Talk:Rapid transit/Archive 2

message: A Metro de Medellin picture placed by me in this article has been removed, The picture was an example of a metro that wasn't submerged. I do not understand why this picture was removed even though it was taken by me and had a free license. More importantly and for this i request the attention of an official editor. All the pictures here show Rapid Transit system from Europe, America, Canada and Australia, not one from developing countries. I do demand the allowing of pictures of South America and furthermore, by checking the editing made by a wikipedian, the picture was removed under the excuse that there were enough examples. That is not encyclopedic behavior folks.Camilo Sanchez 09:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture removed

message: This article is really good but a -little- disappointing. For a start the section on nomenclature is boring and most of it unnecessary, then there’s the low level edit competition between afficionados of the London and New York systems. Why even mention Cobble Hill Tunnel? etc etc Much of it feels like its been edited a 1000 times by 1000 different people (heheh). I’m not sure how these things work yet but couldn’t someone who really knows what they are talking about re-jig this around a little? An expert review or somthing? Bjrobinson 12:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section on nomenclature may be boring, but it’s also absolutely necessary, given that there are so many different terms for this concept, all of which affect people’s perceptions of what ‘counts’ and what doesn’t (Does it have to be underground? Can it run partly on city streets? Can it be partially bus-based?). This article has gone through several major name changes; it’s been called ‘Underground’, ‘Metro’, ‘Urban heavy rail’, ‘Rapid transit’, and probably others. David Arthur 21:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: point taken! Bjrobinson 15:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the nomenclature part is necessary, but I agree with everything else that Bjrobinson has said.  There's a lot of good information here, but the article is pretty much a series of short sections that don't seem to be well-connected.  Also everybody seems to want to get in a mention of his or her home city's subway system.  I'm going to nominate this for the Article Improvement Drive.  If you want to make this into a collaboration, vote for it on that page (It's way down at the bottom).  Foxmulder 03:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay having left it a few weeks and re-read i'd second foxmulder "everybody seems to want to get in a mention of his or her home city's subway system" is the bit that 'jumped out' at me. At the very least could the nomenclature section be shortened? Bjrobinson 23:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just did a review.  Expert or not, it's a pretty good article, especially outstanding given that it's on Wikipedia.  Information is well sourced and accurate.  Article dives into several tangents but that's unavoidable in a topic as broad as Rapid transit.  This article is substantially better than most Wiki rail articles, including the ones that I wrote.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.215.25 (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Expert review?

message: I thought Londons was the first? see  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.18.222 (talk • contribs) 10:36, December 14, 2005
:Every source i have seen (apart from this page) quotes the London Metropolitan Railway, 1863, as the first 'metro' in the world... Bjrobinson 12:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Worlds first query

message: Quick FYI:San Diego does not have rapid traisit...and as for the subway debate, the people at the Sacramento Amtrak station refer to their ped tunnel as a "subway"--Jason McHuff 21:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Very old note i know... but all 'ped tunnels' in UK/Eire are known as 'subways' maybe the name stuck? Bjrobinson 22:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: San Diego

message: SPUI: was suggested to me on IRC that people might be interested in the restaurant, more so than the other meanings, and be taken here and go "huh?", and this makes it easier. Subway is now a disambiguation page, which lists this article, the restaurant, and other uses, rather than a redirect; unless they've followed a malformed link, it seems highly unlikely to me that anyone looking for the restaurant Subway would find their way to rapid transit by mistake. It therefore seems to me quite unnecessary to put a link to it at the top of this page, especially considering how much disambiguation there already is here. David Arthur 01:05, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
:There's an argument over whether subway should be a redirect or disambig on Talk:Subway. Given the number of links to subway, I'm going to change it back to a redirect. --SPUI (talk) 01:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Subway

