Talk:List of metro systems/Archive 23

Apologies
I've had to restore the article back to May 2019 due to a rowspan vandal (sock who's been adding rowspan to all articles), Usually I'd add all edits back however there's far to many but on the other hand we have wp:accessibility for a reason and in this specific case it should override everything, I apologise to anyone who's had their edits reverted however there's not a way to remove rowspans automatically. Thanks, – Dave | Davey 2010 Talk 21:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I do understand the reason for your action: I also think the previous layout of the table was better in more than one respect. But restoring the result of about 140 edit meanwhile occurred would be a gargantuan mess, and you're clearly aware of it: your excuse for nevertheless reverting back to such an old version (wp:accessibility...in this specific case it should override everything) would have been adequate if there had not been another way - although a bit more laborious and time consuming - to remove rowspan: doing it the ol' good way, manually.
 * Now, I'm going to revert your edit and, unless someone objects in the next two days, manually restore the old, readable and accessible layout (without rowspan). And to anyone who'll feel compelled to make an edit in the future: no matter how right, serious and urgent taking action is, please do "your homework" properly and don't pass on the burden to the first available fellow wikipedian. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Yak79 2.0, no matter how right, serious and urgent taking action is, please do "your homework" properly and don't pass on the burden to the first available fellow wikipedian" is certainly something I whole heartedly agree with ... so as such I've gone ahead and removed the rowspans,
 * I certainly believe my reversion was disruptive (and believed that when I made the change) but like I said I felt accessibility was an important factor but like you said it still all falls back to leaving it to others,
 * Many thanks, – Dave | Davey 2010 Talk 19:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for your last edits! My words may have been a bit too harsh, and I apologize if they tasted somewhat bully or dismissive: but I didn't have any ill intention, and I hope you didn't take it to heart. Kind regards, Yak79 2.0 (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you can remove them automatically by using the replace function in notepad. Mattximus (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Dave have already removed them. Now, all that's left to do in order to resume the previous table layout is swapping back the first two columns - putting City before Country, as it is in the "Legend" - and I'll do it soon, if nobody opposes. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Yak79 2.0, No worries, I could see where you were coming from so it's all cool :), I've gone ahead and swapped those 2 around as wp:ve can do it easy :), Thanks, – Dave | Davey 2010 Talk 22:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've swapped the legends around instead as felt Country would be more helpful first although if others disagree I can swap the country/city around in the table? – Dave | Davey 2010 Talk 22:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * after giving some thought to the matter, I’m still convinced that it’d be better to swap back the two columns instead; in this specific context, the city is a more relevant information than the country - in the past, it was even suggested to shelve the latter at all (which I strongly disagree with) in order to settle for once the HK-status warring - and having a “visual” column (i.e. with icons) between two “textual” ones actually improves the readability of the table. Plus, this layout is the same adopted in most of “relatives” articles (List of tram and light rail transit systems, List of monorail systems, etc.). Yak79 2.0 (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Or maybe Name, City and country?, I do agree Country, City look weird but I feel maybe City and then country would also look weird ..... that being said maybe my own suggestion could look odd. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * City/Country/Name may look weird, but respectfully insist on it for the aforementioned reasons. After all, “by city” classifications are rather common in this field (transit), adopted also by several main sources of this article, e.g. by UITP and in Mr. Schwandl’s website. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree the metro system serves a city not a country. City should be the first column for sure. Mattximus (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ as per consensus above. – Davey 2010 Talk 08:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Mobile wiki is useless as per - If someone could move the column that'd be greatly appreciated. – Davey 2010 Talk 09:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Yak79 2.0 (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Yak79 2.0 I appreciate that, For some idiotic reason VE doesn't give me the option of moving the whole column on Mobile like it does on PC, Ah well thanks again, – Davey 2010 Talk 16:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of Ottawa O-train
Although it is called an LRT, it is a rapid transit system, separated from traffic, high frequency, and called rapid transit by media and official sites. If the Valparaiso metro is rejected because it is infrequent and not separated from traffic, despite the name, would it not follow that O-train should be included? I think you must either include the O-train, or include the Valparaiso metro, since including neither means inconsistent application of inclusion criteria. Mattximus (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

"List of elevated systems" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of elevated systems. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 18:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Why is there a continent column?
I don't think this adds much information, but does make the table too large for most screens. It causes clutter. Anyone else agree? Mattximus (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I also agree. It was added without any prior discussion today by an anon. I have reverted that addition. oknazevad (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

"List of heavy rail systems" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of heavy rail systems. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Oxon Alex   - talk  17:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Abuja light railway
The Abuja light railway looks from Google satellite photos to be a fully-grade separated system, not a light railway.--Grahame (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the only thing this system has in common with LRTs is, probably, the name; however, it's also quite far from meeting the requirements of metro/rapid transit in several respects: trains hauled by diesel locos, that run only a handful of times a day, through a sparsely built-up area it'd be really hard to describe as "urban", with an average distance between stations of over 4 km, etc. In my opinion, neither the "metro" label nor the "light rail" one is suitable for this system. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looks more like regional rail. oknazevad (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, although I see there is a plan to electrify the service and presumably intensify it.--Grahame (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Commentary
Hi all - this article's table went through some critique in this Facebook group, comprised of railfans, urban planners, engineers, activists, and all sorts of transit enthusiasts. If we're going to sort transit systems by date, there's a bit more nuance to it than appears here.

One significant critique is that although the article is for rapid transit systems, the dates opened seem to correspond only with underground portions or subways (e.g. London in 1890, NYC in 1904), although systems like Chicago are listed, which has predominantly elevated lines (listed, 1897), and is stated in its article as second-oldest in the Americas, second to NY. Its underground transit only dates to 1943 (not listed). Also, why is the Staten Island Railway only listed from electrification in 1925? It may also be beneficial to have a column for "date of oldest existing infrastructure"... ɱ (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with the critique, this is for metro systems, not necessarily underground. However we cannot add another column, it's already way too wide as it is, it will cause problems on smaller screens. One date column really should suffice. Mattximus (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * No more columns, please. We have notes for nuances, criteria are described in legend section. Of course, different criteria will produce different results. But feel free to improve the notes.Jklamo (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Improving date sortability
Hi all,

User:FG42~enwiki undid edits I was working my way through to improve the date info each metro system:


 * was opened
 * had its last extension

The dates were being added in yyyy-mm-dd format. By adding this additional info in that improves the sortability of the info in those columns. i.e. it makes it possible to sort to see accurately in full chronological sequence the info in both those columns. With respect to the column for date of last extension, it also makes immediately clearer if recent extensions have included in the info.

User:FG42~enwiki argues that this additional info adds clutter. I instead propose that the benefits of this additional info in an onlone encyclopaedia massively outweighs any perceived drawbacks User:FG42~enwiki feels there is in adding this additional info.

