Talk:List of metro systems

message: In addition to the Tube, TfL (Transport for London) run the Overground and the Elizabeth Line. The Elizabeth line is regarded by most people as a tube line. This is despite TfL continually publicising the fact that it isn't part of the Underground and the popular quiz question, "Is the Elizabeth Line an Underground Line?" The Overground is owned by National Rail but is otherwise identical to the Underground lines.
Some discussion has been about the regulations in force. In UK all rail systems must comply with the full Board of Trade regulations. It makes no difference whether the line is a short heritage line or a full blown inter-city express line. Also in UK the term light rail means a line where the rolling stock is less robust. What other countries call light rail is called a tramway. A tram is a rail vehicle that is allowed to run on the public highway. All other track guided vehicles must run on a segregated track that is fenced off.
Since they fulfil all the criteria, I suggest both London Overground and Elizabeth Line be added to the list of metros. OrewaTel (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Im not sure about the London Overground but the Elizabeth Line definitely counts,I will add the Elizabeth Line along with the Tyne and Wear Metro on the list Metrosfan (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

text: i added it but it turned out it got removed by someone else Metrosfan (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Metrosfan @OrewaTel Elizabeth Line isn't a metro system, since it 120km network, also Reading is a good 30 miles from London and the definition of Metro on Wiki is that it doesn't really go outside of the city. London Underground Limited operates the London Underground LONDON UNDERGROUND LIMITED overview - Find and update company information - GOV.UK (company-information.service.gov.uk) Elizabeth Line is operated by MTR Elizabeth Line MTR ELIZABETH LINE LIMITED overview - Find and update company information - GOV.UK (company-information.service.gov.uk) Elizabeth Line is more of a suburban Railway than a Metro system also there is quite a few stations which get a low frequency and also Elizabeth Line is part of National Rail. London Overground and Elizabeth Line operate in a completely different way to London Underground. They is a level crossing at Twyford Station which Elizabeth Line passes near to. London Overground crosses over a few level crossings which makes it not a segregated system. Elizabeth Line for the most part shares tracks with other services like freight and the Great Western Railway Didcot Parkway to London Paddington stopper. London Overground and Elizabeth Line train drivers have to follow completely different set of rules to the London Underground drivers. Also Elizabeth Line and London Overground use AWS, TPWS and GSM-R which the London Underground does not use for there services. Tyne & Wear Metro is a Metro system Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Act 1979 (legislation.gov.uk) I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The minutiae of regulations do not determine whether a line is a Metro and nor does who owns the line. The problem is there is not a clear cut division between Metro and non-Metro railways. You could argue that the Metropolitan and District lines don't qualify as Metros. The Metropolitan line was originally meant to go as far as Oxford and to-day it still services Amersham and Chesham in the wilds of Buckinghamshire. There are three pedestrian level crossings on the District line and it shares tracks with National Rail. (It runs over former LSWR rails that are still owned by National Rail.) But any definition of Metro that excludes the Metropolitan Railway and the Metropolitan District Railway is not worth having. The Elizabeth Line runs as far as Reading but unlike the Metropolitan Line it does not run through open countryside. Reading is part of the London conurbation. I have found the level crossing at Twyford and it does not cross the Elizabeth Line. In any case level crossings do not invalidate UK regulations that require all rail lines to be securely fenced off. OrewaTel (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: A metro is a underground or largely underground system according to the Collins dictionary, Elizabeth Line and London Overground are both mainly Overground. Arguably the Metropolitan and District lines and the rest of the London Underground network are the definition of a Metro. Which branch are these level crossings on the District Line. The Network Rail sectional appendix shows no level crossings on the district line.https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/metro https://www.networkrail.co.uk/industry-and-commercial/information-for-operators/national-electronic-sectional-appendix/  I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 08:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Metros aren't necessarily largely underground, and in fact even the majority of the London Underground itself runs above ground. The important part is grade-separation. Westindiaman (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Metro systems can go out of the city, all RapidKL LRT and MRT lines go outside Kuala Lumpur, there's even one line that's gonna be entirely outside Kuala Lumpur under construction, some metro systems like the Rotterdam Metro and Oslo Metro have lower frequency and more level crossings and are qualified on this list Metrosfan (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The pedestrian level crossings were the subject of one of Geoff Marshall's YouTube videos.They are on the Upminster Branch. Most of the London Underground is above ground. In particular the Dollis Brook Viaduct on the Mill Hill East Branch is 18 metres high and at Whitechapel station the Underground crosses over the Overground.Greenford station used to have an escalator to take passengers from street level up to the platforms. Aside from Waterloo & City and Victoria, all the Underground Lines go out to the countryside. The tube station in Theydon Bois is the only point in the village to have street lights. Meanwhile the point of rebranding the suburban lines as London Overground was to publicise their metro-style services. OrewaTel (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

