Talk:List of metro systems/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10

Reverts of my Edits

First of all... Thank you for recognizing my edits as good faith. However, I do not wish to rehash the same arguments that litter this Talk Page and its archives. So if you, Ravendrop, have particular points of contention, please state them here and we can discuss them one by one. I admit that some of the systems that were added are in the "gray area" (as are many of the systems which are already in the table and over which no one seems to have any disputes about), but many of them were not gray at all, and there is no logical basis for reverting those particular edits at all. 江戸っ子 (talk) 09:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want to add entries like JR East as a 1845 kilometers long metro system, then you really need to provide sources that support your point of view. --Kildor (talk) 10:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
This was really intended for Ravendrop, but since you responded...
I already gave you sources above, under the first section of this Talk Page, where I cited references to JR being referred to as simply "metropolitan railway", together with the other systems already in the table. You simply refuse to acknowledge it.
And the whole exercise we went through for the Yamanote Line, which has now been established as "rapid transit", I can do for quite a few more lines in the JR East network. Like I said, there are plenty of "gray areas", and I certainly do not think that all of that 1,845 km would really qualify (my personal opinion based on metrics of train capacity and frequency is that at least a good 60 to 70 percent would qualify). However, I also do not think individual Wiki editors should be in the business of picking and choosing which segments of which networks get counted and which don't, if it can be avoided. Not myself, and not you or anyone else. Weren't you the one objecting to original research? How do we arrive at a universal set of criteria to apply, especially when there is no consensus even in the industry and the differences are getting more and more blurred every day? How do we maintain consistency across various editors? The current state of the table already shows that the criteria we have now are not being consistently applied.
The better approach would be to leave the 1,845 km as is, and simply add text to the accompanying note saying that there are segments included which would "not generally qualify as rapid transit". After all, the "Tokyo Suburban Area" is an official zone whose limits are clearly defined on JR East's map. There is no "hocus pocus" (i.e., original research) that goes into calculating that 1,845 km. You can arrive at the same numbers if you follow the segments shown on the map. I don't think you know much about JR East, but if you did, you probably wouldn't be surprised by 1,845 km. JR East is the largest railway company in the world by passenger volume, moving 14 million daily in the Tokyo metropolitan area (source: www.jreast.co.jp/e/development/tech/pdf_5/Tec-05-04-11eng.pdf). However, if you wish, I can go into all the small minute details to convince you, line by line, and then we can argue endlessly in circles over whether this segment of that particular line qualifies...
  • Shall I enumerate the various trackage rights / interlining agreements between JR East and systems that are already in the table?
  • Shall I tabulate the peak and off-peak frequencies of each segment of each line to show you that there is not much difference between many JR East lines and the systems that are already in the table?
  • Shall I provide you with passenger throughput data to show you that the most crowded lines in the Tokyo metropolitan area are actually JR East lines?
  • Shall I calculate train capacity and post pictures of the interior to show that there is no material difference between JR trains and Tokyo Metro / Toei Subway trains?
Did we do that for every system that's currently in the table? Why should we apply this "inspection process" strictly to JR East?
Also, just another thing: Whether you agree with 1,845 km of JR East being in or not, please clearly state your basis for reverting the other edits. Your opposition to inclusion of JR East does not qualify, by any means, as a basis for reverting the other changes. If you objected to JR East, the proper response would have been to revert the addition of JR East, not all my edits. Let's be a little more prudent next time. 江戸っ子 (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Since it is almost impossible to make a detailed objection to a mass inclusion of about 4000 kilometers of railway lines, it is the burden of the one who wants to make a inclusion to show that an entry meets the inclusion critera. Yes, you need to show that the systems you want to add are urban, electric, primarily used for transport within a city, totally independent from other traffic, and with high frequency service. As example, many (most?) of the systems you have added are not totally independent from other traffic, since they have many grade crossings and share tracks with freight or regional/long-distance trains. --Kildor (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Kildor, if you read the archives you do not see any argument and "inspection process" as 江戸っ子 puts it for the other "metro systems" that simply do not even match the criteria for a metro (or fail more than JR) such as BART, Catania Metro, Genoa Metro (which clearly says its only function is suburban), Washington Metro etc. The JR system matches everysingle criteria for metro except one which you mentioned, grade crossings...but as mentioned before the point of that criteria is for systems that have trains that wait for traffic therefore showing that they are not very high capacity and rapid...while essentially everysingle JR grade crossing, JR has the right of way. Tokyo is extremely built up, from underground to above ground so it's basically impossible to make everysingle rail line elevated or underground...the important aspects of the system are: Frequency (JR has higher frequency than most metros in the list), electric, urban service (therefore it is not suburban or commuter), high capacity (again JR has higher capacity trains than most systems on the list).
Let's go over the criteria for rapid transit again
  1. an urban, electric passenger transport system - JR meets this criteria
  2. with high capacity and high frequency of service - JR meets this criteria
  3. which is totally independent from other traffic, road or pedestrian - Some JR lines do not meet this criteria
  4. And in contrast to commuter rail, metro systems are primarily used for transport within a city - JR meets this criteria
  5. and have higher service frequency, typically not more than 10 minutes between trains during normal daytime service - JR meets this criteria
Now if we look at BART, it fails #2,4,5. Catania Metro fails 2,5. Genoa Metro fails 2,4,5, Washington Metro fails the same as BART. If JR should not be included because it fails one of the criteria, than many other metro systems should not be included because it fails not one..but several. SkyTree90 (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's tackle this presumption (again):

Yes, you need to show that the systems you want to add are urban, electric, primarily used for transport within a city, totally independent from other traffic, and with high frequency service. As example, many (most?) of the systems you have added are not totally independent from other traffic, since they have many grade crossings and share tracks with freight or regional/long-distance trains.

And you are sure that every single system in the list meets these criteria? You cannot avoid claims of a lack of objectivity when the current systems in the list do not necessarily meet all the criteria. However, you and other editors seem to have accepted these as deserving entries in the table. Why is it so hard this time around? Why must we have to “prove” our edits to you? Why is it always you objecting to edits?

I am also uncertain why the insistence on “grade crossings” here… Yes, several of these systems have grade crossings, but your persistence on this particular issue does not reflect reality. Was the New York City Subway not a “rapid transit” system until it removed all of its grade crossings (something that didn’t happen until 1965)? Should we then change its opening date to 1965? This same argument can be used to discredit your other criteria, like “electric” and track-sharing with freight (the Metropolitan Railway, which opened in 1863 and is frequently cited here and elsewhere as the start of the London Underground, was originally operated with steam locomotives and also serviced freight). In fact, there's still track-sharing with longer-distance trains on the London Underground. Again, you cannot avoid claims of a lack of objectivity when the current systems in the list do not necessarily meet all the criteria. For more modern examples of systems that are accepted as “metros” but fail some of your other criteria, see SkyTree90’s post above.

The only point to be gleaned from this exercise is that criteria need to be applied liberally. You can be rational and simply accept that there are lots of blurred areas already in the list (an inclusionist approach), or you can be obstinate and continue to insist that there is some manufactured universality that sanctifies all the systems currently in the table, using that as a basis to exclude other systems that you refuse to acknowledge (an exclusionist approach).

I really didn’t want to have to do this, but since some editors still insist on checking every addition to this table, here we go… I want to accelerate this process as much as possible, so I'll start off with the easy ones. No one should have any logical objection to inclusion of the following lines:

Just give us all your "stamp of approval" for these lines, and we can move on to the bigger fish. 江戸っ子 (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Justification for inclusion of JR and private railways

OK, now that those are out of the way, it‘s time to move on to the rest of my additions, which are comprised of JR lines and private railway operations. To summarize, my basis for inclusion of these systems is as follows:

Satisfaction of the majority of the criteria

This has been discussed at length thus far, and there is no need to rehash these points. To summarize, insistence on the presence of grade crossings as a basis to disqualify my additions ignores the following facts:

  1. Several systems currently in the table have had grade crossings historically, and they are still referred to as “rapid transit” during that period. They did not suddenly become “rapid transit” with the removal of their last grade crossings.
  2. Not all the systems in the table currently meet all of the criteria.

I will also add that there is nothing that says one criteria is “more important” or “more critical” than another… A JR line that has grade crossings but otherwise meets the other criteria should not be rejected on the basis of grade crossings when other systems without grade crossings currently in the table fail to meet some of the other criteria. Ergo, the criteria should be applied in a liberal fashion, and a system that can be shown to meet at least most of the criteria deserves a place in the list.

Misinterpretation of the Japanese term for “rapid transit”

This is a new point which I wish to bring up, a problem relating specifically to Japan’s entries in this case. The current list of entries for Japan in this table is, aside from the recent addition of the Yamanote Line by TheRationalDude and the other systems by myself, a facsimile of the systems listed in ja:日本の地下鉄—lit. “underground railways” or “subways”, or in other words, lines which run primarily underground in a metropolitan area. As I showed in the above post, however, there are multiple additional lines which would fit all of the criteria frequently being cited here to define “rapid transit”, but which were not in the table, primarily because outsiders (i.e., non-Japanese) do not understand the scope of the word 地下鉄.