Please discuss for consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.148.221 (talk) 03:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see MOS:DATE. Long story short is we do not use ISO YYYY-MM-DD dates on Wikipedia except for certain reference formats (and even then those are largely depreciated). Pulse, to be honest, we don't need any date except the year. Beyond that is a level of detail inappropriate for an overview article such as this. I agree that we should leave the columns as they are. oknazevad (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Sydney Trains vs Sydney Metro
If Sydney trains are considered commuter rail, than Sydney metro should be too. The Sydney metro runs along the North Suburbs and not even near the CBD. Sydney is a very spread city that has many regions such as Penrith, Cambelltown, Parramatta, Manly, Narabeen, Illawarra, Cronulla, North Sydney, North east sydney, and Sydney (Sydney is a region of the greater metropolitan city of Sydney). The reason most of these trains are above ground is because there is so much space that there is no need to elevate train lines or dig tunnels. They are all Rapid transit systems. It can get very confusing. Sydney metro is a brand name used for the self driving antonymous trains that are only one deck high. Routs like the city circle are NOT metro and are operated by Sydney Trains, and they are Rapid transit. Trains to places like Wollongong and Katoomba are different because these places are NOT part of Sydney. Some trains are Labelled the "INTERCITY FLEET" but they do not necessarily travel to other cities, THey just travel long distances to regions such as Penrith. The INTERCITY trains do travel to other cities but just because they are labelled intercity does not mean that they travel to other places. It is so complicated and I understand why you only included Sydney metro, But again, it doesnt anctually go anywhere near the CBD, At least not until 2024 when an extension is opened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlenny2009 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Something I would like to ask is what is the exact definition of metro? Because I understand that Sydney trains can be considered suburban, but a significant amount runs inner city rapid transit. Do Sydney trains deserve their own class? Because the Sydney trains don't go out of the city but the city is so large that the system has to be as large, and some (including myself) find it difficult to classify and quite confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlenny2009 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll say what I said on my talk page (so others can see it). The older Sydney Trains are more akin to an S-Bahn (which we don't list here) than a metro, and that the new true metro line hasn't reached the CBD yet because of phased construction does nothing to remove its status as a metro. oknazevad (talk) 13:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Now I see what you mean, It can be confusing some times. Thank you for enlightening me on this subject.


 * None of the suburban lines in Sydney are metro lines, because some of their track is shared with freight trains or country trains at some point. Also there are still a couple of level crossings. Metro lines are entirely self-contained. Certainly the Sydney system would be called an S-Bahn is Germany, which also have these features.--Grahame (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Australian Metro Systems
Hello, I'm wondering if this counts as a metro system (because the definition is quite hazy) But why are no Australian cities such as Melbourne, Adelaide, Brisbane, Perth, not included on the list? They all have quite extensive rail systems that go on, above and below ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlenny2009 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Until they consist of entirely electrified lines without shared tracks with non-suburban services and and have no level-crossings, they are not metros. The definition of metros is not in the least hazy.--Grahame (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well the dictionary definition according to Dictionary.com is "the underground electric railway of Paris, France, Montreal, Canada, Washington, D.C., and other cities." which is quite different. You and others are saying its a completely separated system that is NOT NECESSARILY underground (which the definition says) but because it has no level crossings. This is why I find the definition confusing. Many people say many different things. And also, what counts as a suburban service? because the reason the Sydney train network is so long is because of the fact that the city is so spread, 12,368 km squared to be exact, more than 15 times the size of New York. May I ask you to be less abrupt in your answer next time please? Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.61.233 (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The definition we are using is set out in the "Considerations" section at the top of the table. You should read that. We are not using the Dictionary.com definition.--Grahame (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well under the "Considerations section it states these exact words; "The dividing line between metro and other modes of public transport, such as light rail[10][11] and commuter rail,[10][11] is not always clear". I'm not saying that there is no definition, I'm just saying it can be unclear and hard to understand.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * World Metro systems.svg

Moscow central circle
It appears that on official maps that it is simply line 14 of the Moscow metro. I'm not sure if it warrants it's own row on this list, it should just be included in the metro numbers. It uses the same fare, and is fully integrated. No reason to single this line out. Mattximus (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's a line of the Moscow Metro, not a separate system. oknazevad (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the length and the number of stations have already been taken into account in the Moscow Metro entry.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Easy solution, I removed it. Mattximus (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Reverted. It's not included in Moscow Metro. And it's usually counted separately as operated by different company, similar to London's Docklands. Check Moscow Metro article for further information. Elk Salmon (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, in the article you cite it is listed as a line of Moscow Metro. And I have never seen it counted separately. The ticket is the same, the fare is the same, the transfers, though not everywhere convenient, work.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Then let's make it included, counting from the List of Moscow Metro stations, there are 261 stations if you include all lines, and 224 if you exclude the circle and monorail. The main page says 275 which is confusing. Does anyone know which stations are missing from the List of Moscow Metro stations? Whatever we choose, it does not make any sense to split the Moscow Metro into two rows in this table. Mattximus (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's included same way as London Underground/DLR or Tokyo Metro/Toei Subway/Yamanote Line/Yokohama Subway/Minatomirai Line. Not all articles are up to date to recent expansions. Elk Salmon (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Toei and Tokyo Metro are really two different systems, with different tickets and no free interchange (I am less familiar with the London situation). I do not think any reliable sources make a distinction, and in any cae the majority describe the Moscow Central Circle as a line of Moscow metro.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And Yamanote is not even a metro.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yamanote is the metro line. It's 100% fits into UITP definition of metro. It's not suburban. It's totally metropolitan. It's totally separated. And it's running by own tracks. Then Minatomirai Line is listed separately. But trains going from Tokyo Metro Fukutoshin Line to Minatomirai Line without any change through Tokyu Toyoko Line. Tokyu lines are also candidates. They are not fully separated, as they have grade crossings, but there a lot of systems with grade crossings included in the list. But Tokyu lines are almost all fully urban, connected directly to metro lines and have own right of way. There are also a lot of examples for multiple systems divided by owbers in the listed. And yes, MCC is usually treated by its own, as it's not owned by Moscow Metropolitain State Enterprise. Elk Salmon (talk) 10:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

UITP definition "Metropolitan railways are urban, electric transport systems with high capacity and a high frequency of service. Metros are totally independent from other traffic, road or pedestrians. They are consequently designed for operations in tunnel, viaducts or on surface level but with physical separation. Metropolitan railways are the optimal public transport mode for a high capacity line or network service. Some systems run on rubber-tyres but are based on the same control-command principles as steel-wheel systems. In different parts of the world metro systems are also known as the underground, subway or tube."

Wikipedia is not based upon what we think about facts and how they fits definitions or not (aka original research), but on what reliable sources say: obviously, technical knowledge and a well grounded reasoning are required on borderline cases, to weight disagreeing sources, but they rather unanimously regard Yamanote Line as a commuter/suburban/regional railway - those three labels are used with similar meaning in different geographical/cultural contexts, and suburban should not be understood literally. Through services (直通運転) between rapid transit and commuter lines are a common, well known occurrence in Japan, yet the divide between the two transit modes remains clear and sourced: Tokyo Metro trains run on Tokyu Toyoko Line without the latter becoming part of a rapid transit system as well as German tram-trains running on main railway tracks doesn’t turn the DB network into a tramway.

