obviously don't.207.38.163.124 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Staten Island Railway

The Staten Island Railway has been added to the list again. I do not think it should be listed here, since it fails to meet the critera on train frequency (every 30 minutes daytime off-peak). It has a service pattern more similar to commuter rail, and has also developed from being a classic railway shared with freight trains (but it is currently completely separated from other traffic).

UrbanRail.net and World Metro List does not include it (mentioned as "other rail transit"), and nycsubway.org define it as commuter rail ([13]). It is however classified as heavy rail by American authorities.

I guess this one is in the "gray area" too. And currently, the list gives the impression that the SIR is the oldest rapid transit system in the world, which is in my opinion not true. So I suggest that its entry is replaced with a footnote to the New York City Subway entry. SIR is also listed in the List of commuter rail systems. --Kildor (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Where does this 30-minute figure come from? --NE2 09:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The timetable [14] --Kildor (talk) 09:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm talking about the standard you're using for "rapid transit". --NE2 09:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
UrbanRail.net has been an important source for this list. And they specify "maximum interval approx. 10 minutes during normal daytime service" [15]. The World Metro List uses the same definition [16]. UITP does not specify, only says "high frequency of service" [17]. --Kildor (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any reliable sources there that give a minimum frequency. --NE2 10:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, that is probably true. But Robert Schwandl, author of UrbanRail.net has written many books on the subject, and I would really not say that it is an unreliable source. However, it is of course not a reliable third-party source as recommended by WP:RS. On the other hand, you can include any system (may it be bus, light rail or commuter rail) to this list with the very same argument, that there is no reliable source defining it not to be included. The question remains, should Staten Island Railway be included or not? And why? --Kildor (talk) 10:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, no; we can find a definition in a reliable source and apply it.
I think the arguments for not including the SIRy are: it's too infrequent, it's too rural, and it used to be at-grade. Otherwise it's a normal rapid transit line. The latter is the case for a number of systems, and shouldn't be a reason to exclude it. The other arguments, if we are to accept them, need a reliably-sourced cutoff. Are there many systems that are physically rapid transit but don't run frequently, or is this pretty much the sole exception? --NE2 10:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I think so. But there are most certainly some exceptions to minor parts of some systems, as to one of the branches of London Underground, which I think have 30 minutes service intervals. --Kildor (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I know 30 minutes is twice 15 minutes, but Miami's Metrorail runs every 15 minutes off-peak (and every half hour on weekends)[18], which is still more than 10 minutes. --NE2 10:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
True. But that is approximately 10 minutes :) --Kildor (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with the frequency argument for excluding the SIR. It's not rural by any stretch, and what it used to be isn't relevant -- it meets the grade separation criterion for rapid transit now. However, I think that if it isn't deemed to meet the criteria for this list, it should simply be removed. The only reason for including it in a footnote to the New York Subway entry would be to prevent someone (like me!) from adding it without thinking in the future. :) --Tkynerd (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I notice that NE2 decided to re-add the SIR with the following explanation: "Restore SIRy; unless you can find a sourced definition that excludes it, it belongs here". What kind of source is required? And why don't you provide a reliable source supporting the inclusion? --Kildor (talk) 08:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in a position to comment on whether the Staten Island Railway belongs here, but Wikipedia:Burden of evidence says that The onus is on the editor(s) seeking to include disputed content, to achieve consensus for its inclusion. - not vice versa. Hope this helps. --DAJF (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
And given that principle, and the list's own definitions and terms of reference, I have reverted NE2's re-addition of SIR. --Tkynerd (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Is [19] good enough? --NE2 02:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say no, because the definition on that page differs from the one in our article. I'd have to say, though, that your point about Miami Metrorail is well taken. If 10-minute headways off-peak are our cutoff point, then SIR isn't the only system that needs to be excluded. Further discussion is needed. --Tkynerd (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Is the one in our article backed up by any reliable sources? --NE2 15:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Particularly in an area as fraught with pitfalls as this one, I'm not sure list criteria on Wikipedia have to be. If you're creating a list, you can pretty much define the criteria for that list however you want. We do, however, need to reach consensus on the criteria and then apply them consistently. --Tkynerd (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, if we're calling this a list of rapid transit systems, we should go by what reliable sources have defined rapid transit systems to be. --NE2 16:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
(1) Reliable sources conflict, which is why I referred to this area as "fraught with pitfalls"; (2) I maintain that if we make a list on here, as long as we clearly define the criteria (with consensus reached on them) and outline them in the introduction to the list, they can be whatever we want them to be. I'd also point out, again, that SIR is at List of suburban and commuter rail systems; since that category and rapid transit are generally considered mutually exclusive, SIR should not be on both lists. How do we decide where it goes?
Additionally, I just looked at the timetable for the first time, and a healthy majority of the stations don't even have service every ten minutes or better in the rush hour. Sorry, that just ain't rapid transit. --Tkynerd (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Here, since it meets every standard of rapid transit except for a supposed minimum non-peak frequency. If you want to establish a minimum frequency, you'll have to clearly define it and back it up with a reliable source. Be prepared to remove a lot of lines though; the New York City Subway's Rockaway Park Branch, for example, has rush hour service about every ten minutes (S plus a few A trips). --NE2 18:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes - every 10 minutes is fine. In contrast to the 30 minutes intervals between trains on some stations on SIR in rush hour. The question is, is service frequency a relevant criteria for this list? I think it is important, and others seem to agree. If we go strict on a 10 minutes limit, we would probably need to remove some systems, or parts of systems, from the list. The same will happen if we are strict with the separation criteria (London Underground metropolitan line). A few and minor exceptions should perhaps be allowed. But the service frequency of SIR is far from what you can expect from a rapid transit system. I believe that SIR is better classified as suburban/commuter rail line. --Kildor (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
We don't go by what we think; we go by what reliable sources say. --NE2 21:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
And what do those say? --Kildor (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe the American Public Transportation Association is a reliable source: [20] --NE2 16:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
And the Bureau of Transportation Statistics: [21] --NE2 16:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Uh, yeah. Get back to us when the title of this list is changed to "List of heavy rail transit systems." Neither of those sources refers to "rapid transit." --Tkynerd (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The APTA list actually does refer to rapid transit, and the BTS glossary skirts around it, but where's your source for rapid transit, specifically listing all the systems we have but not the SIRy? --NE2 16:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The APTA list uses the term "rapid rail" as an alternative term for "heavy rail"; that's as close as it gets, and my guess is that this would be intended as a reference to the Cleveland system rather than as a generic term. The BTS glossary never gets closer than this:
Commuter rail: Urban passenger train service for short-distance travel between a central city and adjacent suburb. Does not include rapid rail transit or light rail transit service.
Thus it does not support your point. Kildor has already given you several sources that support a frequency-of-service criterion for rapid transit; you just don't seem to want to accept them. In any case, the differences illustrate my point that reliable sources differ significantly on this issue, so there is no point in appealing to them to give us the criteria we need for this list. We need to stop wasting time arguing about sources and try to reach consensus on criteria. --Tkynerd (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Kildor gave several personal sites - neither of which uses "rapid transit" either! - that use a minimum frequency of service. Neither is a reliable source. --NE2 17:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

About sources

  • "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (Wikipedia:Reliable sources).
  • "In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, list definitions should to be based on reliable sources." (Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)).

