Talk:List of metro systems/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 → Archive 20

Name-calling , WP:Civility and bullying

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fellow editors: In Talk:List of metro systems#Seoul Metropolitan Subway, an editor tells me:

"Stop your name-calling because it's a direct violation of WP:Civility and a blatant example of bullying."

This proclamation finds me at a loss. Could the esteemed editors (plural) please tell me where, in the referenced chapter, I have been

The editor who accuses me of using egregious epithets does not shy away from robust language herself. Measured by these exalted standards, my conduct must have been extremely serious. However, when searching for words beyond the pale, I come up empty, most likely, because, as the editor asserts, I am "blind," and because I "have a problem in English." So please help an eyesight-impaired alien with English as a third language, and tell me where, from "... appears to be losing important information pertaining to metro owners/operators" all the way to " ... until the data is changed" are the acts of name-calling, bullying and lack of civility? Or, as they say at WP, [citation needed].

Should the editor who leveled these accusations choose to retract them, then we can stop the search. BsBsBs (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Name-calling: "I don't think this will be the last we've heard of an editor I shall henceforth call Massiveparser" and "Let's learn from the Massiveparser wars" to name a few. Also, editors need to stop using this talk page as a chat forum for discussing other editors' behaviour..this isn't some forum for general discussions - Read at the top of this page: "Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article." Massyparcer (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Editors, please tell me where, in the referenced chapter, names have been called, uncivil acts have been perpetrated, or people were bullied. BsBsBs (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Not in that referenced chapter, but under "And we have an ANI" you said:

I don't think this will be the last we've heard of an editor I shall henceforth call Massiveparser. BsBsBs (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Massyparcer (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
How is that bullying? It's just a comment. Epicgenius (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

... Quite apparently, quite a visionary statement. BsBsBs (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

How can "I don't think this will be the last we've heard of an editor I shall henceforth call Massiveparser" and "Let's learn from the Massiveparser wars" referring to user Massyparcer possibly not be considered namecalling? No background, maybe they deserve it, but insulting someone, then denying it, hardly seems like a class act. Sammy D III (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Number of Stations

There seems to be a major inconsistency when counting stations. If two lines run through 1 station, is it counted as 2 stations? In this list, New York Counts them twice, but Buenos Aires counts them once. Shouldn't the same standard be applied to all so that apples can be compared to apples? Mattximus (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

From what I gather, the earlier consensus around here was to only count transfer stations once in the 'Stations' column, and I've been trying to do that as much as possible as I've been going through the list and adding references. I agree that we should, as much as possible, count transfer stations only once. The problem with this is that the system themselves are inconsistent as to how they count the number of stations - many actually count transfer stations twice in their own presentations of their system's stats, while others only count their transfer stations once.
The good news is that most of the "double-counted" station stats in this list are 'Noted' to include the presentation of both numbers (e.g. New York Subway, Mexico City Metro). But things get tricky when the references tell you one thing, when what you really want is the stats that count transfer stations only once.
Honestly, I'm not sure that there's a better solution to this issue - to just 'Note' those cases where the presented stat "double counts" transfer stations, while keeping as many of the Station stats as possible to counting transfer stations only once...
While we're on this subject, I also think we should revisit the issue as to whether we want to add a column for number of 'Lines' to this table. I know there was opposition to this before, but I think in most cases the 'number of lines' is an even better representation as to the size of a Metro system than the number of stations is... Something to consider. --IJBall (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I think each named entity, ie station, transfer point, interchange, whatever should only be counted once. It would inflate the numbers too much and create a skewed statistic otherwise. If however, that is all we can get the note system seems the only way to deal with it. It may be useful in future to include in parenthesis the number of interchange points on a system though. On the topic of counting the number of lines, I agree with IJBall it should be included, the question is though: do irregular or peak only services also get counted? Or do we just quote what the stats say? Liamdavies (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
And also just above the table it states "The number of stations in the network, with stations connected by transfer counted as one." Which is then not true. It looks like there are only 2 notes where the stations are counted twice, New York and Seoul. The New York is an easy fix and we can keep the note, but I do not know about the Seoul one. I then suggest deleting the notes for the few metros where it states "transfer stations counted only once" as that's true for almost all the systems, and not just those few. Mattximus (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there's more than just those two. Munich was wrong, but I just fixed that one (and clarified its 'Note'). The other one that isn't right is Mexico City Metro - its accompanying reference gives the number of stations, with transfer stations counted more than once. The problem here is that the only way the get the correct number (I think the number quoted in the Mexico City 'Note' is dated and incorrect...) is to look at the network map and count the number of stations, but when I tried that once I kept losing count. I guess I can try that again, and see if I can come up with the correct number for Mexico City Metro, and then correct it. That would seem to leave just Seoul...
But I suspect a few other systems' Stations numbers are also 'double-counted' in the list; however, I won't know for sure until I try to reference more of the systems in the list below Italy (and that may not happen for a few more weeks...). --IJBall (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
The hardest part about counting transfer stations as one inherently is that they aren't really always one station, but may be stations on entirely separate tracks built at separate times but just close enough together for the operator to connect them with a narrow hallway. They aren't really one station, any more than stations that happen to be within walking distance on the surface are one station. So it can be difficult to really say what the count is.
As for a lines column, I still think it doesn't really say anything useful, as interlining is quite common (and therefore there really isn't as many lines as it seems on first glance) and the subsequent interoperability means service patterns can change rather easily. This is especially true for the more complex systems. Conversely, some systems have few but really long lines that quite extensively cover the city without having too many lines (Toronto comes to mind in particular). So I don't think it really serves much purpose. oknazevad (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
The thing about the proposed 'Lines' column is that I'm not sure it tells you much in the case of large systems (e.g. New York Subway), but I think it definitely tells you something about the small systems (e.g. those that have just one, or two, or a few, lines) - for those systems I believe that including a 'Lines' column would be useful and instructive. Also, in going through and referencing the list, I really have not come across all that many systems where 'interlining' or 'express lines' is a factor of significance (one of the few systems I can think of where the number of lines is somewhat misleading is Frankfurt - but that's just one of a few that I have seen where the number of lines could be less than instructive). So the misleading ones would really just a handful of the systems, IMHO... --IJBall (talk) 05:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Spilling over, but I agree with Oknazevad regarding the lines. They don't tell you much at all, and the table is already quite busy. Mattximus (talk) 04:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Note that the figure quoted for the Shanghai Metro is apparently double-counting transfer stations as well, so that's another number in the list that's wrong. Anyone know the correct number?... --IJBall (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I propose removing "The number of stations in the network, with stations connected by transfer counted as one" from the legend as that is not the case for a lot of station entries in the list, so that readers don't assume that all the entries in the list mean each transfer station counted as one. It is also quite hard to find sources that have the number of unique station for each metro system. Unown Uzer717 (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

What is considered frequent?

