Talk:Medium-capacity rail system

message: I notice other metro networks around the work with 3 car configurations. Would they classify as medium capacity? Examples would be Bangkok BTS Skytrain, LA subway (Red Line) and Oslo T-Bane. Themanilaxperience (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't say for sure. But they should be considered "MCS" when the railway official actually calls them by that definition. And MCS is only meaningful when there's heavy-capacity system(s) in the same area in comparison. Otherwise they should be simply addressed either light rail, metro or rapid transit system. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A 3-car configuration on the Los Angeles Red Line is not possible.  The trains are made up of car-pairs.  The line either runs with a 4-car or 6-car train (at least if I am remembering right). JoeD80 (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

text: The last time I was in LA I rode The Red Line to Hollywood and I counted 3 cars. This line uses heavy rail stock but when I saw the config then I would classify it as medium capacity. On the other hand, the green an blue lines fit this category though they are really light rail metros. Another would be HK's MTR Ma On Shan line. A 4 car config is standard size for most heavy rail metros. Similar configs would be Johannesburg's Gautrain, Manila's LRT-2 and Vancouver's Canada Line. These metro lines are more classified as heavy rail rather than medium capacity. Themanilaxperience (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Would the D Branch portion of the MBTA Green Line (Boston) qualify?  If you ride from Lechmere to Riverside, you're always on dedicated right-of-way, with stations typically separated by 1 mile. Leviramsey (talk) 03:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would these system classify as medium capacity? 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Ulgorchakova-mm01.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Can anyone explain why Vancouver's SkyTrain is included here? Is it that they only run 3- or 4-car train configurations? Or is it a ridership level issue? 
Because I think the SkyTrain is usually considered to be fully "heavy rail" from what I have seen... --IJBall (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vancouver SkyTrain 

message: I've removed the [dubious - discuss] tag and reintroduced the cite as all three support the supposition that the line was designed to carry 30,000pph. Railway Gazette say: "Design capacity of the line is 30 000 passengers per hour."; Totalrail say: "Design capacity of the line is 30,000 passengers per hour."; and Subway.net say: "The trains are expected to transport 30,000 people per hour with 2 minute headways." Sure, they may say that trains which can carry 800 each will operate at 120 second headways, equally a 24,000 throughput, but that doesn't mean the system isn't designed to carry 30,000 at a 96 second headway. ColonialGrid (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I missed that Subway.net had the same figure (embarrassing, as I even looked for it); and I didn't even notice that Railway Gazette had it too. But while I won't object, I am still dissatisfied – the current system is at 24,000 PPHPD, not at 30,000, and none of these refs actually explain where the 30,000 PPHPD comes from. (I assume it's running headways better than every 2 minutes, as you say (running every 90 seconds would actually be 32,000 PPDPH), but nothing in these current refs say anything about that...) With the caveat that they're only running 24,000 PPHPD right now, I am satisfied that this system is "medium" and not "full metro" currently... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I kinda agree, but we have four different sources (including the company that built and operate the line) all saying the 30,000 pph design spec; saying anything else would be synth. ColonialGrid (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep, mostly agree. But I slightly reworded that one in a way that I think satisfied my concerns (the former wording rather more implied 30,000 PPDPH "now", while I think the revised wording more clearly points in the direction of them not running it at 30,000 PPHPD right now...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Much clearer. ColonialGrid (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rapid MetroRail Gurgaon 

message: I just noticed the tag  placed on their own edit, so thought I'd hunt around for some sources. I'll add them here as a find them.
* Mandri-Perrott, C 2010, Private Sector Participation in Light Rail/Light Metro Transit Initiatives, The World Bank, Washington, <http://www.ppiaf.org/sites/ppiaf.org/files/publication/PSP-LightRail-CMandri-Perrott.pdf>. - The glossary on page XVII has some succinct descriptions, while chapter one has a bit more depth (p. 11 has a definitions, but not great; pp.17-19 has a table 1.1 and prose with a good comparison of attributes). The case studies in the annex (thought it would have been appendix) pp. 205-243 may be use for this page and articles. ColonialGrid (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: * Heh. I get it believe me – it's just that I'm currently distracted on another project (trying to get an article relisted as a Featured list...). And, FTR, I didn't make the claim that light metros are sometimes called "light rapid transit" (though, I believe that this claim is likely true) – someone else did; I just added the  tag.  --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *So you did, I missread your edit summary, my mistake. Either way, the article is now a little better sourced! ColonialGrid (talk) 10:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