Now, are there any reliable sources with a global perspective containing a clear definition on what to include in this list? We obviously don't have any scientific reports or similar documents that will help us out here. We have some websites of certain associations and organizations, and a few personal websites (MetroBits, UrbanRail.net). When it comes to definition, I would consider the one of UITP (International Association of Public Transport) to be the most suitable ([22]). APTA is obviously US biased. UITP says that a metro is an urban, electric transport system with high capacity and a high frequency of service. Frequency is obviously a criteria, but unfortunately, a specification of that criteria is not to be found. So we would better discuss (build a consensus) what we think is a reasonable level of frequency for inclusion in this list. --Kildor (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

We can't build a consensus on a reasonable level of frequency; we have to find one in a reliable source. --NE2 21:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, go find one then! --Kildor (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
You want to impose one, not I. --NE2 21:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The definition is there. But we need to make an interpretation. What is urban, what is high frequency? When there is no "reliable" source that help us out, we could either discuss it, or we can get some help from other sources (i.e. UrbanRail.net). You don't act very constructive here. What kind of inclusion criteria would you like for this list? --Kildor (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Electric and fully grade-separated looks like a good start, and is certainly in every definition I've seen. To exclude intercity systems, it should be within a single metro area. Would that include anything problematic? --NE2 22:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess not. But everything comes down to a discussion or interpretation of terms. What exactly is the metropolitan/urban area of a city? If a small part of a transit system shares tracks with commuter rail, is the whole system disquilified? Hypothetically, should a fully grade separated urban transit line with one train every two hours be included? It will always end up in a discussion, and it is needed here. Is a 30 minutes headway ok for inclusion? Is it high frequency? --Kildor (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
We can probably find well-defined urban area definitions if there are any disputes. If there's one train every two hours (assuming you're talking about rush hour, although the SIRy's rush hour frequency is better than once every 10 minutes), then, assuming the absurd line doesn't qualify as another type, yes, it should be here. I say absurd because I don't see why such a thing would exist, unless it's linked to an intercity train station or something. But that's basically a strawman; I just realized that the only reason the SIRy has such a low frequency is that the Staten Island Ferry only runs every 15-30 minutes, and the majority of passengers are transferring, so it makes more sense for the SIRy to run fewer longer trains than more shorter trains. --NE2 22:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The SIR's rush-hour frequency is ten minutes or better only at a few stations. The majority of the stations don't have service every ten minutes in the rush. Check the timetable. But that's a side issue from the discussion in this section. --Tkynerd (talk) 02:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
And the ferry runs every 15 minutes, so it's not like more frequent trains would help most commuters. --NE2 04:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Which is yet another good reason not to regard SIR as rapid transit. If its service is that strongly tied to the vagaries of another form of transport, that doesn't feel like rapid transit to me at all. --Tkynerd (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
By the way, the UITP doesn't use "rapid transit" either. --NE2 21:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Right. That is why this list and the article rapid transit should be renamed. But that is another discussion. --Kildor (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, assuming you can ignore a source because it doesn't have a "global perspective" (which I dispute), "UITP has a history of working closely with the two principal public transport associations in North America, the American Public Transport Association (APTA) and the Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA)." So the UITP is telling us to use the APTA. --NE2 21:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
What do you think is the most relevant for this list? An definition by an American association, or an definition by an international organization? I do not ignore APTA, but in this case I think the international organization is the preferred one. --Kildor (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Both. --NE2 22:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
So if Spanish authorities think that light rail systems are classified as metro, should Spanish light rail lines be included in this list? I believe that the sources with a global perspective are far more relevant here. --Kildor (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The difference is that there the authority would be grouping two types together. --NE2 22:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Number of stations

I have corrected the number of stations for some of the systems. It is obvious that different principles are in use regarding how the stations are counted. Some pages count transfer stations for every line/platform, and other counts transfer stations only once. In order to have a comparable value, the same principle should be used for all systems. I would say it is more relevant, and less difficult, to count tranfer stations as one station. London has 269 stations, with transfer stations counted once. New York officially has 468 stations, but transfer stations are counted multiple times (once for every line). If counting transfer stations only once, New York has 422 stations. This is also the number that currently appear in the list. A look at the World Metro List show the difference in station counts. --Kildor (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That logic is wrong! First of all, in places like Kiev all transfer stations are individual, there are no shared platforms for any line, and there are no branches/shared tracks (unlike London and New York) Moreover in Kiev all transfer stations are named separately. All official statistics use the 46 number to count the stations, and 43 is something invented. Neither UrbanRail nor any other Mass-transit site would use 43 as the default listing for Kiev. Hence I am returning the official statistics. If you disagree may I suggest you create a separate column for total number of transfer points etc. --Kuban Cossack 16:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at the MetroBits World Metro list! This is not a specific concern for Kiev metro. It is about what principle to use for the list, in order to have a comparable value. And the current situation does not give a neutral view on the size of the systems. The number of stations for London should be a lot more if using the same principle as for Kiev and many other systems. There are many stations in London that have multiple lines and no shared tracks, but still only counts as one. Stockholm is another example, which clearly has 104 stations (instead of the curren 100) if counting transfer stations multiple times. Berlin, Paris and many others also only count transfer stations once. --Kildor (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Add another column. --Kuban Cossack 18:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
There are two problems with that. Having two columns for the number of stations do not necessarily improve the article. I believe most readers show little interest in two different kinds of definition of the number of stations. And extra columns reduce the readability of this article. The second problem is how to define the other value of number of stations. It is easy for Kiev; simply add the number of stations for each line. But for a system like London Underground it is more difficult. Shared tracks and platforms make it difficult to know how to count a transfer station (how many time should Baker Street station be counted?). Therefore, it is much easier to count transfer stations only once. Applying this principle will of course affect the number of stations for some systems. Moscow Metro as example is currently listed with 176 stations, but if transfer stations are counted as one, the number will be 140 instead. Berlin U-Bahn is on the other hand currently listed with 170 stations. But if counted the same way as Moscow Metro, the number will be 196. This is a discrepancy that should be resolved. --Kildor (talk) 08:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
If the count is 422, why is the current number 286? Where does this number come from? Alexisr (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea. I have restored the value to 422. --Kildor (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Brazil rail systems

Three rail systems have been added to this list: SuperVia, CPTM and Teresina Metro. I cannot find any indications on these being metro/rapid transit systems. There are very few details about these systems in the articles, and they are not listed by LRTA, UrbanRail or MetroBits. Perhaps these are suburban/commuter rail systems? --Kildor (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Teresina Metro is considered a Metro in the Portuguese wikipedia. CPTM is a metropolitan train, not a metro system. Many lines have metro quality today, and for me, it's just a metro system with a 10 minutes headway. I am not sure, but SuperVia seams to be a metropolitan train.
All main sections of CPTM's lines operates with less than 10 headways during rush hour(5 minutes in lines 9 and 11, 7 in lines 7 and 8, and 8 minutes in lines 10 and 12). Teresina is consired metro by Wikipedia, but it uses one diesel train (yes, there is only one train in the whole system), for example. SuperVia is doing the same thing as CPTM: both are converting their commuter rail systems to metro systems. SuperVia was created in 1998, and CPTM, in 1992. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.95.58.117 (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
That's all propaganda. CPTM and SuperVia are far from being considered a Metro by anyone. It's true that part of the rail system is being converted, but it's not the whole system and there isn't even one line which is done. Right now, both systems belong to List_of_suburban_and_commuter_rail_systems. Evenfiel (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)



Rodrjgw (talk) 13:34, 08 September (UTC)


CPTM has the same operation as the "Metrô São Paulo" lines: 7, 8 and 9. SuperVia has the same operation as "Metrô Rio" in "Ramal Deodoro". The other lines of those systems have the same operation as Paris RER. Both are rapid transit systems. So either withdraws from the Paris RER , or the SuperVia and CPTM must be included to the same list.

SuperVia Headway

UrbanRails said about CPTM:
Line 9: "fully converted to metro standard in April 2001; previously referred to as line C. The 3-car-trains built by CAF (Spain) run on 1600 mm tracks (formerly metre gauge) with catenary at 3000 V. Since December 2001 the definitive 10 Siemens 4-car trains have been running there, although still blended with CAFs and the 1979 Cobrasma-Francorails."
Line 11: "27 May 2000 - former Line E operating from Brás to Guaianases, with three new stations in eastern S.P.: Dom Bosco, José Bonifácio and Guaianazes. 8 stations along the former suburban line were closed to create an express metro line running parallel to line 3 (red). From 10 Nov 2003, trains have been running through to Luz."
Urbanrail

Merseyrail, UK

People seem to be forgetting the Merseyrail system in Liverpool, United Kingdom. Why is this not included? This is the 2nd biggest in the UK. 06 June 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.157.206 (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Merseyrail is part of the national railway network, not a separate metro; there's even a proposal to run Merseyrail trains all the way to Wrexham. Its equivalents in the capital are be London Overground and other ex-British Rail local services, not London Underground. David Arthur (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Only the City Line is part of the national network. The remainder of lines ARE metro lines, serving the Merseyside metropolitan area. Refer to the present revision of the Merseyrail article. Remember the London Undrground goes as far as Aylesbury and Uxbridge, well outside the London metropolitan area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.70.217.172 (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
'Metro' means more than a railway serving a metropolitan railway; it refers to a specific design and operating model, which Merseyrail resembles in a few respects, but does not match. Merseyrail was part of British Rail; it is fully integrated with National Rail and Network Rail. It uses main-line stock, and runs according to a schedule published in the National Rail Timetable. While it is true that Merseyrail is the exclusive user of some lines, that applies to many train operating companies. Merseyrail could be turned into a metro more easily than many railways in the United Kingdom, but it's debatable whether it would be at all helpful to do so. David Arthur (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Merseyrail clearly is a metro system, and an old one too. The definition of a metro is not what rail stock is used or who owns it. In fact the definition is quite vague as this wiki states: A metro system is defined as an urban, electric passenger transportation system with high capacity and high frequency of service, which is totally independent from other traffic, road or pedestrians. Merseyrail conforms to that. The dividing line between metro and other modes of public transport, such as light rail and commuter rail, is not always clear. A common way to distinguish metro from light rail is by their separation from other traffic. Merseyrail conforms to that. It runs underground in Liverpool and Birkenhead centres. There again I do not agree with the above, as the means of propulsion is irrelevant. In my view it has to be an urban system centred on a town or city, with a separate identity and ticketing system separated from other traffic.