Frequency is one of the factors of a metro system. However, what is defined as frequent and what isn't? The number of passengers transported per hour per direction is not always available, so one has to rely on the number of trains per hour. The Staten Island Railway has a frequency of every 30 minutes, or two trains per hour during normal daytime operation, but is still included in this list. It has a frequency that is a lot higher when compared to other metro systems in this list, and is not what is considered "frequent" for a metro system. Even though it fits most, if not all, of the other criteria for a metro system, should the Staten Island Railway be considered a suburban/commuter railway instead of a metro system because of its low frequency? Unown Uzer717 (talk) 11:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Last discussed in archive 4. Conclusion was that lower off peak frequency was the only factor against it, and that it otherwise meet all criteria. That the MTA groups it with the subway was less definitive than the fact that the APTA puts it with heavy rail (see p 31 of the linked PDF), and they're pretty darn authoritative. To omit it based on disputed frequency criteria (which has been very disputed in recent months) would be OR when an incredibly reliable source includes it. oknazevad (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Of course, frequency, and a somewhat fixed rhythm, are some of the characteristics of a metro. Some folks wanted to know exactly what is frequent, but the sources are no help. Both APTA and NTD mention only a "capacity for a heavy volume of traffic" in Talk:List of metro systems#Definitions compared, which was immediately translated around here into a "design requirement, not service requirement." More globally oriented UITP appears to leave the matter open. Many operators cease during the night. Tokyo metro shuts down at midnight, which creates mad rushes for the "last train."BsBsBs (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Sources definitely don't help to define "frequency". The best that can be done is finding some references that put numbers to volume of traffic (in PPDPH). Now, of course, PPDPH is a direct consequence of train-car passenger capacity, number of train-cars per train-set, and frequency or headway, but none of those three numbers is generally broken out on their own. Basically, you can infer that you're going to need to have 5-car or greater train-lengths, and frequencies with 10-minute or better headways, to get the requisite PPDPH, but all of this is derived or inferred, not directly cited... --IJBall (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
When frequency is mentioned, does it also include number of cars, or car length? Epicgenius (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I included a reference up page that includes the formula that relates passenger volume and those three factors. But that's just a formula. So, no - so far, no reference that I've seen really attaches "real" numbers to any of these (outside of UrbanRail.net's headway value...). --IJBall (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
By the way, the Staten Island Railway is actually a freight railway, not exactly a metro system, but it acts like a metro system and is operated by the MTA, which also operates NYC Subway and includes the SIR in the NYCS map. Epicgenius (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Former freight railway; the portion owned and operated by the MTA's Staten Island Rapid Transit Operating Authority (the full name of the subsidiary) is completely disconnected from the national rail network. Only a small portion of the former north shore line in the northwest corner of the island is connected to the national network via the Arthur Kill Lift Bridge, and that portion and the current passenger line have no connection whatsoever. Wouldn't be the first time (and unlikey to be the last) that a former regular rail line was turned into a metro line over time. oknazevad (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Then how are the R44s able to get on an off the island? Epicgenius (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
By flatbed truck. It's a captive fleet, not shared with the rest of the subway system. Most work on them is done at the SIR's own shops near Clifton. Only rarely is more major work done at the Coney Island shops, and when that is needed they'll truck them over the Verrazano in the middle of the night. More subway cars are delivered in the same fashion these days, trucked in, not delivered by rail. oknazevad (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh, so that's how the rolling stock is able to get there. Thanks for the explanation. Epicgenius (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Seoul stuff

Who's got Seoul

Not that it matters for this list that groups metros by operator, but here is a hint for all who still haven't thrown up their hands on the contentious ownership debate.

Seoul Metropolitan Subway lists as owner of the apocryphal system not "the government", or South Korea's Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, but:

"Seoul Special City, Korea Rail Network Authority, Incheon Metropolitan City, Uijeongbu City, Yongin City"

Of course, Seoul Metropolitan Subway is far from authoritative, but --- just saying ... BsBsBs (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Terramorphous (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Would you have sources for this? If yes, then I recommend adding then to the infobox (one per owner) at Seoul Metropolitan Subway , and get the whole ridiculous and time-wasting matter behind us. (Not that I am holding my breath.) Seoul Metropolitan Subway needs those sources. Epic, would you be able to help Terra? BsBsBs (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I might be able to (assuming I have the time... I might not be able to spend that much time online until Monday). Epicgenius (talk)16:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Can we verify which of those listed systems (and/or which portions) are metro/rapid transit, and which are not? Korail, especially, would seem to rarely qualify, yes? And are U Line and Everline definitely "metro"?... --IJBall (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
EverLine looks like a people mover, while U Line looks like a medium or light rail. Epicgenius (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is a citation of the length of Lines 1-9 on the Seoul city infrastructure website. Courtesy of the Korean wiki. [1]
Masseypacer's citation Articles #6-12 shows which company is operating of which sections of the metropolitan railway network. [2] Terramorphous (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, so it looks like 316.8 kilometres (196.9 mi)(?) is the correct figure(?). I'll change that, and cite it. As for the second article, I obviously can't read Korean, so hopefully somebody that can can summarize that for us. --IJBall (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey everyone. I can only skim parts of the edit war and input a little. What makes it more confusing is it usually isn't owned/controlled by one entity:

Lines 1-4 were paid for with central government money and are controlled by a mixture of Seoul Metro / Korail.
Line 5-8 were paid for by the city of Seoul. This is why maps will usually have 1~4 or 5~8 at the top left. They are all part of the same massive system with free transfers and such but has an (invisible) competition between the two.
Arex was built with a group of companies, it cost too much, Korail bought most of it out and the name of the group changed.
Line 9 is also a private company (i think group) that had an agreement with Seoul City (PPP public-private partnership). The basic idea is the company built it, operates it, and if fares dip below a certain point the city of Seoul pitches it and will eventually own it. It became an election issues as the company and Seoul city were...debating the ticket prices (each had a different interpretation of the contract).
U Line is a PPP but as the price went up the city of Uijeongbu couldn't pay the agreed amount and hence there are no free transfers.
Sinbundang (DX) is a private company but also a PPP
Everline I believe is a PPP
Incheon City owns Incheon Line 1

And for some real fun Korail controls metro in Seoul, countrywide freight shipping, train-trains (Semaul, Mugwang hwa) and bullet trains (KTX). The information about the PPP system is from an upcoming book (sorry guys) which will appear on this page when the book is published in the next few months. But honestly most of what I mentioned can be gleaned from other sites. This is why it is difficult to separate the system as it really is weaved together tightly. As most all of it appears on all "subway/metro/tube" maps, most all of it has free transfers, and the "ownership" is so confusing; I can only think of it as one massive system. Trying to divide it more is like splitting hairs. Please please please, if you really want me to reply to something send me a message and I'll get back to you when I can. I just honestly can't follow this page with any real regularity. ₪RicknAsia₪ 13:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly what I've been trying to tell these people (who have all never been on the Seoul Subway, let alone know much about it). Listing that system by owners or operators is just going nuts and as Rick said, literally splitting hairs. Also, this is a List of metro systems, not a List of metro operators/owners. So this idea of listing them by operators/owners is flawed to start with. Also, we have sources from all the operators confirming that it's basically one system (with the exception of Everline and U Line at the moment), so this whole separate system nonsense is invented by a group of editors who clearly feel their system is "threatened" and grab anything from OR to personal attacks to deny the truth and sources. Either way, I really do need to point out some totally ridiculous mistakes people have made - The Seoul city source that Teramorphous quoted with 316.8km is outdated as it excludes Line 7 extension to Incheon. And Line 7 is owned not just by Seoul but Bucheon and Incheon. How are you gonna list that now?? Also, people need to stop listing Incheon separate from the Seoul Metropolitan Area because it's legally part of it. Massyparcer (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

125.130.108.7 – a short story

Dante Gabriel Rossetti OMG! A doppelgänger!

I would like to point the attention of the esteemed editors to the work of an IP . In a few short months, that IP changed the face of the world of rapid transit.

This IP (info here) appeared first on 8 October 2013, and tried its hand on a (rather inconsequential) edit of E-Government. A week later, it corrected the erroneous assertion that Suji-gu lies 40km south of Seoul , and brought it into a very comfortable commuting distance of 29km. Having done this, the IP found its true calling: Metros, and the promotion of the Seoul Metro to the greatest under the sun.

On 20 October, the IP showed up for the first time on List of metro systems and proceeded to eliminate a serious contender in the race for world dominance , namely JR East. Its 7527.8km, proclaimed on these esteemed pages, would have been a clear hindrance in the ascendancy of the Seoul Metro. The IP cut down JR East to 34.5km by changing it to the Yamanote Line. Finally, I have the culprit for one of the silliest edits on this list. The Yamanote is one line of the JR, well, system, and it is not more the JR than the Circle line is the London Underground. Bad IP, bad!

Don’t let this momentary lapse of judgment taint the accomplishments of 125.130.108.7.