message: I suppose this might be more appropriate on the German site, but after studying ten years of the language, and living in Europe for three years, I oculd have sworn S-Bahn stood for Strassenbahn, not Stadtschnellbahn. Is there any chance I'm right on this one? -Sam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.109.31.80 (talk • contribs) 09:23, August 7, 2005
:Nope. Straßenbahn means streetcar/tram; several cities have both these and S-Bahn systems.  Actually, I've only ever seen S-Bahn expanded as Schnellbahn without the Stadt part, but my experience with German is pretty small, so I'm willing to believe that Stadtschnellbahn is the full form.  (Stadtbahn is different again, by the way.)  Anyway, here are some cites from official pages to confirm what I'm saying:
:*Berlin:  mentions S-Bahn and Straßenbahn as two different things
:*Vienna: the S-Bahn's own page  uses the long form Schnellbahn exclusively, but this ÖBB page uses S-Bahn in a context that shows that it's the same thing: 
:*Hamburg: Under  (with S-Bahn right in the URL) you can find , which again uses Schnellbahn exclusively
:*Munich:  mostly uses S-Bahn, but it's Schnellbahn in the link to the route map and on the map itself.
:--Anonymous, 23:35 UTC, 12 August 2005
Some clarification:
* S-Bahn does not stand for Straßenbahn (tram), obviously
* S-Bahn systems are suburban railway lines with electrical service and very tight metro-like schedule.
* The term S-Bahn was coined around 1930 in Berlin as a counterpoint to the already existing "U-Bahn". The term originally meant Stadtschnellbahn (rapid city railway); originally it was proposed as SS-Bahn (that was before the Nazi era) , but one S was dropped early on.
* Schnellbahn does not mean S-Bahn. It's an umbrella term for U-Bahn and S-Bahn. You'll notice that the links labelled "Schnellbahn" send you to maps encompassing both systems.
Anorak2 09:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: S-Bahn

message: From the "Importance, functions, and station design" section, it goes:
:Moscow, Hong Kong, Paris, London,and Tokyo arguably have the best metro systems in the world, while New York City is the only American city on the same level. Chicago, Washington D.C., and Boston follow New York distantly, while the rest of the cities in the United States only have partial or poorly used systems, such as Saint Louis or Detroit. In the Western Hemisphere, Mexico City also has a large system. In Canada, only Toronto and Montréal have extensive metro networks serving their urban centres (see Toronto Subway and RT and Montréal Métro); Vancouver's SkyTrain also provides high-grade service, but at present acts primarily as a connection between Vancouver and the surrounding area.
I do wonder if this paragraph can be substaintiated and verified, as there is no convention for defining the "best" metro system. From the above, it appears the only criterion was in terms of network size (and that of usage), and this is at odds with most transport studies who have a much wider range of factors to consider, including speed, comfort, accesibility, comprehensiveness, timeliness, capacity, affordability, and so on. Shall we tweak the above paragraph in accordance?--Huaiwei 10:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Best system?"

message: Metro has too many variations to justify the two-hop redirection previously used here.  Metro currently redirects to Metro (disambiguation), an article which has a reference to rapid transit right at the top if this general-purpose article is what is of interest.  As can be seen by the disambiguation page, there are so many variations for Metro that it is excessive to redirect it here. 66.167.253.72 08:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed this was reverted by ; do others support this reversion?  I've asked Hajor to follow up here on why he felt the reversion was warranted ... 66.167.137.172 03:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Until earlier this year, this article was titled 'metro', and while there are many uses listed, this one seems to be by far the most common, especially if you look at 'What Links Here'. I personally would have preferred for this article to keep its old name rather than switching to the more jargon-ish 'Rapid transit', but as it is, I think 'Metro' should at least redirect here. David Arthur 00:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this. David's already made most the points I was planning to make: (1) The article about undergrounds/subways/metros used to be here at metro (and, if I recall correctly, moving it here was partly inspired by a desire to have the page at a dialect neutral location, and so both metro and subway should continue to redirect here). (2) "What Links Here" for metro is overwhelmingly about mass transit; I don;t feel like going through all those and disambiguating them. And (3), per the rule for "primary topic disambiguation", metro should be about metros: absolutely nothing on the list of possible other meanings on the disambiguation page even comes close to giving urban rail systems a run for their money in terms of primary meaning. I feel pretty strongly that metro should continue to redirect to rapid transit. –Hajor 01:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metro now redirects to Metro disambiguation 