The Japanese do not refer to these other lines as 地下鉄, which is primarily a non-technical term... Instead, they use the term 都市高速鉄道 (lit. “urban rapid railway”), which is a better fit for the term “rapid transit”. You can go straight to ja: 都市高速鉄道 to verify this yourself:

ここでの「高速鉄道」とは、従来から都市内交通において基幹的な役割を持っていた路面電車を比較対象とした呼称であり、新幹線等の200km/h以上で走行する鉄道を意味しない。すなわち、街路の交差点における交通信号によって停止せざるを得ない「路面電車」に対して、信号で停止する必要がないように設計された鉄道を英語圏ではrapid transitと名付けており、日本ではこれを「都市高速鉄道」と命名したのである。

Translation:

”高速鉄道” (lit. “rapid railway”) as described here is a terminology used in juxtaposition to the trams (streetcars) that had traditionally served as the core providers of transport within cities, and is not used in reference to Shinkansen or other railways running at 200 km/h or faster. In other words, while trams (streetcars) must stop at traffic signals at road intersections, the term “rapid transit” is used in the English-speaking world to refer to railways that are designed without the need to stop at signals, and this term was translated into Japanese as “都市高速鉄道”.

都市高速鉄道 is a technical term—unlike 地下鉄 (“subway”)—and is used in official documents, such as network planning documents, environmental assessments, etc. The Japanese consider both JR and private railways serving metropolitan areas (e.g., Tokyu Corporation, Hankyu Corporation) as 都市高速鉄道. So, if you wish to list systems from Japan in this page, the better place to start would be 都市高速鉄道, not 地下鉄.

Citing sources that refer to these systems as “commuter rail” = flawed argument

There are several points here:

  • Misinterpretation of the term “commuter rail”. There is no term “commuter rail” in Japanese. Taking Tokyo as an example, the primary distinctions made in metropolitan railway networks are between 地下鉄 (“subway”), 私鉄 (“private railway”), and JR. It may be convenient for outsiders (non-Japanese) to lump the private railways and JR as “commuter rail” because they operate outside the immediate core considered the “domain” of the subway, but that is an artificial construct and has no bearing on whether or not these “commuter rail” systems are “rapid transit”. The service standards bear this out, with JR and the private railways having similar (in some cases, better) frequencies, capacity, and peak loads. I don’t even need to bring up the Yamanote Line, as there plenty of other examples, including the Tōbu Isesaki Line (44 trains per hour during the peak, with a 20.2 km section of quadruple track) or the Keihan Main Line (38 trains per hour during the peak, with a 12.5 km section of quadruple track). For a better idea of the ridership levels we are talking about, here are some examples from the Tokyo area for FY2010 (source):
You would be very hard pressed to find many “subway” systems outside of Japan currently in the list that match these ridership levels… Only a handful can. In fact, these are greater than ridership on any of the Toei Subway lines and equivalent to the ridership on the busiest Tokyo Metro lines.
If you think I’m cherry-picking the highest ridership ones, here are some of the secondary lines, which also have very good ridership:
Most “commuter rail” systems don’t even approach anywhere near this level of ridership.
  • The categories “commuter rail” and “rapid transit” / “metro” are not mutually exclusive. In fact, there are many sources, including the Commuter rail page, that admit the distinction between the two can be exceptionally blurred. Ergo, a system described as “commuter rail” does not necessarily mean it also does not qualify as a “metro”, nor does a listing of a system in List of commuter rail systems disqualify it from being listed in List of metro systems. An attempt at faithfully representing reality would place a “hybrid” system in both lists, not one or the other.

Negligible technical distinction between subways and these systems

There is often no recognizable difference between 地下鉄 (“subway”), 私鉄 (“private railway”), and JR. Again, I take Tokyo as example, but the rolling stock between all three is virtually identical. The preferred Japanese term is ja:通勤形電車 or 通勤型車両 (“commuter train” or “commuter rolling stock”), which just means a train designed to serve high passenger (“commuter”) loads. The typical standard is 18 m or 20 m cars, with 3-4 doors per side per car, all-longitudinal seating (in a few cases mixed longitudinal and transverse). This de facto standard applies across 地下鉄 (“subway”), 私鉄 (“private railway”), and JR. You can read more about this standardization process in Initiative to Standardize Tokyo Commuter EMUs.

The only substantial difference between the JR / private railway “commuter rail” and the subways is the presence of grade crossings, but even this does not hold for all cases, as there are many examples of JR / private railway “commuter rail” lines that are 100% grade-separated (e.g., Tōkyū Den-en-toshi Line, JR Keiyō Line, JR Tōzai Line, etc.). Because of the building density (even in “suburban” areas) and sheer size of the network, grade-separation is an ongoing process in Japan—surprise, surprise, just like it was with all these other systems which are now fully grade-separated like London Underground or New York City Subway and which we still accepted as “rapid transit” during periods when they still had grade crossings in operation. Or shall we wait until every last grade crossing is removed before we feel comfortable calling JR and private railway “commuter rail” systems “rapid transit”?

Integration with subways via through-servicing

There are extensive through-services (i.e., trackage rights agreements or “interlining”) between the subways and JR / private railway commuter rail. This goes hand in hand with the standardization of rolling stock mentioned in the above point, but the crux of this point is that you can no longer reduce Japan’s entries to only subway = “rapid transit”. The Japanese have taken this concept and run away with it, much further than any other country, and there are numerous examples where the “commuter rail” end is basically just an extension of the subway line. You can get on the subway in the central core of the city and actually be riding a “commuter rail” train that will take you directly onto the “commuter rail” line without the need to transfer. For examples, see the Kintetsu Keihanna Line (extension of the Osaka Municipal Subway Chuo Line) or the Tōkyū Den-en-toshi Line (extension of the Tokyo Metro Hanzōmon Line), all of which are both effective extensions of the corresponding subway line.

But it also goes the other way, and “subway” lines can be built as extensions of “commuter rail” lines (see Nagoya Municipal Subway Kami-iida Line, an extension of the Meitetsu Komaki Line). Taking this even further, we can look at Kobe Rapid Railway, which no one made a peep about for being in the table all this time… This subway doesn’t even have its own trains—it was built exclusively to allow “commuter rail” trains from Hankyu Railway, Hanshin Electric Railway, Sanyo Electric Railway, and Kōbe Electric Railway to run straight into central Kobe. Every train you take inside this subway is a “commuter rail” train, and there are no trains that just shuttle back and forth between the seven stations on this line—every train goes through to at least one “commuter rail” end, and in fact, some go through on both ends… You can get on a Sanyo Electric Railway train in Himeji in far western Hyōgo Prefecture that will take you through the Kobe Rapid Railway and continue out the other end onto the Hanshin Electric Railway straight to Umeda Station in Ōsaka, a journey of 91.8 km. And if you think this is just a schedule abnormality, the midday schedule has these 直通特急 (lit. “through-service limited express”) departing every 15 minutes from Sanyo Himeji Station, supplemented by two locals an hour through-servicing into Hankyu’s Sannomiya Station in central Kobe and several other services. Other examples include the Tokyo Metro Hanzōmon Line through-services with the Tōkyū Den-en-toshi Line and Tōbu Isesaki Line, which stretch over as far as 98.5 km, with 6 tph doing this in each direction during the midday, again supplemented by a slew of other services.

To put this into perspective, the combined length quoted for Tokyo Metro and Toei Subway in this table is a mere 304.1. But when you add in the through-servicing of these subway lines, the effective length of the subway network is actually 878 km as of FY2010 (source). And this number will only grow with the initiation of through-service between the Tokyo Metro Fukutoshin Line and the Tōkyū Tōyoko Line and Yokohama Minatomirai Railway Minatomirai Line sometime this year, and the Sagami Railway (Sotetsu) in five years.

So do you define “rapid transit” as the infrastructure (tracks) or the actual trains? It’s pretty easy to make a distinction in places that do not employ through-servicing, but much, much harder to make a distinction in places that do. Are the subway lines currently in the table not really subway lines because some (or all) of the trains are actually “commuter rail” trains? Should we now remove Tokyo Metro and Toei Subway because trains on many of these systems also operate on “commuter rail” segments, some of which may contain grade crossings? Or, perhaps the more logical conclusion is that trying to boil the dynamic down to “commuter rail” vs. “subway” is not a 100% accurate description of reality—a reality that says there is a high-degree of integration between “commuter rail” and “subways” in Japan such that they are no longer readily distinguishable from one another.

Conclusion

So that is my basis for the inclusion of JR and the private railway lines.

As a reminder, you need not agree with me that JR and the private railways are “rapid transit” systems in order to justify their inclusion… You only have to agree that they can be interpreted as such, in so far as there are already “hybrid” systems in the table. Hopefully I’ve made that choice pretty crystal clear at this point.