In the same edit, the IP elevated the Seoul Metropolitan Subway from “one of” the longest systems in the world to the throne of “the” longest system. Then, it concentrated its attention on making the new king to look as splendiferous as possible.

Something that could have been in the way of Seoul’s superiority would have been, gasp, commuter trains on its vast system. As the IP quickly learned, commuter train = bad, right down there with multi trip tickets and the abominable station-to-station fares. There was an entry in Seoul Metropolitan Subway that did read:

“Trains on numbered lines generally run on the right-hand track, while trains on the named lines (e.g. Sinbundang Line, Bundang Line, and AREX) run on the left-hand track. The exceptions are the trains on Line 1, as well as those on Line 4 south of Namtaeryeong Station. These lines run on the left-hand track because these rail lines are operated by Korail, South Korea's main commuter rail provider.”

Can’t have riff-raff commuters. The IP whacked the sentence, and drowned it in a dark corner of the Han River.

Seoul was in trouble again when an editor by the name of Terramorphous declared Shanghai the world’s largest. First the Japanese, now the Chinese! Seoul is being undermined!

The inimitable (well, we’ll see about that) IP bought time by deleting Shanghai so that it would not disturb a long list of Seoul’s superlatives. Still, it had the second longest … rail network behind the creepy Chinese. Clearly, more work was in order to prove the fact that Seoul has is the longest. Easy!

Add a few km here, and a few stations there (in-line references? Who needs them!) and the industrious IP was ready to put Seoul back on its throne. Take that, Middling Kingdom, dig a little more!

Having done its duty, user:125.130.108.7 more or less retired from the keyboard on December 30, 2013, not without adding a few more choice kilometers and stations here and there, to trump Terramorphous and the bu hao Chinese. A few days later, Seoul attracted the services of a freshly minted Wikipedia editor, and 125.130.108.7 could rest in peace.

Well, not quite.

For a few days, the IP graced the talk pages of List of metro systems, and introduced a certain distinctive style of debate, and editing.

That style was quickly emulated by user Massiveparser. Actually on January 3, Massiveparser purloined a long and rambling comment, made by the IP. Two minutes after the IP told Terramorphous to "watch out your words," Massiveparser declared the whole comment his own.

The IP did not complain - after all, there is no copyright on WP. The IP left the field to Massiveparser as far as trains were concerned. It made its last contribution to the cause on 24 January 2014 by establishing South Korea to its rightful top place of the Global Innovation Quotient, and finally, it retired from Wikipedia.

You will be missed, 125.130.108.7. But don’t worry. Your work will be continued by new generations, and the place of Seoul in the Walhalla of Metros is assured. BsBsBs (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok we should start cleaning up what has been done by 125.130.108.7 namely get cited lengths and stations counts for each line and putting back commuter rail references. Korea Wiki is a good place to look for this data.Terramorphous (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't know where to start, but I'd be willing to help, if someone can direct me what to do... --IJBall (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I basically look at what 125.130.108.7/masseypacer changed in the history and see if it is valid, which some of his edits are. I know the Seoul Metro network fairly well (not as well as some other editors around here) and so far I have done some editing for Seoul Subway Line 1 and korail commuter lines. Terramorphous (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I've found some refs for the EverLine and U Line being people mover and light rail, respectively. Epicgenius (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
If that's the case, they absolutely need to be (mostly) stricken from the Seoul Metropolitan Subway page (esp. the summary lines table). And, while we're on the subject, I strongly feel that the Seoul Metropolitan Subway likely needs to be both retitled and split (the real Seoul Subway should get a separate English-language page, IMO, just as it does in the Korean Wiki...). If anyone ever brings this kind of proposal up on the Talk page over there, let me know - I suspect a proposal like this is going to need some 'backup' over there!... --IJBall (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Follow-up: OK, U Line is definitely Light rail from that article's Reference #1. I have to admit that I'm conflicted about the EverLine though - it uses the same technology as SkyTrain (Vancouver), which we count as a "metro", so I'm not quite sure why it shouldn't qualify with the headways quoted in its article (unless it only runs 1-3 car trains)... --IJBall (talk) 06:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
The cars used are identical to the ones used in AirTrain JFK, a people mover. This may be the same problem as in Norristown High Speed Line, where the line has a fully-grade-separated right-of-way, but runs with single-car trains. It might actually be a light rapid transit system. Epicgenius (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, yeah - single-car trains makes all the difference. (The SkyTrain (Vancouver) article currently doesn't say how many car trains run on that system, but it looks like it's at least 2-3 car trains...) And, in an ironic reversal, I now think that the Norristown High Speed Line should now be stricken from inclusion here as well (it's, as you say, "Light metro") - the problem is I can't do that until I can reconcile this with articles like the List of United States rapid transit systems by ridership which currently include the NHSL in their figures for Philadelphia... --IJBall (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
You can't really erase the SEPTA entry because the Broad Street Line and Market–Frankford Line are still really rapid transit anyway, and Norristown High Speed Line isn't in the table to begin with. Epicgenius (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Clearly, I was talking about breaking out NHSL, not deleting the entire Phili entry. However, I just looked in to it, and I don't think NHSL can be broken out like that - APTA seems to be counting NHSL in with Broad Street and Market–Frankfort in their ridership figures, so we're stuck leaving NHSL in there too, even though it's more "light metro" than "metro"... --IJBall (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
the Skytrain uses 4 AirTrain JFK size cars linked together.Terramorphous (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
BTW, I was the one who added the following that the IP user 125.130.108.7 deleted:

“Trains on numbered lines generally run on the right-hand track, while trains on the named lines (e.g. Sinbundang Line, Bundang Line, and AREX) run on the left-hand track. The exceptions are the trains on Line 1, as well as those on Line 4 south of Namtaeryeong Station. These lines run on the left-hand track because these rail lines are operated by Korail, South Korea's main commuter rail provider.”

Also BTW, not a minor edit. [3] Epicgenius (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but this entire section is obnoxious and illegitimate. There is nothing wrong with starting out as an anon IP editor and then deciding to register a user name. The implication that it is somehow wrong to do such is stupid and should be retracted. Yes, Massy has a singular focus, but there's nothing wrong with being a niche editor. Do I wish Massy would be more neutral, less wordy and not make dozens of corrections to their posts after their initial response (which I've mentioned to them before)? Yes. But frankly this behavior is is is getting immature and approaching harassment, and is BS. So is tagging every post by the editor. Just leave it alone. If you don't like Massy's posts, BsBsBs, ignore them. Or else I'll haul both of you off to WP:ANI where I'll bluntly suggest an interaction ban for the both of you. This behavior has to stop, on both sides! Seriously! oknazevad (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Seoul Metropolitan Subway

... appears to be losing important information pertaining to metro owners/operators. This is a high profile page, please monitor for consistency with what is listed here. BsBsBs (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, please see Talk:Seoul Metropolitan Subway#Korail BsBsBs (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

As far as Korail's subways are concerned, there is a "Subways in Metropolitan Region" at Korail's website. I'm a bit confused, can't quite reconcile the data with what is listed. Seoul mavens, pls check. BsBsBs (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The English list is outdated to around 2004. For example, Bundang Line opened extensions from Bojeong to Suwon from between 2011-2013. I have phoned Korail to update them, though no idea when that will be done..the Korean page is more up-to-date, updated to around January 2012. Phoned them to update this ASAP as well. Massyparcer (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Watch: New changes, re: Gyeongchun Line. Will need verification from others here... --IJBall (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Verified by Korail's source already. Thanks. Massyparcer (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Tough. We are only to work with reliable sources, and in this case Korail itself is the most reliable. The data in the article MUST agree with the source.Calling them and asking them to change the data to yours is the epitome of OR ... until the data is changed. BsBsBs (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

But a secondary issue here is also the translation. When a claim is made that "subway" and "metro" mean the same thing in Korean... well, that needs to be taken with a huge grain of salt, even if some sort of reference is produced claiming that. I don't speak Korean, so I can't possibly know how true the translated word equivalence is... --IJBall (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