Merseyrail is certainly not a metro system. There simply isn't a reference for it. If there is then I will agree but let's be honest Merseyrail isn't a metro. I was on a Merseyrail train the other day in Leeds. Nobody knows why --Tubs uk (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That would be one of the carriages owned by Northern Rail, who operate the City Line for Merseyrail using their livery and ticketing system. In short, the line is sub-contracted out. They probably had some carriages out of use in Yorkshire and pinched a Merseyrail carriage or two. The long term view is to have the City Line run by Merseyrail which is run by Serco/Nedrail. This was the plan in the 1970s, which was back-burnered at the 11th hour. Merseyrail is a metro system. It is the largest outside of London in the UK, and carries more passenger than any other. And is an expanding one as well.

79.66.48.37 (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The Glasgow Suburdan Rail network is considerable larger that Merseyrail and as such is the next largest outside London. It also has services running at frequencies higher than MerseyRail. The ticketing system is integrated into the UK National Rail System with tickets issued through ATOC. In all probabilty the livery will change when the franchise changes. MerseyRail is part of the UK Rail network not a Metro System. --Stewart (talk | edits) 07:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Total rapid transit systems statistics by country

A list of total rapid transit systems statistics by country has been added to the article. Although it is a nice idea, I think it will be very difficult to keep such list up to date. This article is not stable yet. Many figures are still unsourced, and many systems are being extended. Any change will require an update to this table, and it will be difficult to verify the sum for each country. --Kildor (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, It was me who added this list. As each country has no more than a dozen of systems, I find it pretty easy to calculate two sums to check and update the total statistics anytime you want. The total statistics list is just as dynamic as a main list. --Greyhood —Preceding comment was added at 11:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Poland systems

Four systems of Poland have recently been added to this list. I am not sure, but I think none of them meet the criteria of being metro / rapid transit:

  • Poznański Szybki Tramwaj. Seems to be a part of an ordinary tram network. This part on its own is perhaps technically a metro, but so are many of the German Stadtbahn systems also. The whole system must be grade-separated.
  • Szybka Kolej Miejska (Tricity). Seems to be a typical S-Bahn / Commuter rail line, serving three cities and shares tracks with long-distance trains on parts of the route.
  • Warszawska Kolej Dojazdowa. I have seen pictures of the line with level crossings. Perhaps commuter rail or light rail.
  • Szybka Kolej Miejska (Warsaw). There is little information about this system. But according to its article, it uses tracks belonging to Polish State Railways. Does not seem to be a metro system.

None of these are listed as metro at UrbanRail.net. --Kildor (talk) 09:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If grade separation is an absolute requirement, the Chicago 'L' must come off as well. Which, I'm sorry, would be completely ridiculous as the system is certainly neither commuter rail nor light rail -- it clearly belongs here. Conclusion: grade separation is not an absolute requirement; other factors must be taken into account as well. --Tkynerd (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
There isn't enough information in either the English or German article about the final Warsaw system for me to be sure either way, but I agree that the first three are fairly clearly not metros. Tkynerd: 100% grade-separation isn't always needed (Tyne & Wear is another good example), but some of these systems combine a lack of grade separation with 30-minute frequencies, or operation along on-street tram tracks, neither of which fits the spirit of the metro service model. David Arthur (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi David, and thanks for the clarification. I was responding to what Kildor said: The whole system must be grade-separated (emphasis mine). There are a fair number of rapid transit systems around the world, I think, that fail that criterion. Kildor didn't advance any other arguments against considering two of the Polish systems rapid transit. --Tkynerd (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, all this was written in a hurry. According to the definitions used in this article, a metro system is to be totally independent from other traffic. But I believe rare exceptions must be allowed. A single level crossing does not make a metro system something else. But my point above was that if only a part of the system is grade-separated, and the rest of the network is in-street or with level crossings, the system is usually not considered a metro. Most light rail systems have parts that are completely independent from other traffic, but neither the grade-separated parts nor the whole system is considered metro because of this. The Poznan system, is in my opinion, a light rail system. --Kildor (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the article on the Poznan system specifically states that the 'tram line was created as an alternative to a more expensive metro'. Many tramways — including Toronto's, and the former London network — have lengthy underground passages, including even underground stations, but if they emerge onto the street, they're still tramways. It doesn't appear likely that any of the systems at issue are metros. David Arthur (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Nope. So I have removed these from the list. --Kildor (talk) 19:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Rapid transit in Dallas Fort Worth area

Dallas has a rapid transit system that operates in all areas of Dallas, links to Fort Worth and to DFW International Airport. It is called DART (Dallas Area Rapid Transit), it also shares trackage with the Fort Worth Transit Authority's TRE (Trinity Railway Express) train system. J. Crowson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.68.206.128 (talk) 01:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The Dallas Area Rapid Transit article clearly states it is a light rail system. The fact that it has "rapid transit" in it's name makes no difference. --Kildor (talk) 08:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Stuttgart S-Bahn

Hello, Why was my addition of the Stuttgart S-Bahn removed? I lived in Stuttgart and it presents all caracteristics of a metro system, including complete independence from other transportation means and small headway. I live presently in São Paulo, which has a metro system and I cannot find any differences which would lead one to be considered a metro and the other not. Stuttgart also has an U-Bahn system, which could be considered a metro in it's underground part, but in the surface part it just goes in the same place as the cars, but with tracks. --Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho (talk) 02:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The article Stuttgart S-Bahn says that "The Stuttgart S-Bahn is a suburban railway system (S-Bahn) serving the Stuttgart Region, ...". It seems that the system serves a larger region rather than a city. It seems like it is characterized as a suburban railway system (according to the article), and daytime headway seems to be 30 minutes on outer parts of the network. Neither UrbanRail nor World Metro List (or any other source?) consider it to be a metro system. But it appears to be a very good commuter rail system. Stuttgart Stadtbahn is clearly a light rail system. --Kildor (talk) 08:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Table & Sorting

Please consider merging the country list with the other entries, as the country relationship is lost the moment the list is sorted. (Sort the tables below to see the problem) G.A.Stalk 17:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Currently:

Location Name Opened Stations Length (km) Length (mi)
Country
City Name Opened Stations km mi
Country
City Name Opened Stations km mi

Proposed:

Country Location Name Opened Stations Length (km) Length (mi)
Country City Name Opened Stations km mi
Country City Name Opened Stations km mi
Background: This list was previously divided by continent, and then organized by country, pretty much in the same way as the current list, but non-sortable. And there were separate lists/articles that were sorted by length and number of stations (List of urban rail systems by length, Metro systems by number of stations). This solution was far from good, since there were parallell discussions on the criteria of inclusion, and the data on network length and number of stations differed. Therefore I decided to merge these lists and made this list sortable, thus making the two other articles redundant.
I considered using the layout suggested by G.A.S above, but I personally thought it made the list less readable. Adding another column makes the list wider and more difficult to read; also making some rows to wrap. This list is pretty long, and it is easier for the eye to follow and read the list if there are some "dividers" (as the country rows). Finding a particular system in a given country is also easier with the current layout.
The disadvantage with the current layout is that the list looks "funny" when sorting it, making rows with country names to appear at the bottom. And of course, the country relationship is lost when sorting (which is, in my opinion, less of a problem, since you then have chose to lookup the systems by another key than the country information). The current solution is a compromise between layout/readability and making the list sortable. Perhaps not the best solution; input from other readers are more than welcome! --Kildor (talk) 10:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