Please do not avoid these issues and respond with a one-liner like “you need more sources”…

  • There are enough sources to support my point of view throughout this Talk Page. You may not agree with them, but that is irrelevant. I’ve also poked holes in other editors’ sources (some of which are questionable material), so there is hardly a consensus, even in the industry, that JR and private railways are “commuter rail.”
  • If editors want to contest my additions, then let’s be thorough about it… A simple one-liner isn’t going to refute everything I’ve said here.
I believe you should re-add JR, especially after reading about "都市高速鉄道" which even links back to the Rapid Transit english page. Either that or we should go through every system on the page and remove all of the ones that fail just one (not to mention 3) of the criteria.. I don't think that's necessary since JR only fails one by the strict definition..the trains do not stop for traffic and have right of way so essentially having grade crossings is a non issue in such dense cities. SkyTree90 (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
So for the record. I, still, disagree with essentially every addition added to this page in the Japanese section. My main objection is not that these do not meet the "5 technical points" above, but that they are not commonly referred to or known as metro/Subway systems, in the way that the London Underground or the New York City Metro is. As far as I can see, despite the fact that these meet the points above, I can see no independent reliable sources calling each one a "metro" or a "subway". They are rather seen in terms of commuter/regional rail systems. Take a look for example at the main sources that we use to distinguish what is a metro or not. Metrobits lists Japan as having metros only in some main cities Chiba, Fukuoka, Hiroshima, Kamakura, Kitakyushu, Kobe, Kyoto, Nagoya, Naha, Osaka, Sapporo, Sendai, Tama, Tokyo and Yokohama. It does not list many of the ones added or proposed to be added. The same for both Urban Rail and LRTA (note this lists monorails, metro, light rail, light metro and trams all in one place so the list appears bigger). Calling something a metro simply because it meets some arbitrary criteria that we set, but ignoring the fact that it is not called or referred to as a metro is WP:OR. That is the same reason why some system which fail some of these criteria are included; because they are considered and called metros by the major sources that we choose to use. It's obviously a grey area, but it is an important distinction that we need to make.
Secondly, I think that we need to group whatever systems from Japan that are decided to be added by city for the purposes of this list. My argument behind this is that the number of cities with metro systems is a way in which industrialized nations are compared; and by listing every single operator/line, especially when they operate in conjunction with (and one ticket works on multiple) is giving this list an unfair bias towards the Japanese systems.
Finally, I really don't have the time at the moment to engage in a detailed discussion on each line, so let this be my opinion. Ravendrop 22:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
So essentially you're saying official japanese sources that use the japanese "rapid transit" 都市高速鉄道 term are not valid and only english websites count? Most of those websites are not official sources and are fan created...and they tend to use the term "metro" as if it refers only to systems underground. For example metrobits calls the yamanote line a "Suburban metro"...while not a single station is suburban, it is in fact the most urban "metro ring" in the world so the only reason they have even used the term "suburban" is because they do not understand how to translate japanese or they are simply saying that since it is above ground that somehow makes it "suburban". The only point I think you have a case for is the adding them by city, but I don't agree with you with this "bias towards" as if there is some kind of competition going on. The reason I assume he added them as "greater tokyo" etc is simply because all of these systems are intertwined and are in adjacent cities. I don't think it is necessary to explain here that the japanese metropolitan regions occupy smaller land areas than North America/European metropolitan areas and yet are several times denser...essentially making them gigantic cities with artificial "city boundaries". The title of the article is "list of metro systems" not "list of cities with metro systems", in other words if you want to do is strictly by city than you need to cut up the japanese systems several times, with many of the lines for example crossing into chiba and then one station later going back into tokyo simply due to the geography of the border of Chiba/Tokyo. It's not very practical and it unnecessarily breaks up the systems. Of course, most of the metro systems on the list also go into adjacent cities (that are not suburban) yet we shouldn't (and don't) break up those system either. Are you suggesting that the japanese systems numbers should be merged so it is listed as just one "metro" per "city"? SkyTree90 (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
For example the Saitama government (official source) clearly lists: JR, Tsukuba Express, Saitama railway (Continuation of Tokyo Metro), and Tobu as rapid transit (都市高速鉄道 [literally urban/city rapid rail]). http://www.pref.saitama.lg.jp/uploaded/attachment/440021.pdf The government also clearly says: 都市高速鉄道は...私鉄、地下鉄、ＪＲ等が該当します。 (Rapid Transit is... which is Private Railways, subways and JR). http://www.pref.saitama.lg.jp/site/toshishisetsu/toshikousokutetsudou.html
Here is another list of "rapid transit" for Chiba, which again clearly has subways, private railways and JR: http://www.pref.chiba.lg.jp/tokei/toshikeikaku/documents/2-2-03_1.pdf
Here is one for Nagoya (Aichi) which is titled "Rapid Transit" and it again has subways, JR and Private Railway http://www.pref.aichi.jp/cmsfiles/contents/0000037/37984/kousokutetsudou.pdf
We have demonstrated they meet all the criteria, more so than many of the systems on the page. The UITP has JR as a representative, and the most authoritative sources of them all list them as rapid transit along with the subways. Just because some english fan pages are mistranslating them or are giving arbitrary terms like "metro like" does not change anything that we have demonstrated. Also notice how Saitama and Chiba (as well as Tokyo) claim the same systems as "their" rapid transit...so it shows the difficulty in doing it strictly by city. Again this page is list of metro systems, so there is no reason to do it by city or we will make it redundant. SkyTree90 (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Anyways, I appreciate you taking the time to respond…
I will just add a few of my points here alongside those from SkyTree90:
Metrobits lists Japan as having metros only in some main cities Chiba, Fukuoka, Hiroshima, Kamakura, Kitakyushu, Kobe, Kyoto, Nagoya, Naha, Osaka, Sapporo, Sendai, Tama, Tokyo and Yokohama.
MetroBits is not an authoritative source… It’s one guy, a railfan, who obviously took a lot of time to build a website… I will post this link again to show you that the numbers they’ve calculated are questionable. There’s another guy that helps him do all the “counting” of km, and they obviously get a lot of things confused. Kudos to them for taking all that time to put that together, but how does that avoid original research?
Also, for the cities he cites for Japan:
  • Chiba: A monorail system (Chiba Monorail), and a very, very small one at that. Not high-capacity by any means, and certainly much less deserving of being on the list than any of the other monorails I had to add myself to List of metro systems.
  • Hiroshima: This is Hiroshima Rapid Transit, and only on the Wiki page because of my edits. It wasn’t in before.
  • Kamakura: Shonan Monorail, another really small monorail system, everything applies same as the Chiba one.
  • Kita-Kyushu: Kitakyūshū Monorail. Same as Hiroshima, this wasn’t even on the Wiki page until I added it in.
  • Naha: Yui Rail. Similar to Chiba and Kamakura, a small monorail system.
  • Tama: Tama Urban Monorail. Same as Hiroshima and Kita-Kyushu.
As you can see above, MetroBits actually has quite a few monorails listed, but they’re missing Osaka Monorail, Tokyo Monorail, et al. in that tally… For example, the station and km count is only Tokyo Metro plus Toei Subway, but if you go to the Tokyo page, they’re also talking about (surprise, surprise) the Tokyo Monorail, the Yurikamome, the Yamanote Line, etc., so it’s not consistent by any means. Please, I’ve poked way too many holes through MetroBits already… Let’s avoid it from now on—it’s not an authoritative source on this topic.
Urban Rail is another fan page (please see my responses under the “my compromise” section above). LRTA is better, as it’s a more authoritative source, but you’ll notice that it lists the monorail systems as “monorail” and not “metro”, which actually contradicts everyone’s favorite “Holy Grail” source, MetroBits. It also states at the very first page: Classification always brings areas of doubt, particularly in countries such as Japan and Switzerland where clear dividing lines just do not exist.
The point is, there is inconsistency and uncertainty in how things are defined, even with authoritative sources like LRTA, UITP, et al. Thus, in so much as we can find authoritative sources which refer to these Japanese systems as “rapid transit” (which both I and SkyTree 90 have done), regardless of whether there are other authoritative sources which instead refer to these systems as “commuter rail”, then these systems deserve mention in List of metro systems. Remember, a lot of people don’t call the S-bahn systems “metros” either, yet we have them in this list. Shall we remove them now?
Regarding the “city” thing, that’s a minor point… City limits are irrelevant. What matters is metropolitan area, as these are “metros” (i.e., “metropolitan” railways). Greater Tokyo et al. are metropolitan areas. For some of these, you cannot break them down into cities because they run through multiple cities… You must look at things at the metropolitan level. Besides, the column at the top of the table says “Location”, not implying “city” or “metropolitan area”.
Regarding potential bias, I must strongly object to that notion… I might agree with you if most other systems were as balkanized as Japan’s are, but they aren’t. Japan has a very strong private railway tradition, and it has historically been very forward-thinking with regards to public-private partnerships (third-sector railways), each of which is treated as its own company, so there are a lot of distinct operators. Surely you don’t suggest we report a single number with everything rolled up? Contrast that with anywhere else in the world (New York, Paris, Hong Kong, Moscow, etc.), which only have a handful of railway operators (if they even have more than one). Only London really comes close, but even then, all the TOCs are strictly operators, they don’t actually own any of the infrastructure (that’s all one company, Network Rail).
It might seem like I am “flooding” the table with entries out of some bias, but SkyTree90 and I are actually just correcting oversight that has persisted for quite some time because no one ever took the time to challenge this issue with respect to Japan. There is nothing you or I can really do about all these companies… SkyTree90 is right, this is a “List of metro systems”, not a “List of cities with metro systems”. This is not a contest about which country has the most cities with metros, or which cities have the largest metros… It is an attempt to correct mistakes in the article. In fact, I actually hope all these efforts encourage other editors to be more proactive, so we can get other systems like the RER listed as they rightfully should have been a while ago. 江戸っ子 (talk) 05:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Ravensdrop. To call them metros when not one reliable source is offered that does such, while an (entirely) TLDR argument that includes the phrase "we have demonstrated" (which is widely used in papers published in academic journals, setting off alarms for me) seems to be the exact situation that WP:NOR is intended to avoid: publishing original thought. We don't draw conclusions, we report on conclusions that others have already drawn. Unless a source can be shown calling these lines metros/subways as commonly understood (not "rapid transit", a term so broad as to be meaningless; note tht the supposed sources above further break down the term to separate subways and JR, acknowledging that they are different modes), they must remain out of the list. oknazevad (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