BsBsBs, you need to stop that conspiracy theory against me. Stop your name-calling because it's a direct violation of WP:Civility and a blatant example of bullying. It's easier to get on with an editor if you don't question their motives as per WP:What is consensus? Anyways, if you haven't read what I wrote, I told them to update them, not change any data. I would really appreciate if you stop being blind to what I write and actually start to read things properly...because your conspiracy theory is clearly blurring your brain here. You really need to stop making groundless claims and please proof-read what you write. Or do you really have a problem in English as other editors have been concerned? I hope that's not the case. Now, as for IJBall, if you haven't looked at the referenced dictionary, it clearly shows that it is synonymous. I'm not interested in making up anything here. But that's not even important since the addition was to clarify why they call subways in Korean despite some sections being overground. So you're missing the point. Korail's English source defines them as subways, which is synonymous to heavy rail/metro as per APTA's source. NYC Subway and Beijing Subway are good examples of this.. Massyparcer (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Massyparcer's sources are clearly not up to stuff. Just because they refer to the lines subways doesn't mean they are. The citation in does not in any way describe the technical and service standards of the line to verify that it is indeed rapid transit. It the sources translate and brand the lines as such but never produced any indication or proof that that are. In addition:

Some cities use metro as a brand name for a transit line with no component of rapid transit whatsoever.

Melbourne Trains got rebranded as Melbourne Metro is it rapid transit now? No of course not.

Terramorphous (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Terra of course. Until you can provide us with a source to prove your claims that any of Korail's subways disobey any criteria set out by UITP, USDT and APTA. Now I know you gonna start rambling about intercity rails with track sharing, which BsBsBs has proved is non-existent in any of UITP, APTA or USDT's definition and has even given us a huge textbook example of this by fully including Munich S-Bahn, which shares tracks with all sorts of intercity rails and even runs diesels. Whoa. Unless you're blind, you would know that. I advise you to stop being two-faced by keeping a blind eye on Munich S-Bahn and shunning Seoul for no reason which is in violation of WP:NPOV. And the 2012 Korail Statistics clearly lists all 17 lines under Seoul Metropolitan Subway on page 400. So this whole separate system nonsense has been just completely disproved by Korail itself - 2012 Korail Statistics. And you know we will remove any challenged unsourced claims. Oh and where is your source to that quote you just made? Seems like blatant original research without any in-line citations. You're clearly denting your credibility here as IJBall has said: "you can't willy-nilly say, "Oh, I don't like what this reference says. Therefore it's 'unreliable'." That's not how Wikipedia (or academia or journalism, for that matter) works." Massyparcer (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at Seoul Metropolitan Subway

R: Revision as of 22:17, 23 February 2014

RR: Revision as of 22:38, 23 February 2014

RRR: Revision as of 23:24, 23 February 2014

Edit warring warning issued at 23:42, 23 February 2014

RRRR: Revision as of 23:45, 24 February 2014

WP:RRR#The three-revert rule states:

"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours."

WP:RRR#The three-revert rule also states:

"Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation."

The edit at Seoul Metropolitan Subway was reverted a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot, and this is gaming the system, especially considering that, at 03:04, 24 February 2014, three hours after the third revert, the editor had declared his firm intent to continue the edit war.

I will not be drawn into this edit war. I have no experience in reporting these things, and I leave it to other editors to decide what to do about it. If they decide to take action, they may also take into account that the account is a repeat offender, which

You should also be aware that @Ymblanter: will most likely recuse himself as involved, and that you may need to seek assistance from a different admin.

BsBsBs (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

@BsBsBs: Don't hesitate to report this to Wikipedia:AN3! Epicgenius (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
For a starter, this is not a page to discuss another user's behaviour, if you haven't read at the top of this page. Secondly, you should know that I only removed Epic's unsourced and unverified original research and BsBsBs's irrelevant intro to Korail. BsBsBs nor Epic refuse to discuss on the talk page, and accusing me of "gaming" the system is groundless. If you haven't read WP:Edit warring: "When disagreement becomes apparent, one, both, or all participants should cease warring and discuss the issue on the talk page". Also, please read WP:What Wikipedia is not: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages." It seems as if the purpose of this talk page is to drive out and shun another editor with a very specific goal. Massyparcer (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Line 1 runs on the leftLine 4 runs part on the left, and part on the right, and the rest run on the right, according to ko.wikipedia. Sinbundang Line runs on the left, as does A*REX. Epicgenius (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
And we all know that using a Wikipedia article as a source is strictly forbidden. You have no reliable sources to prove your claims. Massyparcer (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay then, why don't you find a source for the Korean Wikipedia article, rather than complaining about how it's unreliable? Epicgenius (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
That's your job, not mine because you're the one who is trying to add unsourced claims. Massyparcer (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
And you're the one who's trying to remove the claim. Which is sourced, by the way. Epicgenius (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Then prove yourself by showing us your source right here. If you don't, we have no choice but to remove your unsourced claim. Massyparcer (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I will obviously not take any action. For the record, since bulshitting continues, I have been to Seoul several times and used the subway heavily.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Superlative

One lesson learned from Korean War II: This list is being used for propaganda purposes, and Superlatives invite trouble. After the recent IP edits, I have removed ALL superlatives, and we should not tolerate any on this list. With a heavy heart, the oldest metro, and the longest driverless metro fell victim of this. 17:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm OK with this for now. But I think if (solid secondary) sources can be found for these in the future, they can and should be added back. The issue right now is less their inclusion in the article - it's more that these claims are either unsourced, or are less than optimally sourced, which allows for the kind of abuse to them that we've seen over the years... --IJBall (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Seconded. BsBsBs (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Im fine with this but if we can get a net of bullet proof sources then I think its fine to add it.Terramorphous (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with BsBsBs that this list is being used for propaganda purposes. Superlatives only invite trouble, unnecessary edit wars and fights, and is silly. Because it's what kids like to do. "we should not tolerate any on this list" - Second to that. It's a wise idea. Massyparcer (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Commuter no like

As "commuter rail" has turned into an epithet around here, I have removed the "commuterlike" note group from (hopefully) all listings. To reintroduce, I would need to see a good source for each listing that says that this system is "commuterlike." See also previous discussion about the subtle differences between "commuter rail" and "commuter train." BsBsBs (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the note; it was needlessly argumentative and only has caused tension. That said, your comment about commuter rail being self contained from other rail traffic is inaccurate, at least for commuter rail in North America. Sure, the LIRR may only share one station with other passenger trains, but most commuter lines in North America share tracks with freight and/or inter-city trains. Metro-North's tracks, for example, are used by Amtrak and CSX freights. Even the LIRR has freight trains run by the New York and Atlantic Railway.
Indeed, the APTA glossary definition does say "Most service is provided on routes of current or former freight railroads." Contrast that with the heavy rail definition stating "separate rights-of-way from which all other vehicular and foot traffic are excluded". "All other vehicular traffic" includes other trains. At least that's how I read it. At that reading is borne out by the contrast between which systems are in which categories in the APTA statistics. That metro systems are self-contained and isolated from national rail networks has long been a major characteristic. That said, as with all considerations, there are exceptions and variances. That's why this list has long treated the criteria as soft, not strict. oknazevad (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
And apparently, the UITP does agree with the differentiation between self-contained and not, at least in the European context. To quote here: "Suburban and Regional Rail: operated on ‘heavy’ rail infrastructure which is potentially interoperable with other types of rail transport services (freight and/or passenger)" vs "Urban Rail: consisting of tram, light rail, metro and some suburban-regional rail systems. Urban Rail describes a market generally physically and/or functionally separated from the interoperable EU railway network." Now there is some level of hemming, with the "some suburban-regional" systems included with the latter, but the central point remains. And this is quite current, as the most recent related link in the above quoted section is from September 2013, after the 2011 definition above. oknazevad (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Very interesting. So they're basically contradicting themselves by including commuter rails into metros and the other way around. The biggest flaw with this one is that it is for the EU only and doesn't apply to US or Asia. We really need a global definition, not just one for the Europeans..Massyparcer (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't read it that way. They're setting two distinct categories, one for suburban/regional/commuter systems that are connected to the general rail network and subject to the general rail safety regulations, and urban ones that are segregated from the general, iteroperable network. So it's quite clear to me that, using this as a guide, the general definitions from 2011, quoted above, should be interpreted such that "systems operated on their own right of way" means separate from other rail traffic, as well as without crossings. (With the caveat that some systems widely regarded as metros may have some minor exceptions at points in the system, like Tokyo, Chicago and London).oknazevad (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
That still doesn't solve the fact that it is very specifically applied to the EU only. While this would be obviously very valid for European commuter rails, we can't use a very local definition and apply it to a global context:

Through its EU Committee, UITP has been recognised by the EU as a Representative Rail Association since 2005. UITP represents urban, suburban and regional rail service providers in the EU, and beyond. These particular railway services are most often operated under public service requirements following Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 in the EU. For this reason, UITP, and its EU Committee, are systematically consulted on rail issues raised by the European Commission (LINK TO www.europa.eu), or by the European Railway Agency (LINK TO www.era.europa.eu) that are in charge of setting up the regulatory framework for rail, including specifically the “TSIs” or Technical Specifications for Interoperability, as well as the European Safety specifications. These common specifications are necessary for achieving the interoperability of the European Union railway system.

Massyparcer (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: Oh no, I am made to read EU-speak again! Please, and this goes for all types of bible studies here, we must always understand these things in the context they are written in. Quoting out of context is dangerous. The just cited UITP quote was not geared to define exactly what runs on what. It was written to state in which EU legal frameworks systems have to navigate, and where the possible legal (and other) overlaps are. Full quote:

"Suburban and Regional Rail: operated on ‘heavy’ rail infrastructure which is potentially interoperable with other types of rail transport services (freight and/or passenger), and which has to cope with the technical and safety requirements set up by the EU rail legislation; Urban Rail: consisting of tram, light rail, metro and some suburban-regional rail systems. Urban Rail describes a market generally physically and/or functionally separated from the interoperable EU railway network. Urban Rail is excluded from the technical rail directives under revision in the 4th Railway Package. Following initiatives taken jointly by UNIFE and UITP, and their “Urban Rail Platform” created in 2007, the harmonisation of urban rail is currently driven by EC mandate M/486 and CEN-CENELEC Guide 26, and it involves specific relationship with the European Commission, other rail associations, the ESOs and ERRAC."

So I thought I escaped Europe to get away from this, now it catches up with me again. Also, please note that they are not including blasted commuter rail with anything, because they don't mention said blasted commuter rail, most likely because commuter rail as a mode of transport does not exist in Europe.

In the interest of getting somewhere, editors are urged to understand that things are not as clear-cut as we wish, that elsewhere things can be different than in America, especially when you have highly developed and heavily used, local, national, and international passenger rail systems of all kinds that operate in densely populated areas. These things grow organically, and not necessarily in textbook fashion. BsBsBs (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Certainly this is a Euro-centric definition, and a more general one would be preferred, but come on, are you seriously disputing that "commuter rail" and "suburban rail" are synonymous in regular English usage? oknazevad (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, I have no idea and I would not dare. All I am trying to impress on editors is that neither the word nor - and that's the most important part - the concept exists in most parts of the world outside of North America. This leads to constant irritations elsewhere, especially when they hear the pronouncement: "This is no metro, this definitely is commuter rail" and the poor folks abroad have no idea what we are talking about, nor what we are referring to. See above, talk with BIL, Swedish "Pendeltåg" German "Pendlerzug." Yes, they have (well, more and more had) a commuter train that ran on normal lines in the morning and in the evening before there was a metro. They never had nor have a commuter railroad. That Pendlerzug was operated by the Deutsche Bahn. Same in Japan. If you call, for instance, the Tokyu lines "commuter rail" you will get a big "sumimasen?" Its a metro-like private operation on its own ROW, with sometimes 5 minute headway, a 100km network length, and more than 100 stations. First train at 5, last after midnight. Many level crossings, because there is no space for bridges and tunnels. The gates are chocking the traffic because they are always down. There are zillions of these private railroads in Japan.
Trying to force the Commuter Rail concept on the world is as grating as Germans coming to America looking for an S-Bahn. Gentlemen, there is a reason why you won't find commuter rail in the UITP definitions. BsBsBs (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Note

I've reorganized some sections due to their being so cluttered. Epicgenius (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Seoul Owners

To (hopefully) end the edit warring, I took out the left & right stuff ay Seoul Metropolitan Subway#Lines & Channels and put in the four owners of the various networks, cited form a source that I think, well, hope won't be doubted. I also added that the situation see,s to be similar to Japan and Europe, where the national railroad sometimes operates urban metros. BsBsBs (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Sources & methods

@ Unown:

Thank you for helping out checking sources. This list really needs it, and, I hope you will check out more. We need all the help we can get. I see you are brand-new on Wikipedia, so here a few tips: The data given must be sourced, and must jibe with the source.

  • Chongqing: Can’t find the total km in the source. Set to 0 to attract better data. Pls help me out
  • Shanghai: Source is Weibo which I understand is the Chinese Twitter. Got a better source?
  • Beijing: The story is about a little girl taking the subway. Got a better, more recent source? They are digging quite furiously over there
  • Mexico City: I find all kinds of stuff in that source, but not the number of stations. I bet they are somewhere. Where?
  • Madrid: Used the 300 km given in the source

Thank you for helping clean up. There are many entries that have no source at all! BsBsBs (talk) 11:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor)
  • Chongqing:  Not done yet...
  • Shanghai:  Done
  • Beijing:  Not done yet...
  • Mexico City:  Done
  • Madrid:  Done
Epicgenius (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Xie xie! BsBsBs (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I struck the UrbanRail.net reference from Mexico City - the original primary reference from Mexico City Metro does have the 195 stations figure (the problem is that this figure is double-counting transfer stations). I would urge us to stay away from using UrbanRail as a stats reference - more often than not, I have found UrbanRail's figures (esp. system length) to be in error when I've checked the primary sources (i.e. the operators themselves)... --IJBall (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 Comment: It's hard to find a definite source for Beijing and Shanghai, due to the fact that the number of stations rises very often. Epicgenius (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
My advice? Use the most recent figure available that can be referenced, and then 'Note' the Stations stat saying that the actual figure is likely higher due to "more recent construction"... --IJBall (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Sound advice. The digging in both cities is fast and furious. They have to, the traffic collapses. With the digging, it collapses even more. As for the primary/secondary sources: In matters of current numbers (technical, financial etc.), I always recommend to take them from the primary source. It is their responsibility to keep the numbers current. Secondary soerces are often outdated, and they make mistakes. I would not cite a primary source when it says "I am the world's greatest ...." but I definitely will when they say "Our 3rd quarter operating profit was ..." BsBsBs (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 Done for Beijing. Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Chongqing is a little hard to do because most sources count the monorail lines as part of the metro while this list doesn't. (which IMHO monorails should be counted if the monorail is proven to achieve over 30,000 pphpd)Terramorphous (talk) 04:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Munich S-Bahn