As for Moscow central circle, the reliable secondary sources this list lean upon does not include it (and the monorail) in the metro figures (UITP, International Metro Association) and call it explicitly suburban rail or synonyms (Mr. Schwandl's website) as specialized press usually do. The argument that on official maps it is simply one of the metro line – besides not entirely true, being drawn with a clearly different stroke – isn’t really convincing: also in LA Metro and RTD cases, light rail and rapid transit (Los Angeles) or commuter rail lines (Denver) share a consistent numbering scheme and are depicted alike in the official map, and yet they’re (rightly) split on Wiki lists. Thus MCC should neither be included in the Moscow Metro entry, nor threated as a separate metro system; unless obviously someone provide sources supporting these arrangements - I haven’t seen one so far - and good enough to counterweight the ones I cited.

On a side note, according to the WP:BRD method, after a controversial edit is reverted and the related discussion on the talk page is ongoing, it’d be advisable (and nicer) to not reinstate the said change until, if ever, it gain consensus. Regards, Yak79 2.0 (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * None of given sourced are reliable, except metro map. All of them are personal opinions. Again, Line 14 is given different color not because of it's not technically a metro, but because owned by different company, where Moscow Metro only owns service on dedicated tracks. And they hire RZD to operate it. Line 14 is also nowhere a suburban/commuter line. It's fully integrated into Moscow Metro. It has single ticketing system with free interchange. Some of them are direct interchanges, where it's possible. It's located mostly within center of Moscow, deep deep inside urban core. Suburban does being understood literally. The only reason people using it is because they don't know where it is located and what is the city structure they talking about. They didn't look on the map. They heard it's suburban, they call it suburban. Metro lines are not called metro only because they owned by company called Metro. There is DLR listed in the list and it's not being removed just because it's not part of London Underground. But what's more it's called Light and called Railways. Speaking about WP:OR, assuming that MCC is not a metro line because it has different color is WP:OR. Now we have MCD which are everywhere called ground metro.https://realty.rbc.ru/news/5dd654449a79476d80ff27e8] According to reliable source we should add them to this list just by now. And no matter that those are suburban and commuter trains that are currently just operating in MCD mode within MCD boundaries. MCD own tracks and stations are still being built. Trams are light rails, not heavy rails. And afaik they do not run railway tracks, but own tracks parallel to railways. At least in most cases. Elk Salmon (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And speaking of reversion. I reverted it because early commentors assumed it was already summed into Moscow Metro entry, when it wasn't. They did not question whatever it a metro line or not. They've been all agree on that. So it was rather technical reversion. Elk Salmon (talk) 02:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As of Tokyo, didn't add anything to the article. It's a subject of discussion. But current list is inconsistent and very subjective. We do not add cats to dogs articles, because multiple reliable sources calls them dogs. There are reasonable limits for that. Some might say - dogs are not cats - that is a fact and facts do not require citations. But that's again very subjective. So there are reasonable limits for secondary sources. And information and data in article should be consistent. And UITP definition is a reliable source for that limits. I'm leaving this for discussion. I didn't add anything from Tokyo. And i won't add MCD until it runs own tracks without suburban trains on them. Elk Salmon (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Tyne and Wear Metro
I'm confused as to why the Tyne and Wear Metro is considered a metro on this list, as it runs along tracks shared with the British National rail service and has level crossings. Other Train systems (such as Sydney trains) have not been included on this list as to the fact that they share tracks with other rail services, even though they have many underground stations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlenny2009 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The explanation given in the note would also justify classifying the Canberra Light Rail as a metro.--Grahame (talk) 04:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes indeed. It can be cofusing as well as Canberra Light Rail is officially called Canberra Metro. I think some more cities with "commuter rail" should be included on this list. Such as Perth trains, which as you probably know runs most of its lines on grade seperated tracks. Even thoigh the average distance between their stations is 2.4km, it averages speeds of 82kph, so it evens out. Mlenny2009 (talk) 08:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It's very hard to pigeonhole these systems, but the Canberra Metro is very much a "light rail" system, whereas the Tyne and Wear Metro is very much a metro system with some light rail components. If you exclude the Tyne and Wear Metro, then you also have to exclude the Chicago L system, which also has similar issues. I vote for including both Tyne and Wear and Chicago since they are primarily metro systems, but exclude Canberra Metro since it is entirely light rail. The Perth trains are very much commuter rail, I don't think there would be any argument that it is a metro system. Mattximus (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree with Mattximus. Canberra light rail is certainly not a metro, similar to the gold coast light rail. However, Perth trains run at regular intervals of at least 15 minutes during the day, have level crossings just like the tyne and wear, are electrified, run mostly on separated tracks, and even have an underground component. I don't understand why if the Tyne and Wear is included, why Perth's cannot. examples such as Sydney Metro, which is categorised as a metro on this list,compared to the joondalup line (Perth's northern suburbs railway line) the only major difference between them is the level crossings. I do not understand. If there is no clear definition of a metro, them why is there even a list at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlenny2009 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Canberra light rail runs at 6-15 minute intervals. In some ways, it is more metro-like than the Joondalup line.--Grahame (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree with comment. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that the definitions are arbitrary, but you can tell Perth's system is definitely a commuter rail because it only has high frequency headways during the morning and evening commute times, otherwise the headways are giant. This is similar to every other commuter rail system but unlike metro systems which generally maintain a reasonable frequency before/after peak commute times. Mattximus (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Perth trains run every 15 minutes until 7:30PM when the headway becomes 30 minutes. I agree that 30 mins is huge, but the daytime frequencies are still 15 mins.
 * Having 30 minute headways means Perth is unquestionably a commuter rail system, and 15 minute frequency is also a standard commuter rail headway, metro systems are usually much more frequent throughout much more of the day. Mattximus (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Under construction section
Some random editor keeps adding under construction systems such as “Managua Metro” or “Vientiane Metro” to the under construction list, however there were no references, no links to any other article on these supposed systems and were placed at the bottom of the list instead of in alphabetical order. I’ve already undone their edit, however looking through the article history, this editor keeps adding them in and someone removes it eventually. Also, I had a look through the editor’s contribution history to see that they have done the same thing to the Rubber-tyred metro article under the planned section. Fork99 (talk) 05:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is pretty clear vandalism. If this is the same IP, I can block them.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I left a warning at their talk page and will block if they do it again--Ymblanter (talk) 05:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Is Al Mashaaer Al Mugaddassah Metro Southern Line really a metro?
The Al Mashaaer Al Mugaddassah Metro Southern Line in Mecca Saudi Arabia, according to the following reasons, doesn't fit the definition of a metro system : - It is not intended to be used for urban public transport. - It only runs for a very limited period of time during the year for special events. - It is not accessible to general public

It would rather be considered as a people mover.