So your point is that Subways, JR and private railways are separated? That would make sense if we included all the japanese systems into a single metro system, but we are not they are listed separately (just like NYC has PATH, Staten Island Railway and NYC Subway; Or london into London Underground and Docklands Light Railway). Obviously Japan will have the most systems, it is the country with the highest rail usage as the primary mode of transport on earth, it is to be expected. Also none of it is original research, the japanese official sources themself label them as rapid transit..which is what a metro is. There are also several japanese rail websites that also label them as rapid transit. In fact the sources ravendrop and kildor are presenting ARE original research and are mistranslating terms, using odd terms like "metro like" or calling the Yamanote line "suburban metro" (despite, as said above not a single station is suburban and it is more urban than every loop line in the world). Please read the definition of "rapid transit". Indeed if you even search "metro" on wikipedia it directs you to the "rapid transit" page. So either we on wikipedia completely separate the terms rapid transit and metro..or we add rapid transit systems. This is basically turning into a case of "These fan-made non authoritative websites have mistranslated japanese terms, or made up terms like "metro like" therefore the original japanese sources or people fluent in Japanese are simply wrong", this is going to cause everysingle reader of japanese system to label them all as "suburban/commuter" (except subways) simply due to mistranslation since they are getting their sources from fan rail websites...and wikipedia (despite the japanese version of wikipedia clearly explaining rapid transit and even linking to the english rapid transit page).
In fact the Docklands light railway in metrobits is labelled as "other rail"; and on lrta it is labelled as light rail..and the only source for it is urbanrail.net which says it is rapid transit. If the term rapid transit is good enough for Docklands, why is it not good enough for the japanese systems? Is it only because rail-fan websites or the japanese language (government and japanese rail-fan websites) so therefore the odd terms like "suburban metro" and "metro-like" (without sourcing anywhere where they got those terms) will stand forever even though they are factually incorrect? The same thing applies to the S-bahn. To list some of the most heavily used, highest frequency systems in the world as "suburban" despite some of them not even having a single suburban station and the japanese language sources themself saying they are not suburban is IMO against what wikipedia stands for in the first place..which is presenting the most accurate data from the most direct and accurate sources. .The sources I gave above are secondary sources, which is what the Original Research wikipedia page states is preferable, the original source is the urban planning law Article 11 paragraph 1 which differentiates between rail transit types and defines rapid transit (the same definition as the english rapid transit) SkyTree90 (talk) 04:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I have to object to your claim that “not one reliable source” refers to them as “rapid transit”. Both SkyTree90 and I have provided you with authoritative sources that use the Japanese term for “rapid transit”. If you choose to ignore them, that is your choice, but you cannot claim that we have not presented any reliable sources. SkyTree90 just posted a slew of them a few posts up. And whether you like it or not, the title of the Wikipedia page is Rapid transit, not Metro.
Likewise, I have to question whether you really have many authoritative sources to support your own position… Let me summarize the sources presented thus far that other editors used to support your position:
  • UITP: Authoritative, but not definitive one way or the other. As we showed above, their definition specifically mentions about “grade separation”, but they have JR East as one of Japan’s two representatives on the main committee. Bit odd, don’t you think?
  • MetroBits: Non-authoritative, unreliable (see above).
  • UrbanRail: Non-authoritative (see above). He also admits that the Yamanote Line is “metro-like”, so he clearly recognizes the lines are blurred.
  • Vuchic: Authoritative, but not definitive one way or the other. Remember, it excludes the S-Bahn systems, yet you’ve all agreed they deserve to be in the table.
  • LRTA: Authoritative, but it does not mention JR or the private railways anywhere in the list. It also states at the very first page: Classification always brings areas of doubt, particularly in countries such as Japan and Switzerland where clear dividing lines just do not exist.
So in reality, two of the sources (MetroBits are UrbanRail) are non-authoritative and / or unreliable. Of the authoritative sources, they can’t really be taken to support only inclusion or only exclusion of these systems, as they can be interpreted either way. Where are all the sources supporting your position? Please post anything else, if you have them, but it appears at this moment that you don’t actually have any authoritative sources to support your position.
Also the claim about original research really has no substance as long as editors in your position continue to cite MetroBits and UrbanRail, which are original research masking themselves as third-party sources. 江戸っ子 (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Can someone point me to a source which claims these Japanese railway lines to be metro systems (or with a similar term), which also includes a definition similar to the definitions of metro used in this article? I do not have time right now to respond to these lengthy posts here. But in a first glance at the list of "obvious" systems to include, the first is Aonami Line which, according to the article, is a shared passenger/freight railway. AGT:s and Monorails are clearly excluded from this list (these have separate lists).
It is also clear that there is no consensus for adding the Japanese railway lines to the list, so I have once again removed them. --Kildor (talk) 10:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
So first you ask us to prove to you that they match criteria... Now you ask us to show that people refer to them using specific English-centric terminology. Which is it? Remember, nobody is asking to remove Berlin S-Bahn and Hamburg S-Bahn now that someone has proved that they generally match the criteria. This also relates to oknazevad's post about "original research"... SkyTree90 and I have simply responded to kildor's requests that we provide evidence that they match the criteria, just like other editors did to get these two S-Bahn systems in. This, despite the fact that these two systems are rarely referred to as "metro" or "rapid transit" in English-language sources. If other editors continue to latch onto these criteria, then yes, "we" must continue to "demonstrate" that they meet them. You cannot have it both ways, guys... You need to be consistent. You also cannot expect every system to have something written about it in English, much less something that is factually correct. Regarding use of the term "rapid transit" / "metro" in Japanese... As I have explained, and as is stated in the Japanese Wiki article for ja:都市高速鉄道, the best equivalent is 都市高速鉄道 "urban rapid railway". If you still doubt me, feel free to look up "Tsukuba Express" and "rapid transit" on Google. I only choose this because this has the most English-language material discussing it... As I said before, this is a fully grade-separated rapid transit line. You cannot remove it from this list. Shall we also remove Docklands Light Railway, referred to as a "light rail" by LRTA? Please, do not cherry pick your sources.
Anyways, regarding your removal of the monorail and AGT lines, that is also without basis. These are simply technological choice, not related to how it functions as, or meets the oft-cited criteria for, "rapid transit". You cited the fact that there is a "separate list" for these systems, but you failed to realize that these lists are not mutually exclusive. If you object to the inclusion of such lines, then you must remove Chongqing Metro (monorail) and Taipei Metro, Toulouse Metro, and Rennes Metro (AGT). Likewise, I'll remind you now that you can no longer continue to cite MetroBits as a source without appearing biased... Otherwise, you should have no objection to the inclusion of Tokyo Monorail or Yurikamome. Please provide us with sources that justify the exclusion of these systems from the list.
I really encourage you to read my posts. They are lengthy, but you will better understand the position that I hold. It will also save you time in the long run over these trivial debates over minutiae. 江戸っ子 (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I am quite confused, so the most authoritative sources..which are in japanese do not count...because they are in japanese. The most authoritative english websites, one of them has JR as a metro representative and the other says that Japan and Switzerland are special cases and they didn't make any judgement on it...and even the fan websites use the terms "metro like" and "suburban metro" whatever those mean. Not sure what else you need, just because it's rare for there to fluent train fans in english and japanese doesn't mean there are no sources. As I said already: The sources I gave above are secondary sources, which is what the Original Research wikipedia page states is preferable, the original source is the urban planning law Article 11 paragraph 1 which differentiates between rail transit types and defines rapid transit (the same definition as the english rapid transit)....and even the wikipedia page on japanese rapid transit definition used in the sources I gave links to the english rapid transit page. They also meet the criteria for rapid/transit metro more than many of the lines on here, and some of the lines on here do not have any authoritative sources saying they are metro/rapid transit either...so what else do you need? SkyTree90 (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Compromise. This is the only compromise that can be made since I have already presented secondary sources and 江戸っ子 provided a primary source (government law) and there is even a japanese wiki page on it that links directly to the english page. Since that is not enough for some editors here (that official sources say they are rapid transit, one has JR as a metro rep, and the other doesn't form an opinion on it) this is the only consensus we can make:

  • Remove the S-Bahns, S-train and Docklands light railway and comprehensively go through the list to check if the 2 authoritative sources (LRTA, UITP) list such systems as "metro" and remove all that don't. As you guys have demonstrated all sources that are not in english do not hold any value at all, so you can not present a german source for s-bahn.
  • Remove Chongqing Metro (monorail), Taipei Metro, Toulouse Metro and Rennes Metro and others since you guys do not include AGT.
  • Remove the criteria of rapid transit/metro on the wikipedia pages, since you guys have admitted the criteria is not important, all that matters are sources (even though they have been provided). That way it makes sense that BART, Catania Metro, Genoa Metro, Washington Metro and several others are included even though they fail more of the criteria than S-Bahns and japanese systems. It makes no sense to list the criteria if they are not followed at all. We should replace the criteria with a statement that says "As long as an english source says it is metro, than it is metro." SkyTree90 (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

8 April

FYI, oknazevad... You should take a look at the mirror before you start citing Wikipedia policy like Wikipedia:TE. The first batch of lines I added have been in the list for two weeks without a word from you or anyone else. If you object, then lay down your comments here in a clear and logical fashion, do not simply revert the edits without discussing the issue. The history page will show that you dubiously attempted to revert my edits after you thought SkyTree90 and I had stopped paying attention, without an explanation at all.