I have added the missing info for S-Bahn Muenchen. Used route length as per intro. Not that it matters anymore, but I read that the 40 minute service frequency now is 10 minutes on most lines, and that the picturesque lone diesel line was electrified in 2013. I will now do some research on the JR. BsBsBs (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be appreciated if you can post sources that show that the service frequency is 10 min on most lines. And perhaps a source about that diesel line being electrified. Can be in German, that's no problem since I speak German. Thanks. Massyparcer (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Not listed as a source here, it was simply an off-hand remark. Strictly for edificational purposes: [10 minute service frequency "Takt 10" The info that S A "was electrified in 2013" was bogus, should read "is being electrified." See also here.BsBsBs (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Then Linie A should be excluded from the count until it is electrified since it is running diesel trains until December 2014 at the earliest. The source says "Nach derzeitigem Planungsstand soll die S-Bahnlinie A zwischen Dachau und Altomünster bis zum Jahresende 2014 elektrifiziert und barrierefrei ausgebaut werden". Their official page also says that Linie A is still under construction to being electrified: http://www.s-bahn-muenchen.de/s_muenchen/view/wir/unternehmen.shtml Massyparcer (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Not before you bring here a reliable source saying that Linie A is not a part of the system. Please apply to your reasoning the same criteria you are so quick to apply to others.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
We're applying UITP rules here that clearly says metro is "an electrically powered train operating on reserved tracks in urban areas". If we allow exceptions here, anybody can come along and claim that their diesel system can be included in this list. It will only cause chaos again. We have already agreed to enforce UITP's definition strictly, so I suggest you read the consensus above first. Massyparcer (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
UITP does not say you have to split the system if one line does not conform with the definitions. Please stop conducting original research.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
UITP clearly says that only ""an electrically powered train operating on reserved tracks in urban areas" is a metro. Full Stop. You have just invented an original research called "Allow a diesel line to count just because it's part of the system even if it breaches UITP's definition". Which is sourceless. If you want to formally propose this exception to be added to our consensus, you're free to do so. But as it stands, such an exception doesn't exist. Massyparcer (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Massyparcer kindly conceded above that "if Munich S-Bahn uses diesel trains, it doesn't meet the definition of using only electric trains, but if this is an exception rather than the norm, then we can reconsider including Munich back to the list." Well, Munich S-Bahn doesn't use diesel trains, the picturesque A line from Dachau to Altomuenster does, and they are working hard to change this. I am asking User:Massyparcer for his continued support. As agreed, we will not read anything into the UITP definition. It doesn't disqualify a system for a lone picturesque diesel track, and it also won't tell you to deduct the 29.9km of the Dachau–Altomünster railway from the 530km total. Of course, if there is consensus to deduct, we can do that. I disagree, because I do not want to be accused of WP:OR. BsBsBs (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
That's exactly the problem I outlined above. I would personally prefer to deduce the non-electrified track, but then it logically follows that we need to deduce from Seoul what Massyparcer wants to add and what they call "consensus" not to deduce. In the end of the day, it is indeed up to consensus of users of this talk page, how to count the systems. And I am afraid the consensus at the moment is that Massyparcer is in a disagreement with everybody else, and therefore their opinion should not count.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Agreed with BsBsBs and Ymblanter. We now have consensus that we can allow a diesel line to be inside a system so long as most of it is electric. Massyparcer (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I did not propose this.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
No we don't. Something like this is akin to L.A.'s Metro Rail - if you have lines that are "Metro", but also lines that are "non-Metro" (either Light rail or Commuter rail), then those lines (and stations) need to be subtracted from the total. So if there is a line that is still currently diesel, then that line needs to be subtracted from the total for the system and excluded. You can include the rest of the system (i.e. the "Metro" part) in the list, but not the Light rail or Commuter rail lines. Again, this is how it's been done on this list for a long time... --IJBall (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Then we should deduct Linie A from the system since there is no consensus. Massyparcer (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Very strongly opposed. This picturesque line is part of the Munich S-Bahn metro network system, it uses its zone-based metro fare structure, and we just agreed not to invent rules as we go. On a personal note, I am also strongly apposed to "adjusting" data to make them fit a certain view, even if it is by 100% consensus. Lynching is also by consensus, and it's wrong.BsBsBs (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
This is a difficult one. Ymblanter's idea is to allow a diesel line so long as it is part of a metro system, whereas IJBall's view is that it must be deducted. If nothing happens, I guess it would go with BsBsBs's idea of including the diesel line. Massyparcer (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I now realize why the Munich S-Bahn was not included in this list before. Track sharing with other intercity trains and freight traffic is a major problem with Munich S-Bahn that I have overlooked. Many lines in the Munich S-Bahn breach UITP criteria of "reserved tracks" and "totally independent from other traffic". Munich S-Bahn article says that "The S-Bahn partly operates on its own routes (one or two tracks), parts of it are double-track lines where S-Bahn operations are mixed with other traffic (passengers and freight), and in some cases more than two tracks are available. In the latter case one-or two tracks are set aside for the S-Bahn operations only and the two other tracks are used for the remaining traffic." For example, Linie S1 West is shares tracks with regional and Interregional (ALEX, DIX (Donau-Isar-Express)) services, as well as freight traffic. S2 West shares tracks with Intercity-Express services to Berlin and Hamburg as well as Frankfurt via Nuremberg, Regional services to Nuremberg and Ingolstadt and freight traffic. S3 West shares tracks with regional, long-distance and freight traffic. S4 shares tracks with various regional services every two hours, two hourly EuroCity service to Zürich, diverted long distance services from Augsburg-Munich line. The list goes on, which means these lines must be excluded from the count. I suggest removing Munich S-Bahn from the list until this is sorted out since a significant portion is commuter rail with all sorts of track sharing with ICE and freight traffic going on. Massyparcer (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Before this devolves into yet another edit war: The editor who just deleted the Munich entry without preceding discussion, had stated in a separate discussion that the Munich S-Bahn should be used, with its route length as given by the source. He now enters a completely contradicting statement, based on a Wikipedia entry. Wikipedia is no reliable source. Also, the UITP definition, which was applauded by the editor, says nothing about track sharing. The editor changes his position by the minute. As a matter of fairness, I am disclosing that I grew up in a house overlooking S8, and that I was present at the inauguration of the Munich combined S-Bahn/U-Bahn MVV Metro System. BsBsBs (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
You have reverted without giving any reason which is not constructive. It is tempting to revert to what you believe is true, especially when you have childhood emotions with this system, but I suggest you to discuss first before making any controversial changes. Like I have said to other editors,you need to learn to accept the truth even if it is not what you have grown up to believe to be true. Playing the revert game isn't constructive. I'm not going to revert back because nobody wants an edit war here. That doesn't mean you're correct, we're simply following Wikipedia rules here. As you can see, there was clear discussion before the revert to notify you of removing Munich S-Bahn until this is sorted out. We are not rail experts and I haven't known much about Munich S-Bahn until I studied it thoroughly today, only finding out that there is clear track sharing going on with ICE and freight rail. I have suspected given that it is over 500km long yet with only 150 stations which is extremely anomalous for a metro and typical of commuter rails. I haven't quoted Wikipedia, I have quoted the official facts from German railways that were summarized on Wikipedia. The Munich S-Bahn does breach UITP criteria of "reserved tracks" and "totally independent from other traffic", which includes any intercity or freight traffic. We have made this very clear numerous times on this article and the Transportation Research Board makes clear that [4] "Heavy Metro: A transit mode that operates on a fully grade separated (separated from street level) ‘rights-of-ways.’ Unlike generic LRT, many metros, including monorail, are proprietary transit systems and cannot share their ROW with other transit modes including other metros!"