message: I've seen in several places that New York has the largest subway system, and often it's mentioned that it is "arguably" or "possibly" the largest.  However, I've never seen anything mentioning what would otherwise be the biggest.  If there's no solid arguments, the qualification should be removed. Benandorsqueaks 05:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not very sure about that. Could you please sign your comments. --Terence Ong 05:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I always forget about that. Benandorsqueaks 05:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article currently reads "The New York City Subway, which has become the world's largest (by some measures)..." so it seems there is no qualification to be removed, as "largest" will depend on the measurement chosen just as it does with, for instance World's busiest airport or World's tallest building.-choster 05:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Could you give sources to provide evidence of what you said above. Does not look very real. --Terence Ong 13:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biggest system 

message: Conversely, those who prefer the American "rapid transit" or the newer (when used in English) term "metro" tend to view this as a less important characteristic and are pleased to include systems that are entirely elevated or at ground level (at grade) as long as the other criteria are met.  I use metro term but think undeground placement is important. I will never call S-Bahn "metro".--Nixer 14:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metro 

message: Having Subway redirect to this page seems wrong to me, and the discussion mentioned on Talk:Subway didn't seem to come out with any firm conclusions one way or the other. Subway is an extremely common term in British english, referring to a pedestrian footway under a road. Maybe not a topic people would particularly look up in an encyclopedia, but that is the meaning and it should be respected as such. The restaurant chain is also rising in popularity and interest, so with three different topics to choose from I think the primary Subway page should definitely be a disambiguation. Any other thoughts? — SteveRwanda 11:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS - the fact that many articles linking to the term subway are referring to rapid transit should not be an argument against a dab page - rather, those links are incorrect even now, since they point to a redirect. They should all be converted to: [ [ Rapid transit|subway ] ] (subway), the correct way to form such a link. — SteveRwanda 11:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that ‘Subway’ should be the disambiguation page rather than redirecting here. David Arthur 18:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there are no other comments, I'm going to go ahead and make the change. — SteveRwanda 06:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Pointing to a redirect" is in no way "incorrect". Also, you haven't seemed to update any of th links to subway that (correctly) intended this page. Do not fail to update those links! Ewlyahoocom 01:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it is a lot of work. You might take a look at using Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser or Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups to help. Ewlyahoocom 09:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subway Redirect / Dab 

message: That was a pretty clear case of original research, since User:Rajaramboli and "B. Rajaram" can reasonably be assumed to be the same person, as well as just plain plugging his own work; that was practically an advertisement.  If anyone sees anything of value in parts of that section you can restore them.  Foxmulder 00:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, spelled that username wrong.  It's Rajarambojji.  Foxmulder 19:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting [[User:Rajarambojji]]'s edits 

message: The history section of this article seems ridiculously long to me, definitely long enough to make a separate article for "history of rapid transit," if such an article is even necessary.  If not that, than it should be shortened down quite a bit.  Right now it's a bunch of sections created by somebody from X city, who just put in something like "X has a rapid transit system.  It was built in 1956," and then they justify the inclusion by saying something like "it was the first rapid transit system in the Eastern United States to run three-car train sets on weekends."  Ok, sorry for the rant, obviously that's an exaggeration, but the Barcelona, Prague, and Lisbon metros each have only one line which basically tells the reader that they exist, and nothing else.  If no one has any complaints, I'm going to get rid of those.  Foxmulder 21:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It claims the turkish metro was the first on continential Europe. It wasn't Budapest has the second oldest underground metro system in the world. User:ExULstudent 12:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: Hey to everyone. I was wondering if we could get more pictures of the Washington DC Metro- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Metro. In my opinion this is the most beautiful subway in the world. The style is different and unique, and simply typing "Washington Metro" into an image search brings up some beautiful results, such as this one (from Wikipedia's L'enfant Plaza page:) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/L%27Enfant_Plaza_Station_2.jpg/800px-L%27Enfant_Plaza_Station_2.jpg  We have some great pictures up, but why not honor one of the most beautiful subway systems in the world with a pic or two? Broncostar 16:51, April 6, 2006 (UTC)
:Ewww nooo.  The Moscow Metro's ornate stations are superior by far! :) -- WGee 00:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Washington Metro pictures 