text: The Elizabeth line shares tracks with other mainline trains (including freight trains) and is regulated as such. It's out. The Berlin S-Bahn and Merseyrail are closer to being metro systems than the Lizzy line is. Rckania (talk) 03:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Even Merseyrail has freight trains interlining with it to get to Liverpool Docks. I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Freight trains do not share tracks with Merseyrail. The freight trains to Liverpool docks are diesel on their own line. 152.37.91.247 (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  London's Metro System 

message: There's a consensus in the under construction and proposed section, for the under construction section, it says only metro systems under construction are listed when there are no metro systems operating in the same city. The same thing was also mentioned in the planned system but also says under construction, Should that consensus be removed? I personally believe that some rapid transit systems such as the Metro Manila Subway in Manila and the Cairo Monorail in Cairo, which are under construction, and systems such as Penang Monorail in George Town, Dhaka Subway in Dhaka, and the Bangkok LRT in Bangkok, which are under planning, should be listed as they have their own operator and they do meet criterias Metrosfan (talk) 04:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @SHB2000@Rckania@Oknazevad@OrewaTel @Laggingcomputer@Nonusme@Ymblanter@Mhaot@Matthewmayer Metrosfan (talk) 02:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The current consensus is based on the idea that planned or under construction lines are extensions of the existing systems. That said, if it really is an entirely separate system, operationally speaking, as already is found in some systems in the same city (like the New York City Subway and PATH), then it may make sense to list them separately. Then again, the NYC Subway is also a counter example because of its own history of having been previously three separate systems before unification. oknazevad (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: They are, I believe they should be listed, as they are a different system, but still meet the criteria, we should just make a note saying not to add extensions or lines of existing systems that's under planning or construction Metrosfan (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the convention that only cities (and metro areas in most cases) that already has a metro system can't be counted, this shouldn't be any different for planned/proposed systems Mhaot (talk) 07:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: So what does that mean, should it be removed or kept? Metrosfan (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Example: Lets pretend NYC plans to build a separate new metro system, this will never ever  be counted as NYC already has a metro systems. Mhaot (talk) 09:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: i personally believe the consensus should be removed, as they have their own branding and operator,leaving the system out of the list until it opens isn't just really.... Kinda inconsistent Metrosfan (talk) 09:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus cannot be added or removed: it can only be achieved. KatVanHuis (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: How do we get it removed then? Like Metrosfan (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: if it cannot be removed then what do we do to archive it Metrosfan (talk) 06:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing it and then archiving it, is still removing it. One can only do what is also done outside Wikipedia regarding consensus. KatVanHuis (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Mhaot@Oknazevad@Matthewmayer@SHB2000@Rckania@Ymblanter so therefore should it be archived? Metrosfan (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't seem to understand what is meant by consensus as a word, let alone the Wikipedia meaning of the term. I'd advise you read up on that. Consensus is never removed. That's just a total misunderstanding of the concept. oknazevad (talk) 05:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus over systems under construction/proposed in cities that already has a metro 

message: How come Korail was removed here? If we are gonna end up counting it twice, what are we supposed to do? Are we just gonna include the data of Korail into the Seoul Metropolitan Subway network? Because those lines qualify for the list Metrosfan (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Korail is a mainline operator. It's a heavy rail system, not a metro system.  Rckania (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought metros were heavy rail? 2001:A62:142C:9802:C15C:FFA8:C202:7093 (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korail 