text: *In Australia we don't really use either term. Metro is used by politicians to describe the modernisation process of our commuter rail systems, with Sydney having many attempts at a metro (now building a line in the 'burbs) and Melbourne building the Melbourne Metro which, like the City Loop is a tunnel to provide an alternative route for commuter trains. Similarly, we use the term light rail almost elusively for what are essentially trams (but the term tram seems antiquated, and light rail modern). So I can only go on what sounds best. I'd be okay with Medium-capacity rail or Light metro. ColonialGrid (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

text: *I'm a little late to this discussion but William Middleton called the Buffalo Metro Rail a "light metro." Mackensen (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: * I'd still like to start a WP:RM discussion for this article. It just needs to be at a time of my own choosing (i.e. launching the RM when I have a little more time). So that probably means December. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources to improve the article 

message: While we're on the subject, I have strongly disliked the title of this article for a while (effectively, as far as I can tell, the article's current title comes straight from an English translation of a Chinese source, which would explain the current title's clunkiness....) and The World Bank reference that  links to above pretty much synches the case against it. One of these days (...and I don't know when, as I'm starting to get busy again these days), I'm planning on launching a Requested move on the topic. In the meantime, I definitely think we should mull over suggestions for a new article title. Based on The World Bank source (and my own feelings on the subject), I really think  should be the concise revised title. But, like I said – suggestions to achieve a better consensus title are welcome... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *In Australia we don't really use either term. Metro is used by politicians to describe the modernisation process of our commuter rail systems, with Sydney having many attempts at a metro (now building a line in the 'burbs) and Melbourne building the Melbourne Metro which, like the City Loop is a tunnel to provide an alternative route for commuter trains. Similarly, we use the term light rail almost elusively for what are essentially trams (but the term tram seems antiquated, and light rail modern). So I can only go on what sounds best. I'd be okay with Medium-capacity rail or Light metro. ColonialGrid (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm a little late to this discussion but William Middleton called the Buffalo Metro Rail a "light metro." Mackensen (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: * I'd still like to start a WP:RM discussion for this article. It just needs to be at a time of my own choosing (i.e. launching the RM when I have a little more time). So that probably means December. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Article needs a retitle...

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Medium-capacity rail transport system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130723223749/http://www.dorts.gov.tw/tech/cyclo2.asp?t=??%2009:09:59 to http://www.dorts.gov.tw/tech/cyclo2.asp?t=??%2009:09:59
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is this a light metro? If so, we may need to add BTS Skytrain on the list because the system is more "light" than purple line (actually the Purple line, one of the MRT lines, is regarded as a heavy rail). Does anyone have data of the capacity or p/h/d?--Fly2Blue (talk) 12:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bangkok MRT: MRT Purple Line. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Medium-capacity rail transport system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dorts.gov.tw/tech/cyclo2.asp?t=%3F%3F%2009%3A09%3A59
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140508151958/http://dotcmrt3.gov.ph/about.php?route=4 to http://dotcmrt3.gov.ph/about.php?route=4
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Medium-capacity rail system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120328092928/http://en.bngmetro.co.kr/main/ to http://en.bngmetro.co.kr/main/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141228122939/http://www.totalrail.org/2013/11/18/rapid-metrorail-gurgaon-launched/ to http://www.totalrail.org/2013/11/18/rapid-metrorail-gurgaon-launched/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140525201407/http://www.ankaray.com.tr/anasayfa/teknik-%C3%B6zellikler.html to http://www.ankaray.com.tr/anasayfa/teknik-%C3%B6zellikler.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131111021441/http://www.apta.com/mc/rail/program/Documents/tom-hickey-tour-march-20.pdf to http://www.apta.com/mc/rail/program/Documents/tom-hickey-tour-march-20.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: For some reason Taiwan has ended up as a city of Spain.  It happened a while ago but I cannot find what has been coded wrong.  Maybe somebody with more technical knowledge than me, can correct it. Fomalhaut76 (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: . This is the downside of using 'rowspan' in tables, a practice that I find myself increasingly against using. FWIW... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in table 