message: I'm not even sure why Cobble Hill Tunnel is even mentioned. Not only is it not a subway, as the article explains, but it's not even the oldest. As an example, Scotland Street tunnel in Edinburgh was opened in 1847 , with locomotives running through it before the year was out. This is just a local example I know of, and there are probably many more underground railway tunnels, and probably vastly more non-railway underground tunnels. 195.173.23.111 15:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you anon, thats what i've been wanting to say for weeks, i have absolutely no idea why its mentioned whatsoever, its basically just a tunnel, that happened to go part way through and urban area. Wait a few days for comments and change this someone Bjrobinson 16:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cobble Hill Tunnel 

message: People keep deleting the "unreferenced" tag at the top of the article.  This is probably a mistake, since people are also often editing the dab links and such, but if it isn't, please explain why you delete it if you do.  Right now, this article quite clearly has no citations, so until it does, please do not delete that tag.  On a related note, how about adding some citations?  I'm going to look for some myself, but it would be great if anyone who has access to sources about rapid transit could pitch in.  I've tagged a few facts that need citations, mainly as examples.  Foxmulder 16:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Citations needed" tag 

message: There's no mention of the Sydney CityRail system, despite it being an extensive metro/suburban rail network which clearly qualifies for the "rapid transit" tag. Can someone say why? (other than it's been overlooked)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.65.2 (talk • contribs) 16:52, June 11, 2006
:Um...I must say that, although it looks kind of like it, this really isn't supposed to be a list of rapid transit systems.  There is one somewhere, I think.  We should actually lower the number of systems which are mentioned in the article; ideally it should be much more of a description of rapid transit in general.  Also, sign your posts by typing four tildes. Foxmulder 00:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found the list, it's here: List of rapid transit systems.  I will try to remove info about rapid transit systems which are not historically important; I took a crack at that once already but there is still a lot of extraneous information.  Foxmulder 00:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sydney rail system? 

message: The term light rail carries a variety of different connotations to different people. While some people may think of it as a tram or streetcar (especially in the US) to many others (especially in Asia) trams or streetcars ARE NOT called light rail (they may not even have trams). Instead, it is used to refer to what some may call a rapid transit system. Commonly, these light rails systems would be those that were purpose built rather then developing out of existing systems and they are usually also lighter then systems such as the Singapore MRT or systems that arose from the rail network but the reasons can vary depending on country. Regardless, it's quite clear that the term light rail does not necessarily mean a tram/streetcar kind of thing. As such, I've tried to remove the bias which suggests it's a mislabelling to call these rapid transit systems as light rail. N.B. I've also discussed this in the light rail talk. Nil Einne 14:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's what led to an inaccuracy : 1987 saw the Mass Rapid Transit in Singapore open. [...] The country made news again by having the world's first automated heavy rail system. In 1983 opened the Lille metro, whitch is fully automated and can have been "light rail" labeled because of its name: véhicule automatique léger (light automated vehicle).  Unless there's a mistake for 1987, Lille is the city that got the first automated metro system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.114.29.103 (talk • contribs) 16:32, October 26, 2006 
actually Kobe (Japan)opened a fully automated light rail syatem, the Portliner, in February 1981. Osaka, near Kobe,opened a similar system in April 1981. Strangely enough both these Japanese automated Light Rail systems, built and operating before Lille, have wheels with rubber tyres and glass walls at the edges of the platforms,to prevent passengers from falling on the tracks, JUST LIKE LILLE'S VAL. The fact that Lille is said to be the first is a European bias. Lille system, by the way, runs underground under downtown only then at grade and on elevated sections in the suburbs.The dates are taken from Kobe and Osaka cities transit info.206.172.95.116 08:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempted to remove US (& European?) bias 