Therefore, I suggest to remove it. Capt&#39;n London (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds to me like it fails in the concept of being public transit. its more akin to a seasonal theme park operation. oknazevad (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes – I believe it was removed from the list some time back for that reason, and it should never have been "restored" to the list. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Seville Metro
The Seville Metro is completely grade separated, and runs at high frequency. It even has platform screen doors yet, is not included as a metro. As far as I can see, the only reason for this is that the rolling stock used is defined as a light rail vehicle. All the VAL systems in France listed here use trains smaller than Seville’s. Is there therefore any scope to include the Seville Metro in this list? Jackgill06 (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I know this is a somewhat subjective issue, but for me, I'd definitely include the Seville Metro It passes the quack test. --Kafuffle (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree, I've ridden it, it definitely belongs on this list. Mattximus (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Accoring to urbanrail.net, it's seems to be vary similar to VAL Metros used in Lille, Rennes or Turin, which are on this list. Therefore there I don't see no reasons not to add it. Capt&#39;n London (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not? oknazevad (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the main reason for it not being considered metro yet is that vehicles used are low-floor, and look like actual trams as can be seen here : Video But does low-floor vehicles are really incomptable with being metro system? I can't think of any other heavy rail using LF vehicles... Capt&#39;n London (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting characteristic. But I don't think it's a disqualifying one. It's still level boarding, and train length isn't that short. It might be better described as light metro, however. oknazevad (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The fully segregated ROW and the signalling (with ATP and platform screen doors) make a good point, but the comparison to French VAL systems isn’t really convincing: although their vehicles are a bit less capacious than the Seville’s Urbos 2 - at 6 pax/m² for standees, it’s between 220 and 240 passengers, depending on the different internal layout, for a VAL208 married pair, whereas each CAF tramcar can accommodate 280 people - it’s the overall line capacity that matters, and thus the headway too plays a key role. On this latter respect, 3’ 4' during peak hours is quite high good for a LRT or a conventional metro, but comparatively lower than those typical of automated light metros (up to a train every 65’’ achieved in Toulouse ): hence, the capacity range of French VAL systems is roughly 9˙000÷13˙000 pax/h per direction, versus 5˙600 4˙200' pax/h per direction in Seville. Not to mention, works to double the train length on the busiest line are underway in Lille (Ligne 1) and already completed in Toulouse (Ligne A), bringing the potential capacity of these two lines over 20˙000 pax/h per direction. This substantive difference reflects also in ridership figures: using for comparison the data of 2018 for Toulouse’s Ligne B of and Seville’s only line, we have 57 million pax/year (3.6 million pax/year per km) on one side and 16.9 million pax/year (0.9 million pax/year per km) on the other one.
 * In the end, Seville is one of those medium capacity rail transit systems, as most of the Japanese monorails or the so-called LRT in Korea and Singapore, that, despite being grade-separated and driven on signals, have a too low overall capacity to be classified as actual, albeit “light”, rapid transit/metro systems. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 06:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Vienna's U6 and Budapest's Line 1 are both low-floor metro lines, to name a couple. Sbb618 (talk) 06:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we have to acknowledge that there is no strict definition for what is a metro system, it blurs into medium-rail whatever that is... the Seville Metro has most of the traits of a metro system, and I have ridden it and it feels like a normal metro, and people call it a metro (WP:COMMON) I think it should be included. It's surely more of a metro system then say Al Mashaaer Al Mugaddassah Metro line which operates only 7 days per year (!) and is on this list. Mattximus (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry to disagree,, but how people call it has never been, and can’t be, a good criterion to classify a system: there are several tram/LRT and even some bus-based systems called “metro”, and yet they rightfully aren’t listed here (anyway, WP:COMMON applies to editing rules and not to content). Although it’s true that the boundaries of the metro/rapid transit category is blurred, and there’s no consistency among sources where to put the capacity threshold - we should say that there is virtually no author actually drawing a clear line - it’s still fairly common knowledge that this threshold somewhere exist, and that some systems’ capacity is “low enough” we can say for sure they sit under it... or, at least, this always was the consensus here, unless I'm mistaken ( might confirm, or deny, my belief). That said, I think that the maximum capacity of Seville Metro, which in my previous comment I even overstated by mistake, and then corrected, is not adequate for a true metro systems, regardless the grade separation and the “metro feeling” it conveys. Conversely, we should add a lot of systems (East-Asian LRTs, urban monorails, automated people movers) that currently are excluded. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Relevant previous discussion on this can be found here. Bottom line: It's not just about "grade separation" – ridership and capacity matter. Based on the previous discussion, it seems like this system uses small trains, which leads to lower capacity and ridership. IOW, it's likely a "Medium-capacity rail system" (or "light metro"). And, BTW, there are probably other current entries in this list that should be removed from here for similar (e.g. capacity) reasons (e.g. I'm looking at Rennes Metro, among others)... But I took this article off my watchlist long ago (editing it just ending up making me angry, for a number of reasons), so I only have a passing interest in developments here now. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I understand exactly IJBall's attitude, and I will stop following and participating on this page as well. In my opinion there is a conflict between people who have a strong desire to pigeonhole systems into unclear definitions. I understand this urge, it comes from people who love transit, love order, which I share. But wikipedia is for the general public, and above all should be useful. The Seville Metro is called a metro, and so should be on this list, even if the ridership is low and because most people commenting on this page agree. If you took a hundred random people and had them ride it, and asked them, "is this a metro system"? If 99/100 say yes, in the absence of a perfect universally accepted inclusion criteria, it should be here. If it's not there, should be an explicit mention why Seville Metro is not a metro somewhere on this page. Is it the ridership only? Tren Urbano is on this list and it's ridership is less than half the Seville Metro. Mattximus (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I completely disagree with some aspects of Mattximus assessment on the matter. Reiterating on Yak79 2.0's point "what people call it" has never been, and can’t be, a good criterion to classify a system. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, which is to convey the important accumulated knowledge on a subject from a particular field or discipline (ie reputable sources). Being factual and being useful to the general public are not mutually exclusive. Including or excluding a system does not make the list less or more useful only more or less factual, so I don't see how usefulness to the general public can be used as an argument here. Also no, if 99% of a sample population believes it to be true, still does not mean it is true if not backed up by reputable sources. Lastly, "I have ridden it, so it is." argument is textbook original research.Terramorphous (talk)