I have yet to see a coherent and well-reasoned counter-argument to my points above, and none of you have made a sincere effort to address the concerns of myself, SkyTree90, and the other editors who have raised this issue in the past. So far, all we've seen is knee-jerk reverts.

Again, since no one seems to be interested in doing so, I will take the first step and address the points. I would like to point out that of the three points you raised, two are all-new... Did these materialize out of thin air? Anyways:

  • these are not metro in scheduling. You will need to clarify this. What is "metro in scheduling"? Does such a concept exist? Can we claim that there is some inherent similarity between the scheduling on BART (15 to 20 minute off-peak frequencies) and the scheduling on the Moscow Metro (90-second headways at peak)?
  • nor in their service patterns (they exist to connect residential areas with downtowns). This seems a contrived argument, to say the least. Virtually every system in the list connects residential areas with downtowns. I can only presume that you are trying to draw a distinction between a line that operates only in a "downtown" area versus a system that operates to suburbs outside of the "downtown" area, but that is an outdated distinction. Most "metro systems" include segments outside of the downtown area, some like BART or WMATA well outside of any downtown environment to speak of. Furthermore, in some urban environments, distinctions between "suburbs" and "downtowns" are trivial at best. Tokyo is among those, as are Hong Kong and many cities in China. "Suburbs" in these cities can be more active than "downtowns" in most other cities.
  • and the additions include monorails, which are excluded from this list. As stated above, you shall remove Chongqing Metro and you shall tell São Paulo Metro that their future monorail lines won't qualify. Who decided that monorails do not qualify as metros? There is no consensus in the industry that monorails do not qualify as metros. Do not cherry-pick sources, although it should be clear by now that an exclusionary position like yours forces you to tow a hard line (one that doesn't actually exist) and selectively choose which references to cite.

I await your response. I have been patient and responded to each and every objection raised. The history page will also show that I have attempted to address the concerns of other editors by adding a note to the second batch of Japanese systems I added, and I am not opposed to expanding on this note with additional text if needed.

Either sincerely attempt to discuss the issue so that we may eventually reach some sort of a consensus, or accept the additions and leave them alone. 江戸っ子 (talk) 06:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

These are valid concerns. Allow me to address them one at a time.
Firstly, between this talk page and the reversion of these additions by multiple different editors, it's clear to me that there is not yet consensus for these addition. To continue to add them despite the objections is poor editing behvaior. That's what WP:TE is about. But that's neither here not there, as they are good faith edits.
My mention of "not metro scheduling" is likely poor phrasing, but the underlying concern is true. The question about how a rider uses the line/system. Does one check a schedule to know when the next train arrives, or do they simply show up and take the next train, which is only a few minutes away. Also, do all train make the same stops, or does one need to check the stops for the train. The former are metro patterns, the latter are commuter rail. From what I've seen of the lines, they fit the latter better.
As for the outskirts-to-center comment, I agree that, in heavily, densely settled areas the distinction is quite difficult. However, if there's a central station (or a few) where the majority of the passengers embark/disembark, that's a commuter rail pattern.
Monorails aren't listed here because they have their own list: List of monorail systems. Check the archives for this talk page; prior discussion was to exclude them as a different technology too dissimilar to standard electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail metros. It's not just service patterns that qualify a system as a metro, it's also a level of technological similarity that makes for a meaning comparison.
Glad to elucidate my reasoning. oknazevad (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Why don't you read the discussions and reply to the main points first? If you did for example, you would already know that a monorail is listed here and yet nobody has a problem with it. You would also notice that a large amount of the North American and several european and other systems have much more "commuter rail patterns" than the japanese systems listed. Reverting edits when primary, secondary and even tertiary sources have been given that show that said lines are rapid transit is simply wrong and against wikipedia editing standards. In fact I don't see a single reply from you about any of the points brought up. The strong defender of reverting the edits, Kildor even agreed that most of the japanese systems meet the criteria more than the S-bahns and agreed that there is a discrepancy with the list. Please refer to my compromise above that is the only option that makes sense if you continue to revert the japanese rapid transit systems (which is what this page is based off of, rapid transit). SkyTree90 (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
As you may note, I made some changes to Chonqing, adding a note that only line 1 is considered here. This is similar to what the list does for LA, Philadelphia and Boston, where a single operator has some lines that are metro standards and some aren't. Looking back through the edit history, it appears that was the original intention but someone incorporated the stats to include the monorail lines. As for the sources, I strongly disagree that urbanrail.net is not a reliable source for classification. The site is maintained by Robert Scwandl, a published author on metro systems. It's not a "fan site". There's no reason to believe that it fails reliability. oknazevad (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
He's not even in the industry. He may have published books, but I don’t think that necessarily makes him an authoritative source on the subject. It also cannot explain away the inclusion of some S-Bahn systems in this list despite another authoritative source (Vuchic) excluding them. You cannot cherry-pick sources to suit your position. Allow me to reiterate my post from above since it’s been lost in the discussion:
  • UITP: Authoritative, but not definitive one way or the other. As we showed above, their definition specifically mentions about “grade separation”, but they have JR East as one of Japan’s two representatives on the main committee. Bit odd, don’t you think?
  • MetroBits: Non-authoritative, unreliable (see above).
  • UrbanRail: Non-authoritative (see above). He also admits that the Yamanote Line is “metro-like”, so he clearly recognizes the lines are blurred.
  • Vuchic: Authoritative, but not definitive one way or the other. Remember, it excludes the S-Bahn systems, yet you’ve all agreed they deserve to be in the table.
  • LRTA: Authoritative, but it does not mention JR or the private railways anywhere in the list. It also states at the very first page: Classification always brings areas of doubt, particularly in countries such as Japan and Switzerland where clear dividing lines just do not exist.
Do you have some other sources you would like to share with us? 江戸っ子 (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to flesh out your objections here.
Regarding metro scheduling... I can see what line you are trying to draw, but I don't agree that it has any relevance to the discussion. At the heart of this, you are basically saying that lines with some form of limited-stop service don't qualify as a metro because passengers have to check whether they can actually take the next train to their final destination. In reality, many systems do use express services... I'm sure you know New York does. The Metropolitan line also operates a schedule of local, semi-fast, and fast trains. I also have to question why this was never brought up before, as it's an entirely new comment which is not referenced in this article at all. Also, all of the lines I'm adding are generally quite frequent, many of them more frequent than "metro" systems elsewhere. I already gave you examples for the Tōbu Isesaki Line (44 tph) and Keihan Main Line (38 tph)... I also cited ridership for you up above.
Regarding the outskirts-to-center comment: So you're saying PATH is commuter rail, right? Why don't we remove it then? Again, I suggest you avoid drawing distinctions where there are none. There are plenty of systems with lines that have a single "downtown" terminus and extend outward from there into suburban areas. You've also conveniently ignored the through-servicing aspect of most rapid transit operations in Japan, which was precisely designed so that trains could continue onto the subway and passengers wouldn't have to transfer. You're also ignoring fully grade-separated lines confined within the very center of the city (e.g. Hanshin Namba Line) or fully grade-separated extensions to existing subway lines (e.g., Kintetsu Keihanna Line). These are only covered in my second batch of additions for JR and the private railways.
Regarding the monorails: They meet all of the criteria being cited here. There's no reason that monorails cannot be rapid transit... The two are not mutually exclusive descriptors. Chongqing and Tokyo already show this, and Sao Paulo will soon once it completes its new lines. Do you really think there is that much more similarity between Toulouse Metro and Moscow Metro than between Tokyo Monorail and Moscow Metro?
I will reiterate this again... Even if you disagree that the systems I'm adding are "full" rapid transit (whatever that means, I don't care), you only need to admit that these systems exhibit rapid transit characteristics. ...In which case you would be recognizing a "hybrid system", and hybrid systems do not belong in only List of suburban and commuter rail systems or only List of metro systems. They belong in both. Or do you honestly think a fully grade-separated single double-track line with over a million riders daily and six-door cars with no seating during rush hours has more in common with Sounder commuter rail and Trinity Railway Express than with the Hong Kong MTR? 江戸っ子 (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Publishing books is exactly the sort of thing that makes him reliable. One can write authoritatively and reliably on a subject even if one doesn't work in that field for a living. That's what reporters do every day. So, once again, I disagree that Scwandl is not a reliable source.
I've always disliked the inclusion of the various S-Bahns, as you can see looking through the archives. But I can accept that there was consensus (at that time at least) for their inclusion. Meanwhile there has never been any consensus for the inclusion of monorails; they have their own list, and that's where they belong.
And that's just it. The contents are determined by consensus. And there's been no clear consensus for the inclusion of these Japanese lines. Largely because there real concern that including them here when other, similar lists, including reliable sources such as urbanrail.net, don't list them would make it original research. I tend to agree; you're drawing conclusions based on you're reading of the data. It doesn't matter a lick whether or not I think that PATH should be a metro or not, It only matters whether reliable sources list it with other metros. They do, so we do. oknazevad (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I will take your attempt to fall back on the “reliable sources” claim (i.e., that as long as a reliable source references said system as a “metro” than it qualifies) as an indication that you do not have a rebuttal in support of your first two comments above. Where is your source for the “metro scheduling” comment? Remember, it’s not discussed anywhere in the article currently, and you’ve only brought it up now, for the first time. Could these comments really just be your “interpretation of the data”? If you could at least provide some references, it might give your argument more credence. However, it does not hide the fact that passengers on the New York City Subway or London Underground still need to ask themselves whether the next train really takes them where they want to go.
Secondly, if you cite urbanrail.net to exclude these systems, then what is preventing me citing LRTA to include these systems, since it specifically says “dividing lines just do not exist” in countries such as Japan? Or what is preventing me from citing UITP’s inclusion of JR East as a representative on their metro committee as basis for inclusion of JR East? You cannot cherry pick sources to support your position. The lack of a consensus either on this Talk Page or in the transit industry as a whole is not a basis to exclude these systems (in fact, I would argue it's a basis to include the systems). In other words, you cannot win the argument by clinging to urbanrail.net or whatever source suits your position, when I can do the same using other authoritative sources and come to a completely different conclusion. In situations like this, you need to present both sides, which is precisely what I have been doing since day one by adding these systems in.
Thirdly, I recognize the desire to come to a consensus, but that is only valid if the objections are sound and logical. At this moment, they aren't. In your defense of excluding these systems, you're scrambling back and forth from citing various criteria that define metros from a book or report, to mixing your personal judgments about what qualifies as a metro, to falling back on the need for "reliable sources" citing each specific system as a metro, to claiming there needs to be a consensus among editors to add new systems. I refute one of the three, and then you fall back on the others. I refute those, then you start the cycle over again. This is beginning to sound more like filibustering than anything else. 江戸っ子 (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
See, I see a strong bit of cherry picking going on by you. Yes, I can agree that the dividing line between metro and commuter rail in Japan is fuzzy at best. But I absolutely must vociferously disagree with something you said. The lack of consensus on this talk page, and the industry as a whole, is precisely why they should be omitted. If there's no consensus to include them, they aren't included. That's how Wikipedia works. It's also not a battle where one person "wins". There's the real problem. You just don't seem to understand that. oknazevad (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
There is no consensus for adding the Japanese railway lines. These are generally not considered as metro by the references and lists quoted in this article. But when reading through the posts above and external sources again, I realize that there is some inconsistency concerning the AGT:s/New transit. Yurikamome, Nippori-Toneri Liner and others are listed as light metro by LRTA, with similar technology as other systems already listed (Skytrain, VAL:s... ). Urbanrail lists them, but with somewhat unclear status. Although people movers, such as amusement park, ski resort and airport transportation systems are explicitly excluded from the list, this wouldn't apply for the urban mass transit AGT:s in Japan. So, adding these to the list make sense to me (unless there is already a list of agt:s....?). --Kildor (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the AGTs seem to be tricky. Automation is obviously not a disqualifying characteristic (DC Metro and BART have automation as well). But many of the "new transit" automated systems are lower in capacity than traditional metros and usually are somewhat supplementary in practice, like London's DLR and the Nippori-Toneri Liner. There is a list for people movers, which they may fit better at. I'm not sure yet. oknazevad (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but if you can accept that the Docklands Light Railway and VAL systems belongs on this list, you have no choice but to accept that Yurikamome and the like also belong here. To assert otherwise is bias… They are virtually the same technology. In fact, these systems are not recognizably any different from the automated, rubber-tired Paris Metro lines, which aren’t in dispute at all. This is what I have been claiming since day one, although it seems that my message took this long to get through to people. 江戸っ子 (talk) 03:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Next, since you’ve admitted that the lines are fuzzy, now answer this question:
Does a “fuzzy” system belong in only one list or both?
If you can admit that it has characteristics of both, then why wouldn’t you list it in both?
I will also quote some Wikipolicy:
As a practical matter, "according to consensus" or "violates consensus" are weak reasons for rejecting a proposal; instead, the reasons for objecting should be explained, followed with discussion on the merits of the proposal.
So, let’s please stick to the points … Do not simply fall on lack of consensus and dance around the issue. 江戸っ子 (talk) 03:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the first batch of lines that Kildor removed again… Let me repeat what I wrote above, as it appears we’ll need to go through this one more time.