message: Recently, I found out that maps of the Incheon Metro (such as this one: https://www.ictr.or.kr/main/railway/guidance/map.jsp) include Seoul Subway line 7 on them, and also, that the Incheon Transit Corporation has partial ownership of line 7., and that all three lines have the same fare structure, effectively making them one "system". The Circular line in New Taipei and Taipei in Taiwan, and the Guangfo line between Guangzhou and Foshan in China are also other examples of this occurring. So, should these types of lines be listed below both systems' entries, or only one of them? Nonusme (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I was honestly asking about Korail Metro Lines aswell cause someone said if they stay on the list we will count the lines twice Metrosfan (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Well, the Incheon Subway is branded as part of the Soeul Metropolitain Subway. It should all just be one entry.  Rckania (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the case, should the Incheon Subway just be merged into the Seoul Metropolitan Subway? Metrosfan (talk) 04:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. They probably should. While they have different operators, they are branded as part of the same system.  Rckania (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The Singapore Mass Rapid Transit also has two different operators, but have same systems, therefore the point seems to be valid Metrosfan (talk) 11:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Line sharing between systems and operators 

message: "Metro" is historically the name of the Paris underground system, an abbreviation of "métropolitain".
But many major underground rail systems are called differently: subway, tube, U-Bahn. Actually Berlin has a network of "metro" trams and buses that run above ground and are separate from the U-Bahn, the system called "metro" here.
I would suggest to avoid the word "metro" and change to the more neutral "underground", with the additional benefit that it allows translation. 67.87.88.26 (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: In North America and parts of Asia, the term "Rapid Transit" is used as the general term for all of these systems. It is even the title of Wikipedia's own page for these systems. However, It is not used outside of those areas. Metro is the most common name to describe these systems all over the world. If you use the word metro, everyone will know what you mean.  Rckania (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, metro is the main word that is being referred to these systems, mostly only in north america or UK where they will refer it as Subway, while only in SouthEast Asia and possibly Bangladesh and Taiwan aswell will refer them as "Mass Rapid Transit", Many Europeans or Americans won't understand the term Mass Rapid Transit, "Underground" is mainly only used for the Tube in London Metrosfan (talk) 03:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Metro" as a concept 

message: Should the Liverpool Overhead Railway or – if they existed – other systems which met the standards now associated with the term and now either no longer do or no longer exist be listed here? And if so, how many entries would such a list have? 2001:A62:142C:9802:C15C:FFA8:C202:7093 (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If the former Liverpool system was fully independent, then I think it deserves a place on this list. However, I think the list would be rather short. KatVanHuis (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former metros? 

message: The metro system of Porto has currently 69,7 km of which 10,7 are underground and 86 stations. With the current expansion in will have 80 km and 91 stations. 
It has currently some 174 million passengers yearly. it should be added to this list. 95.94.100.145 (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a metro. Ymblanter (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Porto Metro is a light rail system, it uses light rail rolling stock, despite of the name Metrosfan (talk) 09:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing metro system of Porto, Portugal lá my 

message: There are two things I'd like to suggest for this column in the table. 
After quickly looking through some threads on the topic, I noticed most of the discussion about this was around 2014-ish. Should dependent territories be listed separately? (The article only contains 3 dependent territories, those being Hong Kong, Macau and Puerto Rico. Looking through other articles, I've noticed a few inconsistencies as to whether, particularly Hong Kong, is listed separately from the PRC. In 'List of metropolitan areas in Asia', it's listed as part of the PRC, but in 'List of largest cities', it's listed separately. Even if the country itself doesn't change, maybe at least a little note to indicate that the system is located in a dependent territory 
I'm a little new to editing, so please excuse me if this has already been settled.
Another thing in the whole 'Country' column is the fact that the country cells are unmerged. Really not sure why this bothers me, but I think it would look more aesthetically pleasing if the table had those cells merged.
Again, I have barely ever edited Wikipedia aside from a couple tiny corrections here and there, so please excuse my lack of fluency.  Sleepydoge399 (talk) 10:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Sleepydoge399. Regarding dependent territories, I can only say that there is no consensus regarding whether they should be listed separately in various pages, sometimes there are particular reasons to lean one way or the other, sometimes it is a simple editorial choice. Regarding the unmerged cells, I don't know if there is a specific reason for that, it does not seem to affect the sorting. Best, CMD (talk) 10:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table - 'Country' Column 

message: Metrovalencia is missing in the list. It is the second longest metro system in Spain, so I think it is relevant to add it. Rgc1994 (talk) 10:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Previous discussions have found consensus that it is light rail, and so it is present at List of tram and light rail transit systems. CMD (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valencia (metrovalencia) is missing