message: I'd identify the number 1 critical deficiency of this article as having no clear list of systems and their current status. If someone comes to this page looking for, say, a particular contempary metro system they have to read the entire article to find it. In some cases (Tokyo? I certainly didn't see it) there is no link to the article at all. Something like the following table would be useful:
Name (linked to wikipedia article)
Date of first operation
Date of final operation
Total Length
Passenger volume
Total revenue
The table to be sorted by date of first operation as it (should) will not change.  This should replace the history section which should be moved to it's own article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.123.106.91 (talk • contribs) 18:32, July 7, 2006
:Try here, List of rapid transit systems. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 04:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rearranging this article 

message: ew images of the New Delhi Metro system added and also the details of various metro transport systems in India.  Chanakyathegreat 11:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are too many images on this page.  If you have seen one train station, you've seen them all.  The D.C. image looks basically the same as the Warsaw image, and the Jersey image looks nearly identical to the Hong Kong image.  If we need 17 images to convey what rapid transit is, then it is time to get some better pictures.  Try looking at the page at 800x600 and see how bad it looks.  Cacophony 18:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but does this article really need so many images of metro systems in the US? Simply south 17:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: The first underground line was the Metrpolitan Railway (later Metropolitan Line) in London, opened January 10, 1863.  This predates both the Turkish and Hungarian lines mentioned.  This needs to be corrected.  Jsp3970 21:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind I misread the article and thought it was stating that the Turkish was the first in Europe, not just continental Europe! Jsp3970 21:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First underground line

message: A note about the word 'metro' would be good I think.  It's usage derives from both Londons Metropolitan Railway and the Paris Metropolitan company.  Which is first, and does the Paris name derive from Londons ?  Experts in these matters can no doubt add colour on this - but seriously, there should be a note on this issue to complete the nomenclature section.--jrleighton 00:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is HUGE anyway. Some spent some time specifically stripping down this section from its bloated over-complicated previous self. Its fine as it is surely. Bjrobinson 09:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand - terminology 

message: I think this section should be split into a separate article due to it's size. What does everyone else think? -- Selmo (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section  

message: What exactly is the difference between "cut and cover" and "cover and cut"? Simply south 22:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know.  Where do you see a reference to "cover and cut"? Mpwrmnt 07:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe this sentence from the opening section The two primary ways subway tunnels that are constructed are cut and cover and tunnel boring.[3] more properly belongs in the Technology section, where essentially the same sentence already resides.  I tried to delete that sentence from the opening section & was amazed (shows you what a newbie I am!) that the "system" re-numbered the footnote for the duplicate sentence in the Technology section.  However, I ended up canceling my edit, because although it renumbered the footnote, it "lost" the *text* of the footnote & I didn't know how to get it back.  Perhaps someone with more experience with the reference technology could take care of that little edit?  Thanks! Mpwrmnt 07:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tunneling methods 

message: I often see this claim, such as in . Boston was the first American city to build an underground line through which rapid transit was operated; the Green Line tunnels carried rapid transit (now Orange Line) cars between 1901 and 1908, while the first underground line of the New York City Subway was opened in 1904. But not all rapid transit is underground; the elevated IRT Ninth Avenue Line in Manhattan opened in the 1860s, and the BMT Lexington Avenue Line in Brooklyn opened in 1885. The first part of the Chicago 'L' opened in 1892. At least in Brooklyn, the term "rapid transit" was even used to describe these, though it was also used for Long Island Rail Road surface operations on the Atlantic Branch. --NE2 14:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Boston was not the first rapid transit system in North America