Now, I am willing to hold off Aonami Line because of the freight traffic. Despite the fact that systems already in the list carried freight at one time or another, I am not interested in debating this one any further... It’s just not worth the time. I am also willing to hold off on the monorail systems for the time being since those appear to be in dispute. However, I still propose the addition of everything else. If you object, then state your objections here. 江戸っ子 (talk) 03:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Primary and secondary sources have been given. We have gone over every single point and neither of you two have replied to any major point or discredited a single one. Wikipedia also says if you can not come to an agreement then make a compromise, it has been weeks. I posted a compromise, neither of you replied for several days. Instead without any further discussion one of you simply reverted the edit. We have followed wikipedia rules with secondary sources. There's nothing else to be said really. SkyTree90 (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, here are my comments on the above list:
  • Systems which are entirely grade-separated.
Red XN Aonami Line: shared with freight
? Tsukuba Express: totally separated, high capacity and high frequency; suburban/commuter style; no mention in external lists (suburban railway according to urbanrail)
Red XN Semboku Rapid Railway: outer railway branch, grade-separated except one level crossing; no mention in external lists
Red XN Sendai Airport Transit: single-track airport link; 20-30 min daytime frequency; no mention in external lists
Tsukuba Express is a railway line with very high standards, but is not mentioned as metro in external lisst, and is even considered suburban railway by one of the sources. With terminus outside Yamanote line and a typical suburban/commuter service pattern and remote location, I would leave it for the list of suburban railways.
  • Systems which are entirely grade-separated and were constructed as extensions of the "subway" network.
Red XN Hokuso Railway: part of a main railway network, approx 20 min daytime frequency; no mention in external lists
? Toyo Rapid Railway: fully separated; 15 min daytime frequency; no mention in external lists
? Saitama Railway: fully separated; 12 min daytime frequency; "metro-like" by urbanrail.net
? Kita-Osaka Kyuko Railway: fully separated; 8 min daytime frequency; no mention in external lists
? Hokushin Kyuko Electric Railway: fully separated; 15 min daytime frequency; no mention in external lists
As extensions of metro lines, these are naturally fully separated and with high frequency. But they are not recognized by the other lists. If these would officially be part of their corresponding metro lines, these parts would be included in the list. And this is one of the major difficulties with categorizing the Japanese systems. Extensive through servicing between subways and main railways make this task almost impossible. But the only solution here is to use the current branding as it is. Toei Asakusa Line is considered a metro line (part of Toei Subway), but the trains go far out in the suburbs on various suburban railways. Even though the same train goes all the way, we and others consider the central part as metro and the outer part as other (suburban) railways. Any other solution would be own research. Therefore I see it natural to leave them out from the list. But the concept of through servicing should be mentioned in footnotes.
  • Monorail / maglev rapid transit systems
Red XN Kitakyushu Monorail
? Linimo
Red XN Tokyo Monorail
Red XN Tama Urban Monorail
Red XN Osaka Monorail
Monorail systems are explicitly excluded from the list. We could opt to include all monorail lines, but I think it is natural to leave them out of the list since they are better recognized as monorails rather than metro systems. LRTA also makes this distinction. Linimo is however recognized as light metro by LRTA (se below).
  • Automated guideway transit systems
? Saitama New Urban Transit
? Yokohama New Transit
? Yurikamome
? Nippori-Toneri Liner
? Hiroshima Rapid Transit
? Kobe New Transit
These are recognized as light metro by LRTA. It is not clear how the other lists categorize them. They have a higher capacity than a typical people mover, but is of somewhat peripheral/supplementary nature. I think we can either include them (and Linimo), or create a new list, i.e. List of light metro systems and perhaps move some of the currently included systems to that list. But of course, the difference between metro and light metro is not always clear. --Kildor (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to actually look at the list. You should have done that a long time ago… This is why I specifically listed them out like that. It has helped clarify exactly what your objections are and allowed this discussion to move forward.
Anyways, a few general comments, focusing on the ones you've x-ed out:
  • Let’s not get carried away with being “mentioned in external lists”. Not being mentioned in a list doesn’t explicitly mean that they intentionally omitted it… As I said, these are Japanese systems, and most people in the English-speaking world have never even heard of them, much less have access to accurate information about them. Don’t you think it’s curious that Urbanrail.net calls Saitama Railway “metro-like” but Kita-Osaka Kyuko Railway (pretty much identical) is conspicuously absent from mention? What exactly is so different between these two systems? The problem with your approach is that you are taking lack of a mention as explicit intention of omission. You’ve also conveniently ignored the Japanese sources we’ve presented, which refer to these all as “rapid transit”. Like it or not, Japanese sources are probably the most accurate you're going to find on this information... There may be very slight differences between what the Japanese perceive as "rapid transit" and what you might perceive as "rapid transit", but those can be handled with footnotes, which is precisely what I did.
  • I will also remind you (again) that you've already accepted several S-Bahn systems regardless of the fact that they aren’t described in said external lists as “metros” (or, in many cases, explicitly defined as something other than metros). This also holds true for the Docklands Light Railway. In other words, you and oknazevad are consciously exercising a double standard here. I hope you understand the full ramifications of this.
  • The fascination with the “suburban” vs. “urban” is misplaced, for the reasons I’ve already stated above… Tsukuba Express isn’t any more “suburban” than any number of newer metro systems which extend far out into the suburbs. Have you been to China lately? Have you seen a scale version of the Shanghai Metro map? How about the various lines in Hong Kong, like the Tung Chung Line, East Rail Line, and West Rail Line? A single urban terminus, the rest is outside the “downtown” area… So it should qualify as commuter / suburban rail by your understanding, should it not? This is really just more application of double standards.
  • You picked the worst frequencies for a couple lines. Due to trains not going the entire way, some of these lines actually have much higher overall midday frequency than what you’ve shown here.
  • Related to the frequencies, you’ve also conveniently ignored the fact that systems like BART and even the S-Bahns often have 15-30 minute headways on substantial sections of the network. BART has a midday frequency of every 15 minutes on all lines… You only get anything better than that in the core of the system, where the lines overlap. If you look at these Japanese lines holistically as one line together with the subway, it’s really not any worse (actually, it’s still much better, as both the center and outer ends often have better frequencies than BART or the S-Bahns, and the “cores” with the highest frequency extend further out).
  • A small correction: Semboku Rapid Railway doesn't have any grade crossings. It's fully grade-separated.
  • Please clarify what you mean by “part of a main railway network” for Hokuso Railway. This comment is ambiguous, to say the least.
  • I also object to this comment: we and others consider the central part as metro and the outer part as other (suburban) railways. Any other solution would be own research. That’s selectively choosing one interpretation. You have yet to establish that there is a “mainstream” interpretation for these systems (good luck with that, by the way). There is no consensus in the industry... Do you remember that LRTA quote?
  • I also have responses to your monorail comments, but I’ll hold off... No need to jump the gun. 江戸っ子 (talk) 04:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
OK. First of all - what you and I think about these systems is less important than what is said about them in sources. That's why it is important if it is mentioned or included in external lists. And sources with a global perspective (for example, world lists of systems) is far better than sources that only mentions individual systems or a single country, because they apply the same definitions to all systems. If you find a japanese source with a global perspective, I will certainly take that into consideration.
I have always refused to include the S-Bahns, S-tog, RER and similar, but I have accepted consensus (whenever there has been any). And I also think that this discussion makes it clear that these should be removed. It does not make sense to list Hamburg S-Bahn and excluding all the Japanese systems you have listed. The London DLR is mentioned by Urbanrail and world metro list, but classified as light rail by LRTA. I would say it is light metro. If we create a list of light metro systems, DLR would go there.
Again, what you and I think about Tsukuba Express is less important. If it would be part of the Toei subway, it would probably be included, as with the lines of the MTR network. But as a separate system with no mention in the external lists, it does not belong here. But in my personal opinion, I think it is a good candidate to be included.
A metro line typically have high frequencies for the full lengths of the lines. BART lines have 15 minutes headway, but most stations are served by at least two lines. S-Bahn systems, are in my opinion, suburban railways and should be excluded.