Disagreement with NY Subway page

The page on the New York Subway lists the length of the system as about 1000 km, but this page lists about 350 km. Can anyone explain this discrepancy? C.anguschandler (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This is just a guess, but this kind of discrepancy is fairly common because you can look at a system either in terms of route length or in terms of track length. I have seen figures stating that the track length of the New York subway is around 750 miles, which is well over 1000 km; but I've seen the route length given as somewhere around 225 miles, which would be close to 350 km. (All these figures are from memory, BTW.) Since so much of the subway is four-track and other stretches are three-track, it's not surprising that the track length would be somewhere around three times the route length. --Tkynerd (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
The article on New York City Subway has three different numbers for network length. Look at the infobox! In this article, system route length is used. --Kildor (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
That being the case, I have changed the table headings to indicate that route length is what we're using. --Tkynerd (talk) 04:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
That was otherwise clear from the legend. But it does not hurt to make it clearer :) --Kildor (talk) 10:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I've had this article on my watchlist for quite a while and didn't even know there was a legend, which I think makes it obvious that the legend was not sufficient to make this clear. :) I've also now changed the legend to match the table headings. It might be a good idea to move the legend to the top of the page where it really belongs (IMO), and then these changes I've made could be undone, as anybody viewing the list would be sure to see the legend. --Tkynerd (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Good point. Done! --Kildor (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

New Discussion

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 13:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Berlin S-Bahn 2

The Berlin S-Bahn is a separated, independent rapid transit systems which serves almost entirely and exclusively the Berlin city in its city limits. It fulfils all criteria listed here and must be therefore included here. The commuter service in the Berlin-Brandenburg metro area is the RegionalExpress and is named RE or RB. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It has been dicussed many times before, see above. There is no point adding Berlin S-bahn without considering Paris RER, Copenhagen S-tog and Staten Island Railway for instance. These are similar and should be considered as well. But I think they all should be omitted. There are outer parts with low frequency of service, and the network connects with other cities (Postdam, and others). --Kildor (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
To make that more explicit, IMO a system with lines that have 20-minute service on weekdays between the peaks does NOT qualify for this list at all. --Tkynerd (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering the articles name (List of rapid transit systems) and its criteria there is no justification to exclude the Berlin S-Bahn. External sources explicitely mention the S-Bahn as a fully independent urban rapid transit system. [23] all the best Lear 21 (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Our criteria are not necessarily the same as those used at urbanrail.net. The S-Bahn does not meet the criteria for this list. That's been explained ad nauseam before. --Tkynerd (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I´m afraid that has not been explained. Scanning the discussion it becomes clear that the inclusion of the Berlin S-Bahn has been demanded several times. The argumentation for the inclusion has been profound, logic and was always based on the criteria listed here. There is no way to exclude the Berlin S-Bahn from this article. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The S-Bahn seems to be operated by Deutsche Bahn – is it linked to their main-line railway network? Can S-Bahn trains be diverted onto the regular lines, or vice versa? David Arthur (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Lear21, you are ignoring clear arguments against including the S-Bahn. I see no need to repeat them just because you seem to want to deny that they exist. There is a way to exclude the Berlin S-Bahn from this article: by following the criteria set forth at the beginning of the article. It's that simple. --Tkynerd (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

@DavidArthur: The Berlin S-Bahn system/net runs exclusively S-Bahn-wagons and trains. It does not serve regional (RE/RB trains) or national (Intercity/ICE services). The system was built right from the beginning in 1924 as an independent city rapid transit system.

@Tkynerd: Give me one day of research and I find you reasons why to exclude the London subway, the Paris metro (it serves major regions outside the city authority) or every other systems. The major arguments for the inclusion of the Berlin S-Bahn system are the amount of pro arguments. I re-read the intro and the Considerations of this article 2 times now. It becomes very clear that the deletions of the entry are a proof a massive lack of expertise, to put it mildly. From now on the Berlin S-Bahn is a fixed and justified entry in this list. I recommend that all users get used it and become acquainted with the fact that previous exclusions of this entry were a mistake. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I recommend that you stop assuming you don't need to reach consensus on this talk page before dictating to the rest of us what we have to "get used [to]." If you continue to make controversial edits to the article that don't have consensus, I'll take further action.
And speaking of "lack of expertise," you have completely misunderstood DavidArthur's inquiry. --Tkynerd (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
@Lear 21: Berlin S-Bahn is a tricky case, along with Paris RER, Copenhagen S-tog and NYC/SIR. But it does not help your point of view if you try to force its inclusion by edit warring and by saying it "must" be included. As Tkynerd says, you will need to reach consensus for its inclusion. --Kildor (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The arguments for the inclusion of the Berlin S-Bahn system can not be related to any other inclusion which must be dealt separately. The arguments are:

a) Full accordance with the introduction criteria and the name of this article being a rapid mass transit system.

b) Full accordance with all 3 paragraphs in the section Consideration´s criteria. The Berlin S-Bahn is a separated City RTS since its inauguration 1924 and its re-establishment 10 years ago. More than 90% of it´s tracks are built up within the city limits. It is not the commuter service of the metro region which is the RE/RB (regional train). It forms one unified tarif system with the other RTS of Berlin the U-Bahn.

c)The S-Bahn system is recognized as a City RTS by external sources, [24]. This source explicetly mentions the S-Bahn while for instance not mentions RER.

d) The inclusion of the S-Bahn system has been demanded from various editor at this talk page and was already part of earlier tables/lists.

e) To quote the most established longterm editor at this page: "For that matter, I believe Berlin and Hamburg S-Bahns and Paris RER should be kept " - User:Kildor - 6 November 2007

I think this argumentation is sufficiently convincing. Because of the ongoing calls from many editors, I consider the version that includes the Berlin S-Bahn as a consensus version. I have full trust that from now on the established editors agree with the inclusion and maintain its existence. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I can not see that there is a consensus for including Berlin S-Bahn. This talk page is full of demands from users that want the transit system of their home cities to be included. But a consensus is built from discussion; not from edit wars or by vote counting. But I will give my view on your points:
a) Well, urban and high frequency can be discussed. Is the line to Strausberg Nord urban? Does it have high frequency?
b) Not really "full accordance". What about "...rapid transit systems are primarily used for transport within a city, and have higher service frequency, typically not more than 10 minutes between trains during normal daytime service.? Wouldn't you say that Potsdam and Oranienburg are cities/towns separated from Berlin?
c) Yes, it is recognized by one external source. But I also note that it is not listed in the World Metro Database (metrobits). And in a report from ERRAC (written by the UITP, see link above), Germany is listed with four metro systems. These are not named, but it is clear that the Berlin S-Bahn is not one of them, regarding to number of lines and track kilometers.
d) When I started to work with this list, there were lots of light rail and commuter rail systems on this list. It comes natural that users wants to add their favorite system to this list, but inclusion should be based on arguments and discussion. And as you can see, I am not the only one to think that Berlin S-bahn should be excluded.
e) Did I really write that? ;) Well, since you have read the whole talk page, you have also noticed that I changed my mind later.
Berlin S-Bahn is a very good transit system, and it is indeed separated from other traffic, and with high frequency of service in central parts (and many outer parts as well). But some lines/branches are really not metro-like regarding to location and service frequency. And the separation is, well, rather "technical". Take a look at a railway map ([25]), and you will see that the Berlin S-Bahn network (in pink) runs parallell to mainline railways (or freight railways) for almost its entire length. That is not very "metro-like".
With all that said, I believe that Berlin S-Bahn is "almost" a metro system, worth mentioning (as a footnote) but not to be included in the list. --Kildor (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
a) If the service frequency to Strausberg Nord is a criteria for exclusion, why isn't the service Epping-Ongar (when it still existed)?
b) Likewhise, I can't begin to name all the separate towns outside of Greater London proper that are served by London Underground.
d) The criteria as such are a separate discussion. Lear's criticism (whith which many agree) is their inconsistent application on this page, as I've demonstrated in points a) and b), and many other contributors on this page have done before. It's not a matter of "mention my city". I would argue for inclusion for a number of German S-Bahn systems (not all though, because some clearly do not fit the criteria).
Anorak2 (talk) 09:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
It is not only the Strausberg Nord service, but also the other 38 stations on Berlin S-Bahn with 20 minutes or more between trains. London Underground also have parts that are more like suburban railway than metro, but to a lesser extent compared with Berlin S-Bahn. --Kildor (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

@Kildor: You are confusing metro (kind of underground system) with rapid transit system. That is most probably the reason why it is not cited by external "metro" lists. Honestly, I´m very surprised that you as the most frequently involved editor make this basic mistake. Because of this I´m inclined to edit on this regularly to ensure its inclusion. The Berlin S-Bahn is a fully independent, separated city RTS and nothing else. This is recognized by external sources, which seem to be quite professional, unlike your argumentation. Please stop excluding the very obvious, it is in line with the criteria cited here. Lear 21 (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think you should at least respond to my arguments above before adding the S-Bahn again and disregarding my argumentation as "unprofessional"? And no, I am not confusing rapid transit with an undergrond system. The defintion quoted in this article is in fact a definition of metro which also includes over-ground transit systems. If you read my posts again, you will see that I am not objecting to the inclusion of Berlin S-Bahn based on the fact that it is mainly overground. --Kildor (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

@Kildor:Actually, a definition which is only focusing on metro/underground systems seems not to be appropriate either. Considering your a) and b) for instance: High frequency should be some sort of criteria, correct, but in what sense? The S-Bahn serves 24h on weekends which I assume (not knowing!) is very rare for even metro systems. That is high frequency, maybe not dense, but high.