Macau Light Rail Transit
It obviously seems proper to be regarded as a light metro. --Fly2Blue (talk) 03:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This part is 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 line." After reading this, I see no reason why Macau shouldn't be listed. NemesisAT (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I just had a quick search of the archived talk pages, and it appears Macau Metro is listed on Medium-capacity rail system. I still don't know how you decide what is Metro and what is a "medium-capacity rail system". NemesisAT (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The systems listed at Medium-capacity rail system are sourced as either "medium" or "intermediate" capacity or are called "light metro" in sourcing. Unfortunately, there's never been an ironclad consensus to not list systems that are listed at medium-capacity rail system either at this article or at list of tram and light rail transit systems. FTR, I would support that change, and agree that anything listed at medium-capacity rail system should not be listed here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This just got confusing. It's late and I don't want to delve into this tonight but at a glance the medium-capacity rail system page lists rubber-tire metro systems (fair enough) but also lists full heavy rail lines such as the Circle Line (Singapore). To me, the Circle Line counts as a "metro system" and should be included on this page. Sorry this is a rather non-conclusive response, but I may revisit this in the future. NemesisAT (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You'll notice that the Singapore systems listed at the article are not sourced. (I've dialed back reverting IP editors at that article for this, but I certainly would not object to anyone removing entries like these on the basis of WP:BURDEN and WP:V...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue with the Medium-capacity rail system is that it's quite a messy page, that is mixing tram system such as Malaga tram with all kind of different technologies such as Lille Ruber tyred metro, Glasgow Subway, Kuala Lumpur Ampang Line or Bangkok MRT Purple Line. Most of those systems do not have much in common. It's because there isn't such a recognizable thing as a "medium capacity rail system". It is rather a category made to list controversial systems where some cannot be put in the List of metro system. It's easy to define what's a metro or a tram (even though some cases are controversial, it's still a minority). Furthermore this page seems to lack good sourcing and therefore cannot be entireley trusted as a page to choose which system should or not be included in this List of metro systems. In my opinion, this would start more controverses than there are already. Metro systems should still be analyzed on a case-by-case basis as it's nearly impossible to find a clear general agrement on what's a metro and what is not. As for now Macau LRT seems to have most features to stay on that list (Fully segragated, High Frequency of service, being the backbone of Macau public transport.) For now only the mass capacity is questionnable, but I would suggest to keep it on that list unless serious other concerns are raised against it. Keep in mind that this list is not exclusevly listing "Mass rapid transit" or "heavy urban rail system" (even though it's a synonym, it doesn't have the exact same meaning) therfore some flexibility should be applied for such kind of LRT systems. Capt&#39;n London (talk) 11:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also I don't see any objection to have some system listed in both lists. Capt&#39;n London (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2020
Please include the existing 405 km / 252 mi metro rail system for Melbourne, Australia. Referenced here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railways_in_Melbourne An expansion of the Melbourne system (Metro Tunnel) is under construction (as at September 2020). Referenced here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Tunnel 114kirky (talk) 05:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC) 114kirky (talk) 05:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It has level crossings and thus is not a metro system.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The Chicago "L" has level crossings but it is not considered any less of a metro system because of that. In fact, this list includes many systems that have level crossings. Rckania (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * While that is true, the tunnel is not complete, so Melbourne does not have a current system regardless. The anon is asking to add the whole system, which is commuter rail at most. oknazevad (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Moscow Metro, Line 14
Yak79 2.0, once again, we rely on definition of UITP, which is notable source, and official operators. We do not define anything on our own feelings, as it is WP:OR. Elk Salmon (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * UITP and operators are sources. They do not determine consensus.--Grahame (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2020
Please update the system length of Delhi Metro from 347.6 km to 389 km. Ref: Wiki and Official Website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aktiwari158 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * As the provided source clearly says, their figures include also Noida Metro and Gurgaon's Rapid Metro which, although operated by DRMC, aren't part of the same system (and they are correctly listed aside in this article). Yak79 2.0 (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request
Under the Under Construction section, please add Baghdad to the list of cities getting a metro system. It is slated to start construction in 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1526:450b:8441:5985:194d:7c95 (talk • contribs)
 * Any sources for actual start of the construction? Jklamo (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope, and it is likely still a long way off: Yak79 2.0 (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Chenxiang Highway
FYI for those involved. In addition to what has said in regards to this list's criteria for what counts as expansion. Chenxiang Highway was not built in 2009. It was approved in 2014 and construction started around 2018 with opening in 2020. (See sources and consult Google Earth historical imagery).Terramorphous (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Valencia is missing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrovalencia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.169.229.32 (talk) 12:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Light rail. Please see previous extensive discussions in the archives. oknazevad (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2020
Change number of stations on the Kaoshuing Rapid Transit to 45. Source: https://www.krtc.com.tw/eng/Guide/guide_map 2601:647:4400:8AF0:F050:CB66:821B:5229 (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you're getting 45 from, but if I count the stations on the red and yellow lines then I get 37, matching the figure in the article. The Green line isn't counted because it's considered light rail.NemesisAT (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Merge country cells
Shouldn't the cells of country's being repeated more than once be merged, as it doesn't seem practical to have multiple links to the same article. It would be better if the multiple links be merged. Please bring forward any reason to support the contrary. Ranamode (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The list is sortable, so the order does not always stay the same. That's why repeat links are not only allowed, but preferable. oknazevad (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The Mecca Metro is missing.
Hello! I was just wondering why the Mecca Metro is missing from the list. Any reason would be appreciated. Thank you! --2A01:115F:78D:7400:C098:E981:4459:FEF (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The sole Mecca metro line in revenue service operates only seven days a year, during the annual Hajj, to transport pilgrims between the city's Holy Sites: despite providing a valuable service - and very impressive indeed: about a quarter of the systems on this list take in average over a month to achieve a ridership comparable to the passengers it carries in a single week - it doesn't truly qualify as mass transit and it could rather rather be considered as one of those special-purpose systems serving a facility/district or dedicated to selected users (such as airport people movers). Thus, Mecca was removed from the list according to this talk page discussion, which I concur with.
 * On the other hand, it can't be fairly said that there is no metro systems currently in operation in Mecca either, and that's why the city isn't in in the "Under construction" list notwithstanding the four-line separated metro system currently U/C (might these circumstances be worth of mention in this section's introductory paragraph? I dunno... ). Yak79 2.0 (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we should just list it as under construction. Considering the Hajj shuttle doesn't really count as a metro (hence it's removal), that means the under construction lines do represent a new system that is he city's first and should be listed as under construction. oknazevad (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed on this point. For the purposes of this list, the Mecca Metro should be considered the first system. NemesisAT (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Buenos Aires Underground opening
With regard to this string of my and 's edits (,, and ), putting aside the fact that Wikipedia wouldn't be a reliable source anyway, I think the whole point is what is the opening year of Buenos Aires system according to the criteria adopted in this page: in fact, in order to achieve a meaningful consistency through the list, all the data are (and have to be) subject to the specific guidelines as explained in the "Legend" section. As for the "Year opened" column, it was established quite a bit ago to list the year the metro system was opened for commercial service at metro standards. In other words... - for systems derived from preexisting infrastructures - ... the year that the system obtained metro standards: this means, in most cases, the electrification, but it may refer also to other changes in technology or operations. This is true for London (it's listed 1890, and not 1963), Vienna (1976, and not 1898), Athens (1904, and not 1869 or 1885), etc.

