Talk:Pyongyang Metro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Original Tunnel[edit]

Apparently one reason for the Metro's depth is due to the terrain in Pyongyang. The first tunnel was reportedly built much higher up and collapsed due to the unstable ground around it. For that reason, it had to be dug much deeper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The tunnel collapse is hearsay. It is more likely that the depth was due to the era in which the line was dug. That was when metro systems were seen as shelters from nuclear attack and the depth was needed for protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
It is quite possibly there were accidents in construction, which is quite normal in mines, tunnels, and hydro-electric schemes. But it would need to be deeper because of the river. The terrain of Pyongyang is basically flat land (hence the name), a flood plain around the Taedong River.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The price?[edit]

The price cannot be that low (5W), there's no circulating piece of money (coin or even a banknote) of such a low value anymore. 10 won is the smallest unit around there nowadays (since 2002 or so). (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

North Korean won article says the lowest coin is 1 chon, i.e., 1/100 of a won.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Weasel words[edit]

"Some sources say the metro only operates during rush hours."

"Some sources say at least 100 workers died in the accident."

Translated from Russian, on a Russian BBS: "Station "PONGVA" - "Guiding Light"

Photo: No Opening date of September 6, 1973 Type of station: underground Number of Outputs: Unknown Location: in the center of the city, near the supermarket № 1, the Workers 'Party of Korea Monument, the Museum of the History of the Workers' Party of Korea, the National Drama Theatre, the House of Friendship and International Cultural Relations, the House of Culture "Chollima" For more information: it was the terminus of the first line from 06/09/1973 to 10/04/1987.

Comments: There is a version that the current location of the station is different from the project. It was originally supposed to continue the first line from the station "Pongva" Tedong under the river's left bank of the city. But in 1971 at the site of the excavation collapsed, killing some 100 people, including several high-ranking military officials. The size of the disaster was so great that it made the decision to change the perspective tracing the line and send it along the right bank of the river (the plans were implemented in 1987, with the opening of stations "Engvan" and "Puhyn"). To peretrassirovat line, had to abandon the original construction site of a new station and not far from the first. What was the percentage of work performed on the construction site of the original station and what is the future of building - is unknown." "The Chollima line was originally planned to cross under the Taedong river, but a tunnel is said to have collapsed at Ponghwa station in 1971, killing more than 100 people. Further attempts to build the line under the river were apparently abandoned, and thereafter the line was re-routed towards Puhung; Ponghwa station seems to have been re-sited.

What constitutes some sources?

"Others claim that the cars only run when they are shown off to foreign dignitaries and media reporters."

Who constitutes others?

"...although its use by average North Koreans is disputed." It carries a significant amount of traffic.

The Fares: "The standard mass-transit fare was 10 jon for all journeys until the 2002 devaluation (“currency reform”), which abolished the jon. The fare was increased to 1 won, paid with metal tokens like the one above; the fare has more recently been raised again, to 5 won. Entry to the system is controlled by barriers such as the ones below:

The 5 won tolkens bear both the symbol ji of the subway.

Who is disputing?

This is Wikipedia so substantiation is an afterthought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


This is the first full article I wrote on the English wikipedia (a translation of the Dutch article I wrote about this topic). I hope I didn't make too many mistakes in translating the article. If I did, please tell me and I will refrain from writing articles in the English Wikipedia in the future. ;-) Regards, David Eerdmans 21:11, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Are the metro Rolling stocks coming from Berlin U-Bahn or S-Bahn? I am not sure, but it looks more the size of S-Bahn, U-Bahn being a much lighter metro system (and also because the S-Bahn was east-German and this photo looks very much like Russian metro cars). Lachambre 20:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The train in the photo ("Dora" type) is "large profile" stock from the West Berlin U-Bahn. It was acquired second-hand from the reunified U-Bahn during the 1990s. The Pyongyang metro originally had Chinese-built trains (which, for political reasons, the North Korean government claimed were made domestically). has all the details of the rolling stock. GagHalfrunt 00:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Mass Transit Railway[edit]

Can anyone find a source for the official name being Pyongyang Mass Transit Railway? There is an official guidebook which quite clearly names it as the Pyongyang Metro. GagHalfrunt 00:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not, and the Korean quite clearly says 지하철, which means "subway" or "metro". I'm reverting the move. Jpatokal 04:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
actually the transliteration of지하철 would be akin to “underground steel”
지하철 is a short form of 지하철도, which means "underground railway". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Where's the Logic?[edit]

Where is the logic in assigning the South Korean Government's Revised Romanization System to this North Korean name? The subway system in Pyongyang is named by North Koreans in their language and when/if that name is Romanized shouldn’t the North Korean Romanization system be used? Why would it be appropriate to use the South Korean Government system? I suggest no North Korean topic or person be assigned the South Korean Government’s Ministry of Education revised Romanization System Romanization because… it’s illogical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


I've removed a lot of material that was out of date and unduly speculative. Unfortunately we don't have enough text now to fit with the pictures.

While I've left it in, I find the BBC report troubling. Is the reporter saying he walked round the city for hours without being stopped? How did he get onto the Metro since they don't allow visitors to have local currency? Is it credible that he just happened to get on a train with German graffiti? (I've only found one photo of it, so it can't be that common). Or is the story embroidered?--Jack Upland (talk) 12:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


According to Paul Fischer's 2015 book A Kim Jong-Il Production, there is actually a Museum of the Construction of the Museum of the Construction of the Metro.

I've removed this because it just seems satirical.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Daily Ridership[edit]

The introductory paragraph and the information box on the right give conflicting numbers of daily ridership - differing by one magnitude. Which one is correct? (talk) 10:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Station Names in English[edit]

I revised some of the Korean-to-English translations for the train station names. But we should find the official translations and add a footnote to the source (e.g., an official brochure or a tourist handbook published in Pyongyang). Icecream2015 (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Photos and separate articles[edit]

1. I don't think it was necessary to purge the photos at this stage. Pyongyang Metro is still a rare sight, and many people still claim it is fake. We don't have much text, and this is not likely to change in the near future. Pictures convey a lot of information.

2. While they probably meet notability guidelines, I don't think it's justified to have separate articles for lines and stations, given the lack of text that we have.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Photos are supposed to illustrate points made in the text, and when there is not much text, there is not much to illustrate. It's not our job to convince the rest of the world that the Pyongyang metro is not fake because we have pictures of it. There's always a link to Commons. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 12:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
I knew someone would say something like that. What is "our job"? To inform people?--Jack Upland (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Provide information from a neutral point of view. Trying to prove someone wrong sounds inherently POV-pushing to me. I've added some images though - including pictures of the two stations that tourists were limited to - whenever appropriate to illustrating the text. I've also changed gallery pics to a less random assortment. What do you think about the additions? Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 05:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
It seems messy, looking at it with Google Chrome.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
It's a tight space because of the huge infobox and route diagram. I wish some of it could be collapsed. I don't feel like putting too many elements left-aligned because of sandwiching. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 09:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
OK, but do you think we need to tweak the article to avoid implying the metro exists???--Jack Upland (talk) 11:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
No, of course not. We should maintain NPOV. I don't see anything wrong with what it currently says about the issue. There is certainly no need to underline either the conspiracy theory or its refutal. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 12:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Number of Lines?[edit]

The article states repeatedly that the metro system consists of two lines, but then goes on to list three: Chŏllima Line, Hyŏksin Line, and Man'gyŏngdae Line. I think it would be good to make this consistent. --Jochen (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)