It is true that few suburban cities are served by S-Bahn but they are few, very few. Again, as I know the urban and metro region of Berlin-Brandenburg very well, I estimate that 90% of the rail services are inside the city limits and maybe 95% covering still urban area. The high degree of urban activity is the decisive measure here. You, as an expert, know pretty well that distinctive commuter rail services cover much more area and distances.

Your c) has been addressed, now to d): It is much appreciated that editors like you care for an article like this over a long time. It is not easy to distinguish all the specific systems. In the case of the Berln S-Bahn it is a clear cut case. I certainly won´t argue for the Rhein-Main S-Bahn (Frankfurt) or even Munich S-Bahn which have high proportions of commuter services outside the city limits. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Lear 21: ‘Metro’ and ‘rapid transit’ are synonyms (and this article has in the past been named List of metro systems). The latter is American and more jargon-ish, but there are is no separation in meaning. Neither requires that it be underground. (Nor, for that matter, do ‘underground’, ‘subway’, and their equivalents in other languages. Almost all such systems involve above-ground running, sometimes extensively so, despite their names. London Underground’s tracks are 51% above ground.) Also, frequency is a separate issue from operating hours: it’s how long the interval is between trains. A typical metro has a train every five minutes, or better. If they’re far enough apart that there needs to be a timetable, you’re getting very close to the edge of the category.
The reason why I asked whether diversions between the S-Bahn and the main-line railways are possible is that this is a very easy test for whether the two really are separate. Lines which are integrated with the national railway network do not become separate systems just because local and long-distance trains normally stick to separate tracks (if this wasn’t the case, then every four-track railway in the world would suddenly become a metro system). This is why the new tunnel through the centre of Stockholm won’t turn the Pendeltåg into a metro system. Remember, it isn’t a question of whether a system is ‘good enough’ – it’s classification based on a number of factors, and there are many cases where a system is better for not being a metro. David Arthur (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

@David Arthur: Yes, regional rail tracks of regional commuter services (RE/RB) in some cases run parallel to S-Bahn tracks. Yes, even national rail tracks (ICE) run parallel to S-Bahn tracks in few cases. Can these systems be diverted on each others tracks? Probably yes, in reality (the last 10 years, since rebuilding) it never happens. The S-Bahn has separated platforms on every station. Unlike the London underground at the outskirts of the city were underground and commuter service meet at a single platform.

You say the classification should be based on a number of factors? Agreed. Furthermore, the degree of the several criterias should be considered. S-Bahn fulfills the most significant ones.

One very simple question clarifies it even more. "What else than a full City RTS should the S-Bahn be classified if not a RTS ???" Considering the existence of specific commuter rail services (Regionalbahn) and national rail (ICE).

Here is the Britannica entry on Berlin S-Bahn calling it a RTS [26]. Urbantransport-technology claims "Berlin S-Bahn could be considered a metro in its own right " [27]. Bombardier (largest producer of rail technology) calls the S-Bahn a "backbone of public transportation" [28] Lear 21 (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Berlin's S-Bahn network
The text on Urbantransport-technology is clearly a copy from the UrbanRail.net page on Berlin. Being a "backbone of public transportation" really does not matter here. Lots of commuter rail and suburban rail systems form the backbone of public tranportation in their cities. But it does not make them rapid transit / metro. I would say that the S-Bahn is a suburban railway system, or perhaps a hybrid (see the articles on Rapid transit and Commuter rail). It may be considered rapid transit, but it is definitely not a "clear case". BTW, take a look at the Bombardier site again. Just below the menu tabs, you will see how Bombardier classify their vehicles: Transportation>Products Services>Rail Vehicles>Commuter and Regional Trains>Single Deck Electric Multiple Units>S-Bahn Berlin Class 481. --Kildor (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

@Kildor: That leaves the Britannica as a credible source, right? A list of rapid transit systems without the Berlin S-Bahn is incomplete and almost biased or in the language of Wikipedia a POV. Lear 21 (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Britannica may be a credible source (or not; I don't know), but it does not control what we write on Wikipedia. The criteria for this list are set forth in the Considerations section at the beginning of the article, and the Berlin S-Bahn does not meet them. If you continue to edit this article against consensus, further action will be taken. Your edit has been reverted; this should be the last time that's necessary. --Tkynerd (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Why was the S-Bahn removed? It was part of the list for a long time. I have also argued for it in the past. Especially the Berlin net seems a natural candidate. I have put the S-Bahn back, without the image, which could cause others to argue for contentious networks as well. I provided the map here to proof that the net is urban. All the lines stop almost right after the city borders. KJohansson (talk) 12:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The main issue, to my mind, is not whether the Berlin S-Bahn is urban, but whether it has sufficiently high frequency of service to be considered a rapid transit system (answer: no). I have undone your edit. --Tkynerd (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The daytime frequency of service is 10 minutes or better for the majority of stations, but outer parts of the network have 20-40 minutes between trains, which cannot be considered "high frequency". In my opinion, this fact does not alone disqualify the S-Bahn from this list. But in combination with its far-reaching branches and that it is running parallell to other rail services for most of its length, makes it more like a suburban railway network (a very good one!). Administrative and political boundaries have nothing to do with the system being urban or not.

The Britannica says it is a rapid transit system. But their definition of rapid transit is not the same as the one used in this article. UrbanRail.net includes the S-Bahn as rapid transit, which is a good argument for also including it here. But UITP and Bombardier consider it to be suburban/commuter rail, and the S-Bahn is not included in the World Metro List; these are good arguments for excluding the S-Bahn here. Perhaps the differences come from the use of different terms. The term metro is possibly less inclusive than the term rapid transit? (it is difficult to find a detailed definition of rapid transit). --Kildor (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

@Tkynerd: Who defines high frequency? Where is the source? Where is it explicitly defined in THIS article? The Berlin S-Bahn serves all night at weekends, this is what I call high frequency.

@Kildor: You cited the World Metro List the second time now. You made the mistake the second time now. This article here is named rapid transit not metro ! The argument for having parallel tracks to national lines is also not convincing. Birds fly parallel to aircrafts. Dolphins swim parallel to oiltankers. Are oiltankers then fish?

There is no reason to exclude the Berlin S-Bahn. Its urban, its frequent, its separated, its named by external sources, it is backed by several editors in the past, it has been at this article before and is not contested by the written definition at this article.

Actually I start wondering if there are more then sensible reasons to exclude the S-Bahn. I might start to think that there is a hidden ideological agenda which is preventing the inclusion. From now on I will be a frequent editor to ensure the inclusion. Maybe others are inclined to do so as well, while also keep arguing for it. Lear 21 (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The daytime frequency of service is 10 minutes or better for the majority of stations, but outer parts of the network have 20-40 minutes between trains, which cannot be considered "high frequency". In my opinion, this fact does not alone disqualify the S-Bahn from this list. Except that it does. Those are not rapid-transit frequencies.
The Britannica says it is a rapid transit system. But their definition of rapid transit is not the same as the one used in this article. Which means their characterization of it is not relevant to this list.
@Tkynerd: Who defines high frequency? Where is the source? Where is it explicitly defined in THIS article? From the Considerations section at the beginning of this article: And in contrast to commuter rail, rapid transit systems are primarily used for transport within a city, and have higher service frequency, typically not more than 10 minutes between trains during normal daytime service. It goes without saying that service every 20-40 minutes is less frequent than service every 10 minutes. No source is required; this list defines its own criteria through the consensus of the editors who created it (of which I'm not one, BTW).
There is no reason to exclude the Berlin S-Bahn. Its urban, its frequent, its separated... It's not frequent, so it's excluded. Your edit has been undone. --Tkynerd (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