message: So, there are two logical ways to determine that something counts as a member of "medium rail."
1. The system is designated as "medium rail" by the authority that runs it.
2. The system is "medium rail" by some objective measure. 
Take the Miami Metromover for example. It's classified as a people mover by Miami, and it runs small, one- to two-car trains. Compare this objective size to a Docklands Light Rail train.
I think the "list of systems" part of this article needs to be overhauled with more consistent principles of inclusion.
Pretendus (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently included systems are based on sourcing calling them "light metros", etc. not on WP:OR. If you don't like the current list, then you need to find new (secondary) sources. (Note that referencing the authority running a system qualifies as a primary source, and is less preferable than a secondary source defining a system...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  There seems to no rhyme or reason to the inclusion of examples 

message: I know officially it is not considered as light rail, but it is definitely not a heavy rail and I don't think it is a tram - so being in between them, Metro Line M1 (Budapest Metro) might be referred as a light rail as far as I know. Please correct me if I misunderstood the definition of the medium-capacity rail system. Best. vampeare (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Budapest Line M1 

message: Confederation Line opens next week, just wondering what we're doing with it? My assumption is it belongs here especially since it's fully grade separated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nlsanand (talk • contribs) 16:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: With this list, I've tried to pare it down to just those systems where a (preferably secondary) source specifically describes the system as a "medium-capacity" system or a "light metro". So if somebody can produce sources calling the Confederation Line either a "medium-capacity" system or a "light metro", then it belongs here. But if there are no sources calling it that, then it doesn't belong. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here you go  Terramorphous (talk) 00:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  That uses neither the terms "medium capacity" or "light metro". In fact, I don't see any WP:RS using those specific terms after a quick look. (Though we'll still have to see how the Light Rail Transit Association categorizes the line...) I see some sources maybe quoting capacity numbers for the Confederation Line, but I don't see them using these actual terms. I think it's hard to justify including this line either here, or at List of metro systems, without some RS actually categorizing this line as such. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  O-train Confederation Line 

message: Would systems like the St. Louis Metrolink, the D Line in Boston, LA Metro's Green Line, and Seattle's Red Line be considered a light metro? They all seem to be closer to that of a rapid transit service than other light rail systems. Grade crossings are sometimes brought up, but the Chicago "L" also has grade crossings.  --Rckania (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No – because they aren't categorized as such, and secondary sources do not refer to them as such. Even LA Metro's Green Line, when I looked, is not really referred to as a "light metro" or anything like that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metrolink and other similar systems 

message: In reply to the comment -> Again, LRT Jakarta only 2 carriages, the Jakarta LRT is only a light rail (equivalent to a tram). And also the line only covers 5 km. and the Jakarta LRT is already on the list Here. If you want to add here please start discussion in Talk Page.
Light rail and light metro both have their own definitions, the main divider being whether the whole line is grade-separated or not. Since the Jakarta LRT is fully grade-separated, it classifies as a metro. The fact that it runs only with two carriages then makes it a light metro. The fact that it is roughly 6 km doesn't affect much, even if it did: works have started to expand it.
If two points of view exist, due weight hast to be given to both points of view. Since I found sources  stating the Jakarta LRT is a light metro line, it deserves to be mentioned here as well. KatVanHuis (talk) 09:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jakarta LRT 

message: I've never heard it used in casual conversation, while I have for terms like "light metro". Eldomtom2 (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with you, however the current name seems to stem from early World Bank reports (partially) about light (capacity) metro systems in the Chinese speaking world. KatVanHuis (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is medium-capacity rail system really the most commonly used term?