In Buenos Aires case, Line A operated, for some years after it was commissioned in 1913, as an underground tramway integrated in its operator's AACT street-running network: until the end of 1926, it was for sure the first underground urban rail in Latin America, but it became a "proper" metro (=rapid transit) system only when the surface portion of the line was discontinued, the rolling stock modified and the tunnel portal was used only by off-duty trains as a link to the depot. I provided a couple of references that clearly outline these early events, but other can be found: for example, here two sources - one (really interesting) contemporary to the fact and one recent - from which emerges as the line was conceived and built (and not merely operated afterward) as an underground tramway; even the well known nickname of the system, Subte, is after all the contraction of "tranvía subterráneo".

Thus, unless some well argued and referenced objection arises here, we should reinstate 1927 as the correct entry in the list. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * according to basically all the sources that go into detail about it, the changeover to exclusively subway operations took place right at the turn of the year 1926/1927, thus the date listed until now wasn't the correct one (by one year). As for the latest edit by : whereas I can see your reasons (for the sake of clarity), I disagree with the addendum on two grounds:
 * the same reasons would apply to all columns, leading to lard all the titles with a more or less extensive explanation;
 * the list is preceded, as is customary, by a thorough "Legend" section that is more than enough to clarify all the doubts may arise about some "odd" entries, to which is furthermore added - in the "Year opened" case - an extensive side note for each of these "odd" dates accounting why and how the legend guideline applies for the specific system.
 * Best wishes for happy Holidays to everyone, Yak79 2.0 (talk) 15:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Does Haifa, Israel’s Carmelit count here?
It is a funicular railway and is underground? Should it be included here?2603:8081:160A:BE2A:9839:6FF9:227:1233 (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Taichung Metro
This Taiwanese system was added to the main list after November 16, 2020, the start of "test with passengers" operations on the Green Line ahead of the official opening scheduled for the following month, on December 19. However, trial runs were suspended less than a week later due to a technical issue that proved itself more serious than it first appeared, leading the formal opening and start of commercial operations (as well as the resumption of trial run) to be postponed until further notice. The rolling stock manufacturer, Kawasaki Heavy Industries, expects to finish the needed repairs next week, and the Department of Rapid Transit Systems (DORTS), responsible for developing the project, said a new phase of trial run could begin in February 2021, pending the City Government approval.

Given these circumstances, we should put this system back among the under construction ones waiting at least for passenger service to actually resume or, better, to the official opening; as for which "opening year" should be listed once this is happened, we have to see what sources will say but, IMHO, it should be - knock on wood - 2021 (and the few days of passenger carrying in 2020 should be regarded as a non relevant hiccup). Yak79 2.0 (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Istanbul Marmaray
According to the consideration section, Istanbul's Marmaray should be added to the list, Which was operating as like as commuter rail before the Marmaray project.

Because of unique geography of the city, the city center expanded in the east-west direction at the southern coast of the city which also Marmaray located at. Suburbs are converted and become part of the city center in years. Today Istanbul's suburbs are located in north side or western part of Istanbul city center.

For example M1(M1B) has an extension to Halkalı Marmaray Station which under construction. M11 is under construction also which goes to New Airport from Halkalı. On the other direction, Gebze metro is under construction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.104.14.34 (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The line was built as suburban rail in late 1800s however city expanded rapidly and today both edge of that line is inside the city center. So it wasn't a suburban line for several decades. In fact, some more metro lines are under construction which allow transfers to Marmaray's last stations on both way.

During the Marmaray project, all lines and train stations - except historical buildings - demolished and whole system rebuilt in a heavy metro system standards.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Marmaray_train_in_Bostanc%C4%B1_station.jpg

Photo shows the old commuter rail station which left outside of Marmaray (on left), and new metro station (on right)

Here are the changes made;
 * 1) almost all stations are rebuilt from scratch as a metro station.
 * 2) new metro trains purchased which works in 4-car / 8-car configuration.
 * 3) a new third line constructed for intercity high speed trains with independent stations for these trains. So Marmaray works on their own exclusive tracks.
 * 4) 13 km underground stations and tunnel constructed for Bosphorus pass.
 * 5) new signal system allows 2-minute frequencies between trains (8-minutes at the moment)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.104.14.34 (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

New Athos Cave Railway
What about New Athos Cave Railway? Ishiai (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not a rapid transit system.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Requirement for flags?
please give your rationale for the inclusion of flags in this article. In my view, per MOS:FLAGS and MOS:FLAGCRUFT, they are not justified here. These transport systems are not representing their country in a sport, or any other way, and their nationality is not discussed in the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Your comment suggests that the flags were added recently, when they actually have been in the article for many years now. The flags in this article fill the purpose of making the sorting/grouping of the list clearer, since it is sorted by country, and not by city or system name. It gives the reader a visual aid to find the right system, and also to get a quick overview where the systems are distributed over the world. Without the flags, the list would only be a large mass of text/numbers in a huge table. Similar well-established lists, like List of largest cities and List of tallest buildings, also use flags. I cannot see any advantage of removing the flags in this article. Kildor (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, for me the flags help when navigating such a large table and they make it easier to scan. NemesisAT (talk) 09:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * why should we be placing more significance on the country column than on any of the other columns though? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is a way of grouping/sorting this huge list.Kildor (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , you can also sort them by city or length or number of passengers, so why should nationality alone have visual cues? Are we suggesting it has greater significance than the other columns? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * For me, the country column is more significant than the city or system name column. Especially when sorting by date opened, having flags present helps visualise just how much progress China and India have made with metro building. NemesisAT (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally I don’t see the issue with flags, it’s a useful visual aid.  Cards   84664   18:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And, as noted, has plenty of precedence on other international-scope lists with long-established use. Seems to me like he guideline is not accurately relating the actual best practice used across the encyclopedia, but is attempting to dictate content of articles based on the limited consensus of those who took part in a discussion on an obscure talk page. The tail doesn't wag the dog, and barging in with an insistence that the page is wrong is non-collaborative and inappropriate. oknazevad (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Once again challenging the Mexican systems
Once again, I am going to challenge the inclusion of either Metrorrey or Guadalajara light rail system in this list-article. Outside of UrbanRail.net (which is in no way definitive on this question), does anybody actually categorize Metrorrey as a true "metro" or "rapid transit" system?!... And Guadalajara light rail system doesn't qualify either – even Line 3 uses puny 3-car trainsets, which is no way qualifies as "high capacity".