@Lear 21: I have tried to discuss this matter in a reasonable way. I have noted that there are arguments for including the S-Bahn, but also that there are arguments for not including it. But you on the other hand keep on saying that the S-Bahn is a "clear cut case", refusing to acknowledge that there are facts and sources against. The World Metro List has the very same definition as UrbanRail.net, and both these sites specify the 10 minutes criteria. Train frequency during nights does not really matter here. Your insinuation about a "hidden ideological agenda" is rather absurd. I have been working with the whole list for quite a while. You, on the other hand, seem focused on the Berlin S-Bahn only. @Tkynerd: If we go strict with the 10 minutes criteria, we would need to remove many systems from the list (including the London Underground). And the same goes with the separation criteria. Few exceptions will need to be allowed. But the low frequency of service on some of the outer parts of the S-Bahn is a good and clear argument against. --Kildor (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Lets assume around 20-30 points of criteria to be necessarily attributed to a highly complex urban rapid transit system. Lets assume that these criteria can be fulfilled in a varying degree up to 100%. It can be estimated that the Berlin S-Bahn fulfils 90% of all criteria. That is a clearly relevant degree in order to find an entry here. In other words a list naming itself "rapid transit" without the Berlin S-Bahn is incomplete. Lear 21 (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Lear 21: First of all, in most contexts, including this one, metro and rapid transit are synonyms. Second, high frequency is an important feature of a metro; even ten-minute service is borderline. Many systems tend to ‘trail off’ towards the edges – even London Underground starts to turn into a non-metro railway in the outer suburbs. Frequency is a separate issue from hours of operation: the fact that a railway runs at night (which is not a requirement of the definition, and many metros close at night) says nothing about how frequent the trains are (which most certainly is). It sounds like the S-Bahn comprises both metro-like and non-metro-like services, so what we still need to determine is in what proportion this are mixed, and which is more characteristic of the system. Are the low frequencies limited to certain parts of the network, or to certain times of day? Do all trains run to a published schedule, or do some or all work on a ‘turn up and go’ basis? David Arthur (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

@David Arthur: metro and rapid transit are synonyms. This seems not correct. "Metro" is translated rather to Underground systems. This reflected by the English-German translation as well:[29] Whereas "rapid transit" determines a wider spectrum. This reflected by the translation, explicitly naming it S-Bahn in German:[30]. It seems that many editors have to wake up from their dream of a so called metro list here, while at the same time the article´s name is rapid transit! Lear 21 (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

‘Rapid transit’ is just an American technical term for the same sort of system referred to elsewhere as metro, métro, Underground, U-Bahn, SkyTrain, tunnelbana, subway, elevated, etc. etc. They are indeed synonyms.
Some local governments have recently been using ‘rapid transit’ to market much lower-grade systems, including even express bus routes, but that definitely is not the sense in which it’s being used in this article. This has in the past been called ‘List of metro systems’, and it was renamed because of a dispute over international varieties of English, not because anyone wanted a change in scope. The German dictionary you cite seems to be basing its equivalencies on the way the words are used in systems’ names, rather than on their actual definitions.
There isn’t any English term which corresponds directly with ‘S-Bahn’. Some S-Bahn systems are services on the national railway network, others are trams/light rail, and Berlin falls into a grey area, for which we haven’t yet clearly established whether it fits the relevant conditions or not. The closest equivalents that exist in English-speaking countries are generally considered part of the national railway network (see Merseyrail, CityRail, Thameslink) rather than as independent systems qualifying for inclusion in this list. David Arthur (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe that the metro vs. rapid transit discussion has nothing to do with the inclusion of Berlin S-Bahn. There is a defintion at the beginning of the article, and a discussion on including a system should be based on that definition (which is, in fact, a definition of metro, why I think this article should be renamed List of metro systems). And Lear 21, would you please stop adding Berlin S-Bahn to the list, unless a consensus for including it has been reached. There are now three editors that keep reverting your edits. Your actions are clearly disruptive. --Kildor (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Why was the entry removed again? The sheer number of serious Pro-arguments should weigh out all minor (and only few) contra-arguments. I truly wonder why there is such a resistance. Knowing Berlin very well (like myself), there is hardly any doubt about the discussion of wether the S-Bahn is a valid urban transport system, which should become included here. I don´t want to emphasize the wording discussion to much, only this, my Concise Oxford defines Rapid transit as: "high speed urban transport for passengers". I also read again the article definition. What part is the base for the S-Bahn exclusion? I can´t find any. That´s why I put back the entry. KJohansson (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please! There are plenty of arguments above (low frequency on the outer parts, for instance). Please read the discussion again, or address specific arguments. If the Oxford definition of rapid transit should be used here, then we will need to add light rail and bus rapid transit systems as well. That is not the scope of this article! And I wonder - do you have any intentions on improving this article, or do you simply want to add Berlin S-Bahn? Also, be careful with your edits. Your last edit did not only add Berlin S-Bahn; it also reverted four other changes unrelated to this discussion. --Kildor (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
If it doesn’t operate at high frequencies, it doesn’t fall into the same category as the railways listed in this article. This isn’t in any way to denigrate it as a public transport system or downplay its importance in Berlin’s network – it’s simply a different sort of service than the one this article is about. David Arthur (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The inclusion of the Berlin S-Bahn can only be decided on the definition and the criteria listed here. The texts demands the following:

1. "Such systems are commonly called metros, subways, elevated railways, rapid rail, or underground railways." - The S-Bahn is an elevated railways.

2. "electric passenger transportation system" The S-Bahn system fulfills this requirement

3. "high capacity" The S-Bahn system fulfills this requirement

4."totally independent from other traffic, road or pedestrians" The S-Bahn system fulfills this requirement

5. "primarily used for transport within a city" "90% of service and tracks are established within the city limits - The S-Bahn system fulfills this requirement

6. "rapid transit systems do not share tracks with freight trains or inter-city rail services" The S-Bahn system fulfills this requirement

7. "have higher service frequency, typically not more than 10 minutes" The S-Bahn has 10 min service in general, a higher frequency at the center and runs 24h at weekends""

8. "Some systems also incorporate light metro or light rail lines as part of the larger system under a common name." This is not the case at the S-Bahn system, it fulfills this exclusion requirement

9. "Neither are monorail and funicular systems, nor people movers, such as amusement park, ski resort and airport transportation systems" The S-Bahn is neither of them

Further more

10. The Berlin S-Bahn is regarded as a rapid transit system by external expert sources/ urbanrail.

The inclusion of the Berlin S-Bahn is justified and based on the text of this article itself. Lear 21 (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. 88.65.199.59 (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That rationale seems now pretty elaborate. I´m sure not many other urban transport systems, probably none, can fulfill this kind of rationale. I hope everybody is convinced by now. I don´t know what else could be demanded. KJohansson (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

How about a clarification of whether or not it runs to a published schedule or on a turn-up-and-go basis? From what I’ve heard, though, it sounds like the the most informative solution would be to include it in the list, but with a footnote mentioning its borderline characteristics. David Arthur (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Like all modes of transport in Berlin, the S-Bahn runs on published timetables and is on time in most cases. This is also true for the services of tram (light rail), bus, ferry and the U-Bahn. Why is that important, btw? In my experience only few of the listed metros here can provide such an accurate schedule. Anyway, it underlines the high standards of all systems in the city. KJohansson (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked because running to a timetable is not typical of a metro system – in most cases, the trains run frequently enough that ‘every two minutes’ is sufficient. Running to a specific timetable tends to suggest that a route is a main-line railway rather than a metro. David Arthur (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I think you mean that publishing a timetable is not typical of metro systems. Any railway of any kind must at least attempt to run to a timetable for obvious safety and reliability reasons. These days, it certainly is much less true that metros typically don't publish timetables; it seems to me that the advent of the Web has induced many, if not most, metro systems to begin providing timetables for passenger use on their Web sites, as well as journey planners and the like. Even the New York subway provides timetables these days (I used them, BTW, to verify that even lines I'd expect to have very infrequent service, like the J, the L and the M, provide service every ten minutes from the terminals during the midday period between rush hours, unlike the Berlin S-Bahn.) --Tkynerd (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again.... About transport within the city: The administrative borders varies from country to country. The City of Berlin is for instance more widespread than the City of Paris. So, the city limits is not necessarily a good measure for deciding whether the system is urban or not. And even if it was, the Berlin S-Bahn has 250 km of tracks within city limits, out of a total 327 km (according to Urbanrail.net). That makes 76%, not 90% as stated by Lear 21 above. Regarding train frequency, most lines on the S-Bahn have outer parts with 20 minutes (and up to 40 minutes for some stations) between trains (except the ring lines). The S-Bahn is operated by the national railway company, it connects with other cities, and it runs along other railway lines for most of its length. These facts make it more like a suburban railway system rather than a rapid transit system. And the S-Bahn Berlin GmbH is a member of the UITP Regional and Suburban Railways Committee, and not the corresponding metro division. It would at least be easier to convince me if there was someone outside Germany/Berlin arguing for its inclusion... --Kildor (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It would at least convince ME, if the text was seen as base for the inclusion criteria. All fantasized and imagined criteria not named here can´t be relevant. For instance

1. "runs along other railway lines" - so what? It is irrelevant and not even mentioned here.