I might have been mistaken, but does not Sembuku railway has a grade crossing near one of its terminus? It is a minor fact though, with less importance. But to conclude my comments, and to repeat myself: Our personal opinions about these systems are not so important. Hand-picked sources with mention of "metro" or "rapid transit" of one single systems is also of less importance. Sources that deals with metro systems in a global perspective, and world lists of systems, are far more useful here. --Kildor (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
And you are still falling on the fallacy that there is a consensus in the industry and that there is enough information on these systems to form a consensus. You're still conveniently side-stepping the fact that JR East is on the UITP committee, that LRTA explicitly states that the exercise of categorizing systems is not clear-cut, that all the sources you've listed thus far present conflicting information. So, by your own admission that we should look at sources with a global perspective, then inclusion of JR East on the UITP committee can be taken as justification to include it in this list, can it not?
Your continued insistence that personal opinion is irrelevant to this discussion is also a bit disturbing because you (and other editors) have constantly exercised it in selectively choosing which sources to reference and reverting any additions to this page (not just mine, but everyone's) that you and your exclusionist position don't personally agree with. I agree that personal opinion is irrelevant... But you still can't seem to admit that there is no consensus in the industry and don't want to recognize what that actually means for this article.
And neither of you has answered my question: Does a "fuzzy" system belong in only one list or both? I would appreciate a response to this question and the one above about JR East instead of constantly rehashing the same arguments over and over. 江戸っ子 (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
A UITP membership tells us very little regarding individual lines/systems. It could at best mean that JR East is running at lease one metro line (which one?). JR East is also a member of the UITP Regional and Suburban Railways Division. But more likely, the membership of different sub-committes is a matter of choice by the applicant (take a look at the application form).
The whole thing with categorizing public transport is extremely fuzzy. If we would include all "fuzzy systems", this list would probably be at least twice as long, which would not be useful anymore. I think a system should belong to one list or another. But systems that clearly have different modes of operation can be included in more than one list. Systems like RTA Rapid Transit and Amsterdam Metro have some lines which are light rail and other lines that are metro. These should be included in both lists, but with an explanation. Most systems on this list are fuzzy to one degree. London Underground have parts that are more like a suburban railway. But including London Underground in the List of suburban and commuter rail systems does not make sense.
I would be happy if there was a simple and clear defintion of metro that could be used to decide if a system should be included or not without discussion. But there is no such definition. We present this list of metro systems based on what is generally considered a metro (with a reasonable defintion). Adding entries like JR East or RER as the longest metroes in the world is clearly a point of view that few others share. --Kildor (talk) 06:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Kildor you are simply going in circles, there are SEVERAL metros on this list that meet the criteria listed much less than the japanese systems. You have even acknowledged it to an extent. So do you have any compromise or do you only want it your way? SkyTree90 (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with SkyTree90... You're going in circles, and you have yet to make or put forth any compromise whatsoever to reconcile the issue, demonstrating to me that you have no intention of giving any ground at all (despite the fact that we've already poked so many holes in your argument that you have no ground to stand on at this point). You're still using ambiguous hand-waving: "with a reasonable definition"? Are we to believe you are the sole arbiter of what constitutes "reasonable", just as you are the sole arbiter to determine which sources shall be used to comprise this list? Why don't we just make this "List of metro systems on UrbanRail.Net"? That is basically what this is, is it not? Pray tell me, what is so grossly offensive to you about putting these systems in with footnotes (precisely what I have done)? 江戸っ子 (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
As far as I know, there are only three other world lists of metro systems (Urbanrail.net, LRTA, World Metro Database) that use a definition of metro similar to the one used in this article. None of them include the systems/railways you propose for inclusion here (with possible exceptions for Yamanote Line and some AGT:s). Most of their corresponding Wikipedia articles describes them as commuter rail or simply as railways (or at least not as metro systems). If including JR East (Tokyo suburban railway network) in this list (as you did a couple of times), it would appear as the longest and biggest metro system in the world. Yet, there is no other source stating that JR East is the biggest metro system in the world, while there are plenty stating that either London Underground or Shanghai Metro is the biggest one. So my question is: Why is it so utterly important for you to include these systems here, while almost no one else describes them as metro systems? --Kildor (talk) 06:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It's clear that, following our own criteria of what a metro is, the Japanese systems meet them more and are much more urban than a large amount of the systems on the list; out of the authoritative lists they simply come to the conclusion that it is difficult to categorize the Japanese (and Swiss) systems and this is due to all info on Japanese systems being published in Japanese. Looking at 江戸っ子's and SkyTree90's Japanese direct links and translations of the term rapid transit it is clear that they are rapid transit/metro systems. SkyTree90 presented secondary and primary sources, which Wikipedia rules state are all you need to make an edit, and since the lists kildor has presented contradict eachother on various lines/systems there shouldn't be a problem adding the japanese systems. Jmcto (talk) 02:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaphs I am mistaken. But the only translation I have seen so far defines 都市高速鉄道 (urban rapid railway) as any urban railway (different from trams and high-speed trains over 200 km/h) that does not need to stop for traffic signals. If so, that is something completely different from the defintion of metro used in this article. --Kildor (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
This reply by kildor shows that he has no interest in accurately reading what we have said about this topic several times now and simply wants the list his way (by going in circles)...can we please escalate this with a moderator or do you have any compromise at all? I presented one which was completely ignored and over 1 week later the article was simply ninja reverted. It is pretty clear using the very own criteria here that the japanese systems meet them more so than several others (BART, Washington Metro, Catania Metro, Genoa Metro, S-bahns, Docklands Light Railway and several others) and yet there was no discussion about the others. Instead we constantly get replies about metrobits.org and others that contradict themselves, such as in the case of docklands and several others. So honestly, it is getting tiresome, there isn't a single list that anyone has presented that agree with eachother and the most authoritative ones simply say that the japanese systems are more difficult (language barrier, the massive scale etc). SkyTree90 (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that none of the sources presented so far support the inclusion of the Japanese railways. I believe I have responded reasonably to the arguments presented above, and I remain convinced that Japanese railways should not be included in this list. There is clearly no consensus here for inclusion, and the only support so far is from three users/accounts almost exclusively used for this single purpose. With that, I don't think I have anything more to add to this discussion. --Kildor (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Basically your entire argument has boiled down too "some japanese systems meet the criteria moreso than the S-Bahns but I don't think the S-Bahns should be in the list either" which allows for an inconsistent list. All you presented over and over again was metrobits...and once you finally presented "authoritative" sources they clearly say that it is difficult and do not lean either way. In other words the only thing to rely on is our own criteria on this very page of what a metro is, and secondly japanese sources. And using our very own criteria of what a metro is they should be included, unless we go through every single metro on the list and remove all of the ones that do not meet the criteria AND the ones that do not match your "sources" which we have shown already there's actually a few cases of this...and yet they are in the list and you seem to not mind it at all. So it's either or, if you want to have a consistent list than we need to remove several systems. Ignoring the fact that distinguishing what is a "metro" and what is "commuter" rail is entirely ambiguous in the first place, at least it will make the list consistent (for example the red line in Cleveland which runs 2 car trains at 20 minute headways is counted as a metro and yet a vastly more urban and rapid japanese system isn't mentioned [ironically the red line's cars are manufactured by Tokyu, and yet Tokyu is unacceptable as metro to kildor]). SkyTree90 (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Official list of urban rapid transit in Japan