Both of these systems need to be removed from here. If someone can actually produce sourcing calling them "light metros" then they should be moved to the Medium-capacity rail system article. Otherwise, they are "light rail" – either way, they don't belong here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I have probably missed or forgot the discussion where light metro systems were to be excluded from the list. But Metrorey appears to me to be a (light) metro system. Guadalajara line 1 is clearly light rail, but line 2 and 3 could perhaps be considered metro lines. Anyway, with Copenhagen Metro and London DLR in the list, I am not so sure that Metreorrey must be excluded. Personally I think it is very difficult to draw a line between metro and light metro. It is hard enough to separate metro from light rail and suburban/regional rail... Kildor (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there database or references that helps say that line is light rail / premétro / tramway / real subway etc. Rouen/Rennes, for instance, is marketed as a subway but are more of tramways. --Bouzinac (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The Medium-capacity rail system article exists for a reason, though some systems are listed both there and here or at List of tram and light rail transit systems as basically a sort of "compromise". Regardless, we should not include systems here that are not overwhelming referred to as "metro" or "rapid transit" systems by WP:RS (that is what we all decided long ago), and neither of those Mexican systems is. This list loses all meaning the second we include every system which is ever-so-slightly borderline/maybe metro... To answer Bouzinac, there used to be, but both UITP and LRTA have gutted their websites in the last several years, and removed their useful tables and databases which categorized systems by "transit mode" (e.g. "light rail" vs. "metro"). I have argued for years that systems such as Rennes, France or Palma, Spain should not be included here because they have nowhere near the capacity to be considered truly "rapid transit" – just because they call it a "Metro" doesn't mean it's a "metro". (A generally good benchmark should be that any decent-sized system with less than 100 50 million annual riders are probably not "metros", and anything with less than 50 25–30 million riders (unless it's a single line) almost certainly shouldn't be included here...) But no actual consensus is ever reached on this (it's one of the reasons I took this article off my watchlist years ago), and the creep-creep-creep of including more and more low-capacity/not-metro systems in this list continues. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I find these pages and the definitions used to split systems into light rail/trams, medium rail, and "metro" confusing to say the least. I do think it would be inconsistent to exclude systems because of a lack of sources that use the words "metro" or "rapid transit", while simultaneously ignoring sources that do use those words, because we disagree with them. Sorry if I'm missing something here! NemesisAT (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In fact, Rennes is still included here because, I think, UITP did categorize it as a "metro" (at the time). So we do follow sourcing. The issue is when few if any sources call a system a "metro" and yet it's still included here. Again, both Mexican systems and Tyne and Wear were categorized as "light rail" when LRTA still had their systems list, and they were not included here until once again editors started lobbying for them and then I guess wore down the remaining editors here – but they were all (correctly, IMO) excluded from this list for years. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I tried to remove the Tyne and Wear Metro from the light rail page, because it's listed here and (in my opinion) is a metro. I got reverted by someone saying it isn't a metro, however it is still listed on this article. I think these pages would benefit from some more specific rules to categorise systems, but I realise that would be a big task. NemesisAT (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There can be no "bright-line" rules, because it depends on multiple factors such as extent of grade-separation, train size (and type – I don't think any system listed here uses diesel trains), frequency/headway, and system capacity – and they all have to appraised holistically. The issues is there are lots of systems that fall into the gray areas between "light rail"/"light metro"/"rapid transit", and then editors push to include the marginal systems here for various reasons (often "national pride") when there is actually a dearth of sourcing (esp. international sourcing) calling them "metros". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't know what UITP or LRTA are. Rapid transit has sources that say a system must be "high capacity" to be considered a metro, but from what I could see, none specified what "high capacity" means. The Circle MRT line has only three-car trains, but I believe it's included in this page whereas the Singapore LRT lines aren't. If we exclude the Tyne and Wear Metro, which has three-car trains, should we exclude the Circle Line too? My gut feeling is that because the definitions of rapid transit are so vague, this article should be generous in what it lists to avoid the continuous disagreements. Best wishes NemesisAT (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

It appears as low capacity is the main reason given to exclude Metrorrey from the list. So what are the facts? What is the capacity of Metrorrey? And how does it compare with other metro systems? Kildor (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If capacity is an issue, why does the Glasgow Subway qualify?--Grahame (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It makes sense to classify the Glasgow subway as a medium capacity rail system. As well as London DLR, Copenhagen metro, and Metrorray. If so, the question is if we should exclude them or include them all in this list? If Metrorray is indeed different from the others, we need to work out some criteria for capacity. In the report World metro figures 2018 from UITP, the following definition was used:
 * Metros are high capacity urban rail systems, running on an exclusive right-of-way. Metro lines included in the above statistics run with trains composed of a minimum of two cars and with a total capacity of at least 100 passengers per train. Suburban railways are not included and are available in a separate dataset. Systems that are based on light rail vehicles, monorail or magnetic levitation technology are included if they meet all other criteria above. Suspended systems are not included.
 * I am not sure we have to use this definition. But I suppose this definition would include all the systems I mentioned here. Once again, I believe it will be difficult to separate the medium capacity rail systems from the rest.Kildor (talk) 07:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I much prefer that definition to trying to categorise systems based on overall passenger numbers. "At least 100 people per train, and two car trains" would firmly place Glasgow Subway in the metro category. My concern is the "exclusive rights of way" point, does this exclude sharing track with other rail services? If so, The Tyne and Wear Metro and London Underground wouldn't be classed as "metro". I'd be happy however to interpret that as meaning no on-street running, and stick to the "2 cars per train, capacity of at least 100 people" rule. Do we have a good way of separating out S-Bahn type systems, is it just by looking at the layout? NemesisAT (talk) 08:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is reason to consider this new definition as the one and only definition to be used for this article. It was just one example for the discussion on criteria for the capacity of metro systems. Kildor (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What aspect of Metrorrey and the Tyne and Wear Metro disqualifies them from being a proper metro system, in your opinon? NemesisAT (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Kildor, I got muddled up between you and IJBall. I am still confused however about why those two systems aren't viewed as proper metros. NemesisAT (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why Tyne and Wear Metro is on the list. It runs quite small trains, has tons of at-grade crossings, shares track with mainline trains and has a few single track sections. It looks more like Stadbahn system than a metro. As for Metrorrey considering it runs 3 married pair units for rolling stock with expandability to 4 unit trains (+100m of length) on an elevated or underground ROW I would consider it a metro. Terramorphous (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Tyne and Wear Metro is definitely one of the most questionable additions to this list – even the UK government considers it "light rail" (e.g. ). So did LRTA. (FTR, UK government also considers Docklands to be "light rail" as well.) That and Guadalajara should almost certainly not be included here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with removing the Tyne and Wear Metro from the list. However Guadalajara Line 3 I would consider a metro it has 90 m platforms (like the Madrid and Barcelona Metros) and uses rolling stock derived from metro systems in Spain. Heck the trains are on Line 3 are the Barcelona Metro 9000 Series. I suspect the three-car trains will become six-car trains like Madrid and Barcelona Metro when ridership picks up. Terramorphous (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Has anyone tried to build a decision table this kind?
 * At least three of those are completely wrong and non-defining. There is zero reason metros have to be fully subterranean. The Chicago L is unambiguously a metro and its elevated (as are large part of the New York City Subway). Calling at every station completely omits express trains, which are very much a thing. And lack of automation is and never has been a criteria. Sorry, but I don't think you have a good list there at all. oknazevad (talk) 02:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I was trying to suggest a decision-making table. I've reworded the subterranean criterion. Tramways are less likely to be subterrean than metros. I'm surprised by your "call at every station" objection. If it's a subway, should'nt be all stations on a line be called at? I am aware there could be special services, branches, but the central section of the line should have all of its station called at : if trains can jump/bypass, that implies the existence of a grade separation/many switches, thus implies the tracks are very well developped, thus implies it's more of a railway/suburban network than a subway. Don't you think? For instance, RER of Paris are suburbans trains, not metro with their train missions being very different on the same line.