2. "S-Bahn is operated by the national railway" - so what? Not mentioned here. Why would that be an exclusion criteria ?

3. "That makes 76%, not 90%" I found a source from the VBB, the regional Berlin/Brandenburg transport authority, claiming that 290 km of tracks are inside the Berlin area. I haven´t refound it yet, maybe soon again.

4. "it connects with other cities" - Many RTS listed here connect other cities. Also not mentioned in the text itself.

The exclusion fraction reminds me rather on somebody who believes that an elephant is not a mammal because its the only one with a proboscis. Lear 21 (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it runs along other railway lines muddies the question of how fully separated it is: is it genuinely an independent system from those railways, or merely a four-track local/express arrangement? The fact that it’s operated by the national railway suggests (though again, there can be other explanations) that it might be part of the national railway network rather than an independent metro system belonging to a specific city. David Arthur (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
It is fully independent, no non S-Bahn trains ever use S-Bahn tracks, and no S-Bahn trains ever use mainline tracks. It must always stay that way, because S-Bahn uses third rail DC current whereas mainline uses overhead AC current, and the two cannot be used on the same tracks. Except on a very short section at one station where a complicated dual-current installation allows both kind of trains to stop at the same platform, which is extremely unlikely to be duplicated in the future due to its high cost Anorak2 (talk) 09:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

@Lear 21: I mentioned some things about Berlin S-Bahn that are typical for commuter/suburban rail systems. The question here is whether the S-Bahn is better described as suburban rail or rapid transit/metro. I would say that Berlin S-Bahn, Paris RER and Copenhagen S-Train are all quite similar. These are described as hybrid systems in both the rapid transit and the commuter rail articles. We can choose to include those in this list, or to leave them to the List of suburban and commuter rail systems and in footnotes in this article. Most of the text in the section "Considerations" has been written by me. And it was meant to describe the list and how the systems were selected. The sentence "Certain transit networks match the technical level and service standards of rapid transit, but reach far out of the city and are commonly known or better described as regional or commuter rail. These are not included. was an attempt to explain why the S-Bahn/RER/S-train systems were not included. Obviously, I was not successful! I would prefer a discussion on how the text in the considerations section should be written, or what scope this list should have (include or exclude hybrids?), rather than a discussion on a single system. --Kildor (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe some of the opposition stems from the fact that you equate all S-Bahn and all RER systems too lightheartedly. I don't know so much about RER, but clearly in Germany the "S-Bahn" product name is applied very inconsistently to metro-like systems as well as commuter rail systems (who use locomotive-driven trains), and some hybrid systems where both kinds of trains occur. However the systems in Munich, Hamburg and Berlin (and possibly some others) are not of this kind, they are clearly metro-like in all aspects, and certainly not less so than e.g. the London Underground and several others that are included. Anorak2 (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, S-Bahn definitely doesn’t correspond directly to any English term – it covers systems like Berlin’s, but also tramways, and commuter services on the national railways. I understand it as referring to the function of the railway rather than its nature. (The Berlin S-Bahn is definitely metro-like – much more so, I’d say than the RER or S-tog, which are more comparable to Thameslink and Crossrail in London, or the Citybana in Stockholm.)
The difference in electrification doesn’t automatically prove that it’s independent, though it helps: the electrified portions of Britain’s railways use both overhead wires and third-rail power on different sections, with some trains even switching from one source to the other in the course of a single trip. The railways of some countries even incorporate multiple track gauges. David Arthur (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
If including Berlin S-Bahn, on what basis do we exclude the Copenhagen S-Train? It is also completely independant of other traffic, and there is a train every 10 minutes or better on all stations. I also want to point out once again that it is not only me that consider Berlin S-Bahn to be something else than metro. UITP, ERRAC and Bombardier classify the Berlin S-Bahn as a suburban railway system. Also the corresponding list on German Wikipedia exclude the Berlin S-Bahn. This discussion has been going for as long as I can remember. The List of urban rail systems by length was heavily edited, with the S-Bahn and RER being added and removed constantly (also look at the old talk page, Talk:List of urban rail systems by length). That is why we need to discuss the general principles/critera of this list rather the inclusion/exclusion of a single system. If we add Berlin S-Bahn, we might also need to include the Hamburg S-Bahn, Paris RER, Copenhagen S-Train and possible some others (perhaps some of the many rail systems of Tokyo), or explain why these do not fit in this list. --Kildor (talk) 16:06, 2TC)

@Kildor: The S-Bahn is an urban rapid transit system not a metro. It is justified to be listed here because this is a List of (urban) rapid transit systems. Unless you are able to abandon your phantom thinking (terminology) of this being primarily a "metro" list, there won´t be progress. And please don´t repeat the assumption that "metro" equals "RTS" it´s plain wrong. The inroduction already makes that clear. Lear 21 (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Lear 21: The only differences between ‘metro’ and ‘rapid transit’ are geographical and ones of ordinary language versus jargon, online German dictionaries notwithstanding. This list has always been a list of metro/Underground/subway/T-bana/etc. systems (and, as I previously mentioned, has in the past been called List of metro systems): trying to redefine it is not the appropriate way to address the S-Bahn’s borderline nature. David Arthur (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. But what about the borderline systems? Should these be included or not, or is a footnote on the corresponding city name sufficient? I have looked into the other borderline systems mentioned above, and I would say that the Paris RER and Hamburg S-Bahn do not fit. Some outer parts of the Hamburg S-Bahn has a headway of up to 1 or 2 hours, and have a branch shared with other rail services. RER has a headway of 30-60 minutes on some branches. Berlin S-Bahn is clearly better - but still have 39 stations with 3 trains per hour or less. Copenhagen S-Train has at least 6 trains per hour on all stations. But these systems are all more like suburban rail services than metro services, in my opinion. I would prefer to have them excluded from the list, but mentioned in a footnote for each city. (The primary argument for exclusion is the fact that Metrobits/UITP/ERRAC/Bombardier does not consider these to be metro systems). If any borderline system should be included, it should be the Berlin S-Bahn (since it is classified as metro/rapid transit by UrbanRail.net), and Copenhagen S-Train (completely separated; trains every 10 minutes or better throughout the whole system). --Kildor (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the S-tog also does things like sending trains to different platforms at different times depending on availability, though, which is more railway than metro; the mere fact of physical separation doesn’t stop it from being a railway which happens to be separated from the other lines (just look at all the railways that are on islands). I don’t see the RER as any more metro-like than Thameslink, Crossrail, CityRail, and the like. While I consider the Berlin S-Bahn a borderline case, I agree that it’s one of the closest of these cases (though urbanrail.net's opinion doesn't seem particularly relevant to me). David Arthur (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
In what way does S-tog send trains to different platforms? As far as I know, S-tog has dedicated platforms, and does not share them with other trains. I also note that no one else seemed to be interested in discussing the general inclusion criteria for this list. The matter of inclusion of a single system seemed to be their only goal. I still believe the S-Bahn should be excluded, but I will let it be for now, for the sake of peace. But I will add a footnote describing the different views about the S-Bahn. --Kildor (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I´m fine with the footnotes, but the Bombardier reference seems to point rather in an opposite direction. It says "Berlin´s S-Bahn form the backbone of public transportation". The train model is classified as a commuter wagon not the system. I removed the link. KJohansson (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

What? Is there a contradiction between being a commuter/suburban railway system and beeing the backbone of public transportation? --Kildor (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 Confirmed that KJohansson and Lear21 are the same editor and has been blocked indefinitely. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for informing us! This, of course, makes this whole discussion about Berlin S-Bahn different. I will therefore restore the list to it's state prior to this discussion. That is, removing Berlin S-Bahn, but leaving a footnote about it. --Kildor (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
What? How does that invalidate any of the arguments? Anorak2 (talk) 11:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Of course it does not invalidate the arguments. But excluding these two users, it is clear that there never was a consensus to include the system in the first place. --Kildor (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. He's actually been disrupting many other articles in a similar fashion for a few years withs socks. Please keep an eye on future sanction evasion. If someone adds S-Bahn to the list again, its likely to be him. Nirvana888 (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