message: Are trams classified as rapid transit? Simply south 22:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, trams are not considered rapid transits. Though they are an urban, electric mass transit railway system, sometimes with at high service frequency, the definition of a tramway fails on the third criteria in the article, "totally independent from other traffic". This is because most tram lines, at least partially, are in the streets (thus the American name streetcar). When it comes to modern light rail systems, they are usualy not considered rapid transit, though some of the systems might manage to qualify on all the three criteria. Arsenikk 12:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trams 

message: The first paragraph says a metro system has "grade separation from other traffic". The "Definition" paragraph says a metro is "totally independent from other traffic". In Japan, the regular trains aren't grade-separated, but they also don't have to stop at crossings (cross traffic does) which still makes them independent from other traffic. Are Tokyo's non-subways lines metros or not? --Traal 20:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's not quite a requirement, but very strongly recommended. At least in the U.S., any railroad has the right-of-way over road traffic, but not any railroad is rapid transit. There are the occasional exceptions, such as a single grade crossing on the New York City Subway's Canarsie Line until 1983:  This line did evolve from a normal surface railroad, but after about 1920 it was the only grade crossing on any of the three rapid transit systems in the city (unified into one system in 1940). So I'd say yes, that is a requirement, but like any rule it can have the rare exception. A line with a large number of grade crossings is however not rapid transit; it may be commuter rail or a lower-level type like light rail or a tram system. --NE2 20:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you say, there are exceptions, one of the few remaining instances being several grade crossings still existing on the Chicago system. But the core of rail rapid transit has always been a completely grade-separated line, with or without extensions with grade crossings. The term "rapid transit" has been evolutionary. In the late 19th century, there was talk of "rapid transit ferries," for example, being ferries capable of handling large crowds more quickly and efficiently than other ferries. We now also talk about Bus rapid transit but I would call that a "term of art." We need to use the modern definition of rapid transit which is completely grade separated. A case like the CTA could be considered as grandfathered in the definition. If a new line is not completely (or nearly completely) grade-separated, we have other terms, such as light rail, pre-Metro, and so on. -- Cecropia 21:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another early example of non-grade separated "rapid transit" was the local steam dummies on the Long Island Rail Road's Atlantic Branch, beginning in 1877. About the same time, the Fifth Avenue Line, a surface horsecar line, introduced steam dummies, and those too were called "rapid transit", since they were faster than the horse cars they replaced. The term was also used in Brooklyn for the steam elevated railways, beginning in 1885. It appears that the same was done in Manhattan, starting in the 1870s. I assume the term gradually came to mean grade-separated lines once the surface lines were electrified. Commuter rail lines have, generally, always been a different class, and were already faster than the horse cars since they could use steam. Thus the term was never applied to commuter lines. --NE2 21:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is grade separation a requirement? 

message: Do the westerners really know little about Japanese railway?
Most of the patterns how rapid transit and commuter trains integrate mentioned here are essentially implemented in Japan.
I think at least the Japanese pattern of through service is a must to be mentioned.
P. S. I'm not from Japan.
--Hfyy 01:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too few Japanese railway mentioned in "Integration with commuter trains" 

message: An anonymous user has added a list of systems that use the linear motor. Though this is both encyclopedic and interesting, this article cannot contain information about every aspect of rapid transits, and definitively not lists over certain systems. Instead, I have included the list in the article about linear motors and reverted the edits on this page. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia and please let it stay where it belongs. Thanks. Arsenikk 10:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should write it about the subway with the linear motor. Loss one is kind.--210.174.41.165 18:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of linear motor propelled systems 

message: I haven't gone through all of the citations to verify them, but a couple stand out as poor.
Ref 1: The only mention of the London Underground is "a fabulous subway system". No facts, especially not dates. In fact, Ref 3 is quite contrary regarding London's metro as oldest.
Ref 21: The reference is for Heavy Rail, and mentions only one city listed in the article's statement.
68.88.75.210 05:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with citations