 * NYC subway has sections of quadruple track and express trains. Yes this functions in a way to do S-Bahn style service because NYC doesn't really have one, but the express metro trains are very much still metro trains. Hobbitschuster (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested at understanding a nice example of NYC line offering different services on the line. Got one? Thanks --Bouzinac (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * IND Eighth Avenue Line, just for one. All of the NYC system is based around a half dozen four-track trunk lines that run in Manhattan carrying both local and express trains from different outer branches, some of which feed into multiple trunk lines. oknazevad (talk) 10:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking there may be some language errors in the proposed table due to the "Has it less than one car?" line. Did you mean to say "Do the trains have more than one car?". NemesisAT (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm not English native [and not subway specialist, just intested by the topic], so sorry for the wrong spellings ; corrected in the table, don't hesitate to correct inside. Interesting for the Eight Ave line : it has services with stops called/not called at different times of service. At first thought, I was thinking different calling services would indicate more a railway network than a subway.
 * No worries! And I was presuming that's what you meant, rather than "all trains must call at all stops for a system to be a metro". NemesisAT (talk) 11:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This table isn't very good, but It's my gut feelings here on what makes a "metro":

I think by making this I've realised how vague our definitions are, which is why I think edge cases like those mentioned above should be included in this article. NemesisAT (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice table. I would have added a column about high level service buses line [rubber-tyred tramways] + did you mean by "On-road running" if pedestrian can walk the tracks? --Bouzinac (talk) 11:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * On-road running (not sure if that's the proper term) refers to tram tracks sharing lanes with cars and buses, so your tram may get caught up in traffic. Whereas level crossings are if the road crosses the tracks perpendicular to them. In both cases, a pedestrian could walk over the tracks. NemesisAT (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

New Taipei Metro and Taoyuan Metro
As the Tokyo and Seoul metro systems, shouldn't these two systems put under the city of Taipei? Even though they (and Taipei Metro) are operated by three separated city governments, they are undoubtedly servicing the same Taipei-Keelung-Taoyuan Metropolitan Area. As for New Taipei Metro, it is clear that it's servicing the same Taipei Metropolitan Area as Taipei Metro does. While Taoyuan is sometimes seen as a separate metropolitan area, the currently single Airport Line also runs into central Taipei thus is reasonable to regard it as servicing Taipei. Since these three systems is different companies operating in same urban area, shouldn't the city they serve be Taipei? Blackwinddddd (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Can anyone travel on a single ticket these three subways? --Bouzinac (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean by single ticket. It's possible to travel between systems with an single store-valued card. However single-journey tickets are separate. This is the same as Tokyo Metro/Toei Subway and It's listed as the same city. Regardless, I don't think whether a single ticket can be used is not the point since one store-valued card is enough to travel in any public transport system in Taiwan. Blackwinddddd (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Docklands Light Railway (and Tyne and Wear Metro)
OK, so has now insisted upon adding Docklands Light Railway to List of tram and light rail transit systems‎. Tyne and Wear Metro is also already listed there, and has been for years, before somebody insisted upon adding it to this list too – however, recent removed Tyne and Wear Metro from here, after the discussion above this one.

We have a long-standing "arrangement", where we never "double-list" a system both here and at List of tram and light rail transit systems‎ – it's always just one, or the other. (Note: This isn't true about the Medium-capacity rail system article, where we do "double-list" a number of the systems...)

Anyway, which is it – does Docklands Light Railway belong here, or at List of tram and light rail transit systems‎?

The long-time consensus is that Docklands belongs here, though I will note that the same UK government source that considers Tyne & Wear "light rail", also lists Docklands there. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The Docklands Light Railway should be listed as a metro as it is fully grade separated and has frequent services. I don't see how Tyne and Wear Metro can be listed when it shares mainline rail tracks and has many crossings, while systems such as G:link and Canberra light rail, which share no mainline track and have frequent services (but have numerous traffic-light control road crossings and pedestrian crossings) are not listed. Incidentally, both the Metropolitan and District lines share mainline track.--Grahame (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So, to be clear – you agree that it should be removed from List of tram and light rail transit systems‎ again? (That would be a return to the WP:STATUSQUO, where Tyne and Wear is listed there, and Docklands is listed here and at Medium-capacity rail system – there's no way Docklands should be listed at all three articles!...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the DLR is not a light railway in any meaningful sense.--Grahame (talk) 04:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We already embrace the principle that names don't determine classification. That the DLR name includes "light railway" doesn't disqualify it as a (light) metro any more than the inclusion of "metro" in the name of the Tyne & Wear system (which is clearly light rail by any meaningful classification) makes it a metro.
 * More broadly, I really dislike including things on multiple lists. I get that there are difficult to classify edge cases that blur the line, but including a system on multiple lists seems to be the poorest solution. I'm not sure if the solution is to give a system the benefit of the doubt and always classify it in the higher-capacity class, or if the solution is to adopt a "when in doubt, leave it out" mantra and class it lower (and which is really lower if commuter rail is involved), but listing it twice just creates confusion for readers.
 * Finally, can we at long last get rid of the awful "medium-capacity rail system" name. The term "light metro" is attested in sources, is far less awkward, remains perfectly descriptive, a d just flows better. The idea that it's somehow made up is nonsense. oknazevad (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The latter issue is a question for the Medium-capacity rail system Talk page. The current title is definitely a "kludge", but I don't see the term "light metro" used enough in regular press and media sources either – if that comes up for a page move, I'm not sure where I'd come down on the question... But double-listing systems here and there, especially, makes a lot of sense to me, as Docklands is another one of those cases where at least two reputable sources (LRTA, and the UK gov't) don't consider it a "metro" system (whereas other sources do). A number of the systems listed here just plum aren't "full metros", and that needs to be noted somewhere, if not here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Just want to add that removing Tyne and Wear Metro was a bit off. Ok it shares a section with the national rail network (so does Athens Metro) and has five level crossings (Oslo Metro has more). Those would not have been removed so why has T&W? Jackd93 (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * If we are going to include the Chicago L, Oslo Metro, and Rotterdam Metro, then I see no reason why the Tyne and Wear Metro shouldn't be included. If we are going to remove it, then we have to remove those other ones as well. Rckania (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:FAQ
We should probably add this to the talk page, with a FAQ about the Hong Kong entry. Despite the many, many discussions that have been held about this issue, editors are still moving HK to its own section (even as I personally sympathize with the issue, as someone whose own family was originally from HK). Epicgenius (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I think we can add an editnotice as well to clarify this. Epicgenius (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)