Here is a complete list of lines that breach the UITP definition and the full technical reasons and the traffic that's being shared:

Line Route and
section		 Distance from Hbf or Ostbf Other traffic Infrastructure
S1 to S8 Trunk line
Pasing–Hbf–Ostbahnhof		 11.4 km Between Pasing and Hauptbahnhof some trains are operated between Donnersbergerbrücke and Hauptbahnhof by Bayerische Oberlandbahn Three stations with three or more platform tracks, three stations using Spanish solution.
S1 West Munich–Regensburg railway
Laim–Freising		 40.7 km Regional and Interregional (ALEX, DIX (Donau-Isar-Express)) services, as well as freight traffic. Two tracks in mixed operation for 34.5 km.
S1 West Neufahrn Link
Neufahrn–Airport West (7.3 km)		 40.8 km S-Bahn only, except for occasional freight trains Two tracks.
S2 West Munich–Ingolstadt line
Laim–Petershausen		 36.4 km Intercity-Express services to Berlin and Hamburg as well as Frankfurt via Nuremberg, Regional services to Nuremberg and Ingolstadt and freight traffic. Separate S-Bahn (one or two tracks) in addition to high-speed tracks for ICE and other traffic.
S3 West Munich–Augsburg railway
Pasing–Mammendorf		 31.0 km Regional, long-distance and freight traffic. This is one of the busiest lines in Germany, so it was upgraded to four tracks for the S-Bahn. Separate tracks for the S-Bahn (two to Maisach, then one to Mammendorf).
S4 West Allgäu Railway
Pasing–Geltendorf		 42.1 km Various regional services every two hours, two hourly EuroCity service to Zürich, diverted long distance services from Augsburg-Munich line Two tracks mixed operations for 34.7 km. Electrified for the S-Bahn to Geltendorf.
S8 West
Munich–Herrsching railway
Pasing–Herrsching		 38.3 km Only S-Bahn services. Two tracks to Weßling, then single track.
S6 West Munich–Garmisch-Partenkirchen railway
Pasing–Tutzing		 39.6 km Regional services and occasional long distance trains to Garmisch-Partenkirchen. Two separate S-Bahn tracks to Gauting, then two tracks in mixed operation.
S7 West Isar Valley Railway
Solln–Wolfratshausen		 31.3 km Only S-Bahn services. Two tracks to Höllriegelskreuth, then single track.
East Airport line
Ostbahnhof–Ismaning–Airport		 33.1 km Freight traffic between Daglfing and North Ring. Continuous two tracks, some in mixed operation with freight.
S2 East Munich–Mühldorf railway and Markt Schwaben–Erding railway
Ostbahnhof–Markt Schwaben–Erding		 34.7 km Freight and regional traffic towards Mühldorf and Freilassing to Markt Schwaben, then only S-Bahn traffic. Two tracks in mixed operation to Markt Schwaben, then single track to Erding.
S4 East Munich–Rosenheim railway and Grafing–Wasserburg railway
Ostbahnhof–Grafing–Ebersberg		 31.0 km Regional services to Rosenheim and Wasserburg, long distance services to Salzburg, as well as freight traffic. Four tracks to Grafing (S-Bahn operations separated), then single track with mixed traffic.
S7 East Munich East–Deisenhofen railway and Munich-Giesing–Kreuzstraße railway
Giesing–Kreuzstraße		 30.1 km S-Bahn only. Single track.
S3 East Munich East–Deisenhofen railway and Munich–Holzkirchen railway
Ostbahnhof–Giesing–Deisenhofen–Holzkirchen		 31.2 km S-Bahn only to Deisenhofen. The Bayerische Oberlandbahn also operates between Deisenhofen and Holzkirchen. Two tracks.
S20 Sendling Clasp
Pasing–Mittersendling (8.7 km)		 38.8 km (from Pasing) Runs in part over freight tracks to/from Munich Laim marshalling yard. Single track to Mittersendling, then continuing on the Munich–Holzkirchen railway.
S27 Munich–Holzkirchen railway
Hbf–Holzkirchen		 36.5 km Regional services of the Bayerischen Oberlandbahn. Two tracks in mixed operations.

Massyparcer (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The Munich S-bahn should not be included as it is operated with other non-metro traffic.Terramorphous (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not like the idea to include Munich S-Bahn. When including this system, there are many systems we could include that partially share tracks with inter-city but have much track without other traffic. Then we would soon have to merge List of metro systems with List of suburban and commuter rail systems. --BIL (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
We may not like it, but according to the new definition, there is not much we can do. The new definition does not rule out track sharing. There is considerable doubt whether track sharing was ever ruled out officially, or whether sinful sharing has become part of a belief system, just like headway, level crossings and multi-trip tickets. There are shared tracks on other systems that are on the list. The Munich S-Bahn runs on its own tracks on the main lines, secondary lines are shared.BsBsBs (talk) 12:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Revisited

OK, I think this system was originally added to "prove a point". Now that I think the issue of the "definition" of a true "metro" system has been settled, can we please agree to delete the Munich S-Bahn systems from the list, as is shares rails with other rail types, and therefore doesn't truly operate in its "own right of way" (i.e. exclusively)? Thanks in advance... --IJBall (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI, Tokyo Metro also interoperates with other rail types, such as commuter rail. Epicgenius (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
In Tokyo, there is more swapping that at a summer of love orgy. For all we know, those unreferenced metros in places no-one can pronounce still have steam ... This needs a better solution, no constant band-aids that lead to endless dispute. I will happily toss ALL the German S-Bahns along with the (silly) Yamanote once we have a list definition that allows me to do that without blushing. Without, I will add Frankfurt S-Bahn if we don't do this soon. Their tunnel alone is longer than some of the minor "metros" on this list. And just between us girls: We know what separate ROW means.... BsBsBs (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

IJ: I recommend to allow things to settle a bit. I think the matter of the list inclusion/exclusion still needs some work. Once we can do this constructively, this should not be long. Trust me, I am completely agnostic when it comes to who is the biggest metro (the Chinese are winning this anyway, they are digging furiously, and there is no doubt that the system has one owner ........). I have a valid NYC MetroCard, a Hong Kong Octopus, a Tokyo SUICA (where $100 evaporate quicker than water on a hot tin roof), and whatever they call those things in Beijing, and Shenzhen, China. I am metromultisexual! Please no fait accompli until dust and nerves settle. Thank you!BsBsBs (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It appears that the absolute minimum definition of a metro says that it shall be independent of road traffic. I.e. no level crossings with roads. Then what are these ? [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] They are level crossings between roads and railways with Munich S-Bahn trains (various lines, the last from the picturesque Line A). I can easily find seven more. This discussion has been about definition, with only WP as source, and WP is not even not saying the system is without level crossings. Munich is listed as number two in the world, but soon I will remove it.--BIL (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, A couple of crossings on outlying portions of the system aren't automatic disqualifiers. The Chicago 'L' has a couple, and so does London, iinm. And there's no way they don't belong. So it's not an automatic disqualifier. oknazevad (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Munich S-Bahn has at least 30, and then I checked only half the network, probably 50. London underground has no level crossings according to a little research I did, but it has had a few earlier on. Frankfurt U-bahn has some.--BIL (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Then Munich S-Bahn should be gone since it significantly violates even the absolute minimum definition. I mean, one or two level crossings here and there at the outskirts may be acceptable, but 50 level crossings or more seems unacceptable by any measure. Massyparcer (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: How is the S-Bahn considered a metro system? It's actually a form of commuter rail, in my opinion. Epicgenius (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