States and countries

I have updated this list to make it in accordance with the List of sovereign states, using the same name of states (the most common name) and in the same order as in that list. Hong Kong is therefore listed for China, and San Juan for the United States. The Peoples Republic of China is written as China, and the Republic of China as Taiwan. South Korea and North Korea are sorted with the letter K. --Kildor (talk) 12:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The following post by TramAsia has been moved here from User talk:Kildor.
The convention is on Wikipedia to sort everything by country, except for matters that are relevant only to sovereign states. Some countries are not sovereign states, and therefore would not appear on List of sovereign states. As for common names, IMHO and ASAIK neutrality comes before commonness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TramAsia (talk • contribs) 20:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
IMHO, I would like to have a well-defined list of countries as a reference for this list of metro systems, in order to avoid country-specific discussions here. I found the List of sovereign states to be appropriate as such reference list. It is not important to me what list we use as a reference. But I think we should agree on a single list to use as a reference, in order to avoid discussions about how and where countries should appear in this list. --Kildor (talk) 21:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Any suggestions on another list to use as a reference? Otherwise I will restore the list to use the names and order of countries as they appear in List of sovereign states. --Kildor (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
It would be a bit extreme if we had to negotiate a special definition of what constitutes a 'country' solely for the purposes of categorising metro system. I don't think anyone is going to be confused by Hong Kong appearing under 'China' – are there any others that are subject to dispute? David Arthur (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
As much as I have read on Wikipedia, almost all lists are assorted by country instead of by sovereign state. But then as far as this List of rapid transit systems is concerned, only Hong Kong and Puerto Rico are countries and non- sovereign states. Although they are not sovereign states, they are countries. TramAsia 00:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TramAsia (talk • contribs)
But still no reference...? I would like something similar to List of sovereign states, from which we can use names and order of countries. Then there is no need to discuss here whether Hong Kong should be listed as its own country of if it should be "Taiwan" or "Republic of China". --Kildor (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Do we actually need a single list for reference, when almost all such lists within and out of Wikipedia are presenting non- sovereign states as countries? TramAsia (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Would you please at least give an example of such list? --Kildor (talk) 04:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
May of those listed here. TramAsia 23:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TramAsia (talk • contribs)

BART, MARTA, SEPTA

What exactly are the reasons for keeping these systems on the list, while excluding S-Bahns and the like? BART appears to be an S-Bahn type system, with the exception that classical S-Bahns have shorter distances between stations and a lot more of them within the city, thus being better suited for intra-urban travel than BART. SEPTA seems more akin to regional rail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shallowjello (talk • contribs) 00:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

BART, MARTA and SEPTA are all included on UrbanRail.net, and classified as heavy rail by APTA, and meet the inclusion criteria of this article. Not all SEPTA lines should be included here, only those that are rapid transit. What S-Bahn systems do you think should be included? Berlin S-Bahn was discussed above. Other S-Bahn systems do not seem to meet the inclusion criteria, nor considered metro/rapid transit by other sources (like UITP/ERRAC/UrbanRail.Net). --Kildor (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
BART is normally understood as a metro despite its unusually broad reach. MARTA and SEPTA are the names of agencies who operate multiple forms of transport including buses and (in the latter case) regional railways, which may be what's confusing you, but both also have full metros. It's just that they haven't chosen to give the metro a name distinct from that of the agency as a whole the way most cities do. David Arthur (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

MARTA and SEPTA's Market-Frankfort and Orange lines do seem to fulfill the criteria. However, I am still not fully convinced about BART, particularly with regard to this criterion: "And in contrast to commuter rail, rapid transit systems are primarily used for transport within a city, and have higher service frequency, typically not more than 10 minutes between trains during normal daytime service". BART's frequency of service is every 15 minutes during the day versus 10 minutes on Hamburg's S-Bahn and Copenhagen's S-Tog lines. The average distance between BART stations is 3.9 kilometers compared to 2.1 km for Hamburg, not to mention that Hamburg's S-Bahn system is mostly within the city proper. I'm not saying that BART should not be included, but if it is, so should some other systems that are currently not on the list. Also, if we're starting to include individual lines instead of whole systems (SEPTA), shouldn't the same be done for other places around the world? -- Shallowjello (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

BART is definitely an odd case, and I don't really know it well enough to give a clear answer. It does differ from both Hamburg and Copenhagen in a few characteristics - it isn't operated by a main-line railway company, it has its own unique gauge, and there isn't another system with a competing claim to be 'the' metro for the city (Muni Metro is a tramway despite its name).
As for SEPTA, the only problem I see is one of naming. SEPTA is an agency, parallel to Transport for London, the RATP, or Storstockholms Lokaltrafik rather than to the Underground, Métro, or Tunnelbana. They operate a full-grade metro system, and I don't think it should be disqualified merely because they haven't given it a distinct name. What places are there with which this might be inconsistent? David Arthur (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Please remove Antwerp from the Belgium section.

Antwerp's metro was not completed and it is now used by the tramway system. I will remove it. --Sega31098

Edmonton, Calgary and Ottawa LRT systems in Canada

I cannot speak for Calgary and Ottawa, but by the definition of rapid transit listed in the article, Edmonton's LRT system definitely classifies as rapid transit. Any time someone adds Edmonton to the list though, it gets deleted. Being an LRT system and a rapit transit are not mutually exclusive. Edmonton's is an LRT system in that it gets its power from an electric power line hanging over head as opposed to a third rail, but it is still a rapid transit system because it is completely grade separated and through the downtown core runs underground like a traditional subway. If London's Docklands LRT and Vancouver Skytrain (which is also a grade separated LRT system) are on the list, then Edmonton's belongs just as much. I can understand if Edmonton's LRT operated more like a streetcar system as is the case for many other LRT systems in the United States, but this is NOT the case in Edmonton. It does not stop at traffic lights, does not run on the street and the stations resemble those of hard rail rapid transit systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.96.71 (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Edmonton would belong in this list if the entire system were built to the same standard as the city-centre tunnels, but it is not. The SkyTrain and DLR are fully grade-separated for their entire lengths (since they use third-rail power and automated control, there is no alternative) but once it reaches the outer areas, Edmonton's LRT is not separated. With the newer sections, level crossings are becoming even more common - probably wisely, since it allows the city to get more railway for less money. See this YouTube video among others for examples. New stations even require passengers to walk across the tracks in order to reach the platform (you can see it briefly in this video). David Arthur (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, its clear as described in the article that there is no concrete definition for a rapid transit system, and there will be a division of opinion for a system like Edmonton's. I am of the opinion that we should use a generally broad definition, especially since the majority of Edmonton is fully grade separated. And I don't think the grade separation is the entire defining feature either, it is whether the LRT has to stop in and around traffic which Edmonton's definitel does not have to do, even in the newer sections. I support including it. There are going to be ALOT of the rapid transit systems on the current list that we will have to take out if one small part of their lines have a level crossing (from experience, many of the ones in Japan for example) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.123.213.226 (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The definition used by this article – which is the product of a great deal of community discussion – includes that 'a rapid transit system runs on a grade-separated exclusive right-of-way, with no access for pedestrians and other traffic', which Edmonton's does not. Since Edmonton neither meets the criteria given at the beginning of this article, nor presents itself as anything other than a light-rail system, there's no reason to list it here. David Arthur (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, Edmonton's does have 'exclusive right of way'. Secondly, while not 'grade separated' in some parts of the system in the definition that it is not on a different level from the street, it is fully 'separated'. I would again point out that there are many rapid transit systems around the world and on the list which meet this form of separation, Kobe's Hankyu Line being one of them. Thirdly, a light rail system, which is what you present, does no by definition mean that it is not rapid transit, so your point there is moot. DLR, after all presents itself as a light-rail system and it is clearly rapid transit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.212.2 (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

UK systems

Is there any reason why the Manchester Metro, Sheffield, Croydon or Nottingham systems are not in this list? I'm happy to do the work if no one objects. Best Witchwooder (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

'Rapid transit' is an Americanism for metro/Underground, so the tramways in Manchester, Sheffield, Nottingham, and south London don't belong in this list. There's a separate list of tram and light-rail transit systems in which they're already listed. David Arthur (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you David. Best Witchwooder (talk) 08:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_metro_systems/Archive_2&oldid=1142768344"