After a search on the Internet, I find that Japanese government has a list of urban rapid transit systems in Japan.[1] I wonder if it is a valid source.42.98.41.39 (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I just realize that it is a list of future systems. Please ignore it.42.98.41.39 (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

No, not quite...
This is simply approved "rapid transit" projects (new lines, extensions, upgrades, etc.), many of which are already completed or in the process of being implemented. As I have taken care to mention multiple times previously, you will notice that this "rapid transit" list includes JR and the private railways. 江戸っ子 (talk) 04:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Seoul subway

Currently, the list includes the sections within Seoul only. Is their a good justification for it? Washington Metro goes beyond Washington DC as well. I don't see a rule to exclude sections beyond the city limit.202.40.137.197 (talk) 05:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Suzhou subway

Suzhou became the lastest city in China to have a subway, When Suzhou rapid transit system line 1 started its revenue operation in April 28, 2012. The line 1 subway covers a distance of 25.739KM with 24 underground stations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.246.26.28 (talk) 07:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Kunming rapid transit system

Kunming rapid transit system airport express line (phase one) began its commercical operation on June 28, 2012, Kunming, the capital of Yunnan province of China, became latest city in mainland China to have a rapid public transit system. The phase one project of the airport express line is about 18 KM long with 4 stations, the entire line is elevated above the ground, which connected the newly inaugurated Kunming Changshui international airport with the downtown city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.52.142.17 (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Merseyrail

Merseyrail at Liverpool is a metro, the second oldest in the world. It is underground in central Liverpool and Birkenhead. It is a smaller version of the London Underground being a combination of commuter rail and rapid transit metro. It has 121 km of track and 67 stations. It even has disused stations. Frequencies are high in the central tunnelled sections. Parts of the system are being modernised and extended when electrification extensions are complete in a few years time.

Merseyrail must be added to this list. Someone keeps undoing it when it is added. 94.194.102.190 (talk) 07:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It's been discussed before. See Talk:List_of_metro_systems/Archive_2#Merseyrail.2C_UK and search the archives for several other times. Consensus is that it isn't metro due to existence of level crossings and because it is connected to the national rail system. Additionally, and most importantly, no WP:RS refers to it as a metro system. At best, UrbanRail calls it "metro-like system ... similar to the S-Bahn systems in many German cities or Australia's Sydney and Melbourne rail systems," which are also not included in this list by consensus. Ravendrop 08:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Athens Metro

The Athens Metro has recently merged into one company hence why I have only allowed Athens to have one entry from now on. Note that the operation of Line 3 east of Doukissis is similar to the Bakerloo line operation north of Queens park so the mileage of that section does count. Not sure about the 1904 date, though - London Underground itself proved that electrification wasn't necessary to be first in the world.--Marianian(talk) 23:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Electrification was in reality necessary. The air quality when using steam trains was unacceptable, and the problem prevented further underground metro system until electrification was possible. --BIL (talk) 11:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Add country column to list

JavaScript doesn't like sorted tables with cells that span multiple columns. This is why the all of the countries except the first are listed at the bottom of the table and not with the metro systems they contain. If these rows were in their correct locations they could help make the table easier to read in its default sorting (by country name), but they are useless as soon as you sort the table by a different criterion (number of metro stations, length, etc). I think it would be better to put the country and flag in a separate column, or change the city column to "city, country" format. Wakebrdkid (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Then fix it! Argh! There's no way to see what country has what metro systems any more. The page is broken - this is unacceptable. I'll give whoever wants a chance to fix it, and then I'm going to try to put the country column back in.Harburg (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Without "sortbottom" sorting works bad, but partially yes (first sorting is successful). So I think is better to have country rows working and sorting working only partially, than country rows not working and sorting working fully. I do not like adding country column, as table is already wide. So i prefer to delete sortbottom. --Jklamo (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Country field added. Please check for errors. Some machine translation ... BsBsBs (talk) 10:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Which, if any, S-Bahn systems should we include here

An anonymous contributor on 129.187.181.11 has made several, I believe in good faith, changes recently with regard to the inclusion or otherwise of S-Bahn systems in this list. Before 129.187.181.11 started, we included the Berlin S-Bahn and the Hamburg S-Bahn, but not any others.

Initially 129.187.181.11 added the Munich S-Bahn with the comment If there is Berlin+Hamburg S-Bahn, Munich has to be added, too. Alternatively: delete all "S-Bahn". When this change was reverted by User:Kildor, 129.187.181.11 then deleted Berlin and Hamburg with comment German S-Bahns are regional/commuter/suburban rails. One cannot add S-Bahn for some towns and omit it for others. Particularly in Hamburg and Berlin: the trains reach far out of the citys boundaries.

Whilst this desire for consistency (assuming good faith and that this isn't just a piece of me-too boosterism for Munich) is good, I believe that it ignores the fact that the term S-Bahn is rather a vague one, and that there is a significant qualitative difference between the historically first two S-Bahns and everything that has followed. Importantly the article itself says The name of the system is not a criterion for inclusion (or presumably, exclusion).

The S-Bahns of Berlin and Hamburg look and feel to the outside observer like a metro. Whilst they do sometimes run alongside main line rail services, they almost entirely are segregated from that network. Berlin is completely segregated. Hamburg has a small amount of sharing, but then so does the London Underground, and nobody suggests that is not a metro. The amount of underground running is perhaps less than a typical German U-Bahn, but not unusual for a metro in the worldwide context. The cars used are optimised for rapid boarding, just like most metro cars; historically Berlin has even swapped stock between its S-Bahn and U-Bahn. They both use DC electrification systems more suited to urban rather than suburban operation.

By contrast, most of the other German S-Bahn, and all the Swiss ones, seem much more akin to what the English speaking world would call suburban or commuter services. They frequently share tracks with regional, inter-city and freight trains on their outer stretches, and those outer stretches reach much further out from the city centre. Mostly they have a single dedicated tunneled section in the city centre, if that. Mostly their stock is more optimised for capacity rather than rapid boarding, and some even use locomotive-hauled double-deck stock. The systems are all electrified using long-distance friendly AC electrification.

So I have reverted 129.187.181.11's change. But I cannot claim knowledge of all S-Bahn services, and to be honest I'm not certain where Munich falls in this spectrum. So I think it appropriate to debate whether we currently have the threshold right, and try and build a consensus. Comments please. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Good idea to discuss this here! I think that all of your arguments are either irrelevant or incorrect: i) Berlin+Hamburg are the only S-Bahns with a DC system, but the "Considerations" section of this article clearly states that this is irrelevant. ii) Berlins S-Bahn network is not completely segregated, see section "Netz" of http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-Bahn_Berlin . Furthermore Berlin frequently uses S-Bahn trains from other towns due to theirs being broken. iii) Cars are not more optimized for quick boarding than any other S-Bahn train, have a look for yourself, Berlin: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBAG-Baureihe_481 and Munich: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBAG-Baureihe_423 . iv) The amount of underground tracks is not larger (e.g. Berlin has 6 underground stations, Munich has 8). v) The S-Bahns of Berlin+Hamburg strech very far out of the city center (There are S-Bahns to Podsdam and Pinneberg!), very comparable to the other S-Bahn systems in Germany. All in all I vote for deleting all S-Bahns from the list ... Germans are very pround of their regional transport: if we allow for some, the discussion will never end ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.187.181.11 (talk) 10:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree. And all S-Bahn systems are already included in List of suburban and commuter rail systems. --Kildor (talk) 06:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Kildor is opposed to including S-Bahn systems regardless. He agreed reluctantly to include some in previous discussions, but apparently used the next chance when noone's watching to remove them again. We discussed over and over again why a subset of German "S-Bahn" systems - but not all of them! - ought to be included, and why Kildor's criteria for not including them are inconsistent since he accepts certain other systems whose service standard is comparable to or arguably below that of some S-Bahns. The fact that some of these systems are also included in other lists is not really an argument. A system can fall in more than one category at the same time. I don't see why we need Kildor's approval at all. Anorak2 (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you then please summarise the arguments in favour of adding Berlin+Hamburg but not Munich? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.187.181.11 (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Hamburg and Berlin S-Bahn trains (and Copenhagen also) run on fully separated tracks, having third rail power supply like metros, and normal railway trains can't go there, and S-Bahn trains can't go on normal railways. Munich, Frankfurt etc have S-Bahn trains going partly on mainline railways, using railway standards for power supply etc. --BIL (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
According to the list definition, none of these criteria are relevant: "Furthermore, most metro systems do not share tracks with freight trains or inter-city rail services. It is however not relevant whether the system runs on steel wheels or rubber tyres, or if the power supply is from a third rail or overhead lines. " Even the contentious level crossings have an "almost always" qualifier ... BsBsBs (talk) 11:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

What about the East Rail in Hong Kong, Line One in Seoul, South Korea, and Line Two in Naples, Italy? They share tracks with mainline trains. 14.0.208.112 (talk) 06:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_metro_systems/Archive_6&oldid=541115213"