We've been through this ad nauseam. The Munich S-Bahn fully complies with the current definition. "No level crossings" is a phantom criterion. The new UITP definitions even expressly allow them. Under the current list inclusion criteria, the Munich S-Bahn has the same right to be on the list as the Hamburg and Berlin S-Bahns (and, just saying, the Korail segments of Seoul...) If this continues, there will be a Frankfurt S-Bahn, and a few more which I feel should not be on the list, but who cares about my feelings.BsBsBs (talk) 10:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I completely disagree that that's what the UITP definitions say. Looking at UITP source you originally posted, three things come to mind. First, that it is just as Eurocentric as the definitions I posted yesterday in the #Commuter the sentence section, being written specifically in reference to EU directives. Secondly, that it does very much say that metros are separated from the general rail network, describing "Urban rail" (including metros, light rail and trams) as systems that "which might be excluded from the scope of the Interoperability Directive" governing the general rail network. And thirdly, most specific to your comment here, metros are explicitly defined as operating on "their own right of way and segregated from general road and pedestrian traffic" and that if on the surface "with physical separation in such a way that inadvertent access is not possible". That means no level crossings. The definition is explicitly contrasted with light rail, which is defined as being partly separated, but also having some segments not fully segregated. So, again, at least in EU contexts, the UITP definitions are exactly in line with what has long been understood and the was no new definition in 2011. Please stop saying there was. oknazevad (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Addendum Regardless of the level crossing issue, the telling quote in relation to the Munich S-Bahn is in a footnote: "networks that are functionally separate from the rest of the rail system". As already noted in these numerous discussions, and prior ones related to Munich, the S-Bahn, unlike its Berlin or Hamburg counterparts, shares tracks with intercity trains, that is to say the general rail network. That alone disqualifies it. oknazevad (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
User:BsBsBs has himself posted the definition of Metros: "Urban Guided Transport systems operated on their own right of way and segregated from general road and pedestrian traffic." Then how can Munich S-Bahn with roughly fifty level crossings with roads be a metro? Do you want me to add the Copenhagen regional train system, over 1000 km (not counting the metro and S-trains)? User:BsBsBs shows every sign of having his private agenda (promoting Munich) and being manipulative, not admitting what he previously wrote. Do you not have a work to go to? I have and do not write much here. User:BsBsBs seems to be a person who can speak and write well and should be able to get a high profile job. I started editing Wikipedia in 2006, and I can not remember ever seeing a so long discussion, at least not any with so many words written. (there are 82,400 words in discussion threads on this page started during 2014)--BIL (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 Comment: (again) – How does anyone know that the S-Bahn is specifically a metro system, and not a commuter rail system? It looks like, from the Wikipedia article on this, "the Munich S-Bahn exhibits characteristics of both rapid transit and commuter rail systems". Epicgenius (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Two quick points here: 1) the Munich S-Bahn has been stricken from the metros list already (so no one is "counting" it as a "metro" right now), and 2) I agree with nearly everyone else in this thread that the meaning of "own right of way" and "totally separated from other traffic" does absolutely rule out a system with dozens of at-grade road crossings (by definition). At this point, I think there's pretty strong consensus to keep this particular system out of the list. So it's pretty much a 'moot' point now, I think, yes?... --IJBall (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is basically null, given the fact that the LIRR, for example, has separate rights-of-way, total separation from other traffic, and metro-like rolling stock (well, not the C3s, but still…). Epicgenius (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Why am I being forced here to write legal briefs without earning the customary $500/hr?

In the old media handout from 12.11.08 (preserved in Google cache), the UITP said:

"Metros are totally independent from other traffic, road or pedestrians. They are consequently designed in tunnel, viaducts or on surface level but with physical separation." (Emphasis mine.)

In the new, formal definition from 5 October 2011 the UITP says:

"[Metros] are consequently designed for operations in tunnel, viaducts or on surface level but with physical separation in such a way that inadvertent access is not possible." (Emphasis mine.)

I would not be surprised if between 2008 and 2011, a WP-like debate over the meaning of "physical separation" took place, and that the "physical separation" was amplified to "in such a way that inadvertent access is not possible." To my regret, I must say that I have too much experience with EU regulatory language. One of the devices to stop inadvertent access is a boom barrier, just like a lockable door can (when closed) prevent inadvertent access to our house, and just like with such a lockable door, the inside of our house is "physically separated" from the public outside, even when there is a door, and not just a window- and door-less wall, which some (but not many) may erroneously assume.

In Europe at least, an inspector who is looking for the required prevention of "inadvertent access," will put a big check mark next to "physical separation" when he is shown the closeable gate.

If the UITP would have wanted to say "no level crossings," it would not have needed all that complicated verbiage. It could have simply written "Level crossings are not allowed." (And the cement manufacturing and civil engineering lobbies would have high-fived.)

Why do I have to write all this? This is getting big-time ludicrous. WP:OR warns us not to read things into sources that aren't there. If a newer definition is found that expressly disallows level crossings, and that disqualifies a metro if such devices are found, then I will myself remove any alleged metros that have these nasty implements. Until this is done, I strongly recommend to table this matter.

If we no longer want to trade threadbare arguments, we should focus on writing a better list definition instead of reading moldy tea-leaves. This process starts with discussing what we want from this list. If we can find a way to exclude sub-standard wanna-be metros from this list, I will be the first one to hit the delete button. The inclusion of the S-Bahnen (and there will be more) was expressly meant to move this discussion into this very productive direction. If we don't think they are a metro, then we should discuss it, and, depending on the outcome, find a way to exclude them. Inclusion and exclusion criteria offer a wide latitude. See operator vs. owner. BsBsBs (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Can we have a direct quote from UITP showing that UITP "expressly allow them" as you say. Massyparcer (talk) 12:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Certainly! Like all readers, we would have to wade through the jungle of comments. It's in there!BsBsBs (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't remember ever seeing level crossings mentioned in the 2011 UITP paper you showed us. Massyparcer (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't surprise me. Selective attention is a menace.BsBsBs (talk) 14:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Then prove your claims by showing us your UITP source that "expressly allow them" as you claim. If you don't, nobody will believe unsourced claims. Massyparcer (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
In any case, {{SPA|Massyparcer}} will continue to promote whatever he thinks will help to restore his Seoul to the throne of metros, and he will try to assassinate whatever he thinks will send his Seoul to hell. Many times, he will shoot himself in the foot while doing so. Not a problem. This SPA account can be abandoned, and sleepers can be activated. — Massyparcer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. BsBsBs (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Whoa. It seems whenever things turn out unfavorable to you, you go straight to questioning my motives with groundless claims and attacking me personally in an attempt to mislead other editors. Stop being deliberately hostile to me and convince the editors with hard-cold sources instead of resorting to dirty tactics like personal attacks and questioning the others' motives as per WP:NPA:

What is considered to be a personal attack?

  • Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream
  • Criticisms of, or references to, personal behavior in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page.

Remember: Comment on content, not on the contributor.

Please read WP:NPA. You really need to stop your wikidrama and stop getting overly emotional about me. Massyparcer (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

"inadvertent access" = access resulting from or achieved through deliberate planning. A closeable gate provides none of that sort. Most people can easily vault over or get around a the most well built grade crossing barriers if they deliberately wanted to. A self contained subway system on a viaduct or tunnel or completely fenced grade separated ROW is pretty hard to break into even if you want to. Long story short the Munich S-bahn is not Rapid Transit.Terramorphous (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Low-level platforms

This is a slightly unrelated question, but does the existence of low-level platforms disqualify a railway from being a metro? Epicgenius (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hm, good question. I've never seen anything specifically saying it disqualifies a system. All I've ever seen is an explanation (in a couple of books, such as 722 Miles about the history of the NYC Subway and a couple by hockey maven/transit writer Stan Fischler) that level boarding is common. It certainly speeds boarding and alighting for the platform and the car floor to be the same height. But whether that height is high or low i haven't seen anything particular. oknazevad (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I can't think of a "metro" system that uses "low-floor vehicles". All the systems that I know off that do use low-floor vehicles are either Stadtbahns or Light rail systems. As Oknazevad said, I don't think I've seen a reference that explicitly ties "high-floor" HRVs and "metro" definitionally, but I'll have to think about that some more and keep an eye out for that from now on... --IJBall (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
the Vienna U6 is a low floor metro line.Terramorphous (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Low-level platforms are normally used if buses shall use the same platforms. Buses need low-level platforms to avoid dangerous gaps. But in this case the rail-bound system is not separated from roads and is a light-rail system, not a metro.--BIL (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Incorporating data from Metro_systems_by_annual_passenger_rides

What do you think about adding ridership data from Metro_systems_by_annual_passenger_rides to this article? So that we get rid of a slightly redundant article and make this one more complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.1.82.160 (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a bad idea - the List of metro systems is already "busy" enough as it is, and having the Ridership figures in a separate list is a reasonable idea (it's how this issue is handled elsewhere - e.g. Light rail in the United States and List of United States light rail systems by ridership, etc.). A merge is not a good idea... --IJBall (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Strongly support, as there's actually no need for two articles. --Pavlovič (talk) 11:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Support – The tables can be placed on one page, which is this page. Epicgenius (talk)00:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_metro_systems/Archive_14&oldid=1160728198"