Talk:List of metro systems/Archive 8

Vancouver SkyTrain
So Vancouver's SkyTrain was just deleted from the list. I admit that I've been ambivalent about its inclusion.

Can anyone make a case as to why the SkyTrain is a "heavy rail" system over a "light rail" one? I understand that the SkyTrain is completely grade-separated according to the Talk archives. Is there any other factor that really justifies its labeling as "heavy rail" over "light rail"? TIA. --IJBall (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not a friend of labeling (and BTW SkyTrain describes themselves as "light rapid transit system", not "light rail system"). About our criteria:
 * separation - full
 * within city - yes
 * higher service frequency - - yes
 * so my opinion about VST is keep it on list --Jklamo (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering why the Edmonton LRT isn't a metro, it is a subway under Downtown Edmonton. 117Avenue (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That is explained earlier in the archives - see here. Basically, Edmonton, like most other light rail systems, isn't fully grade-separated (i.e. there are "railroad crossings"). That's a big no-no if you want to be considered a "metro standards system".
 * As for Vancouver - yeah, when I checked the service frequency of the system myself, I realized that it was higher than I thought it was. So, yeah, I agree - SkyTrain qualifies as "metro". --IJBall (talk) 23:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Why are the pics on this page so lousy?
Is there some 3 pic wikipedia limit? The South Korea pic seems to be a particularly ugly depiction of one of their subway stations.Lance Friedman (talk) 04:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Ottawa, Canada Confederation Line inclusion in this list.
I'm curious does simply being electric light rail (over-head wire) as opposed to electric heavy rail (3rd rail) mean a systems should be excluded from this list? Previously, I had thought the qualifications for this list were more based on grade separation and frequency of trains?Lance Friedman (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The qualifications are:
 * High headway (less that 10 minutes)
 * Full grade-separated
 * Electric propulsion
 * Within a city (this one is usually added too)
 * The issue here is that inaugural line in this system, the O-Train fails at least 2 of these criteria (if not 3): it's light-rail (i.e. not grade-separated), and it uses Diesel (DMU) vehicles.
 * I honestly don't know what that stats are on the Confederation Line - I'm hoping someone can provide them (i.e. with references as proof). But if it isn't fully-grade separated (and not just in the underground section, but across the entire line), and/or it uses DMU vehicles it's out.
 * However, I will note that third-rail is much, much more common in Metro systems (though I don't believe it's an explicit requirement...).
 * If Confederation Line's in, then we have another unfortunate situation like Los Angeles and Philadelphia where we have a "mixed" system, with some "heavy rail" lines and some "light rail" lines. For simplicity's sake, it'd be best if we kept the number of "mixed" cases like that in the list to a minimum. --IJBall (talk) 02:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is nothing "unfortunate" about have a "mixed system" different areas of a place require different lines. Everything that I have read says that the Confederation line will be fully grade sep. electric, less than 10 Freq.  It doesn't matter what a completely different line in the area is.  As far as your vague within a city requirement, i'm not sure what you mean. Virtually all large metros on this list run through many different cities, towns, & suburbs.Lance Friedman (talk) 03:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The "mixed" system discussion is a discussion for another time - this is the list of "Metro systems", not "Metro lines", and argument could easily be made that any system that isn't 100% metro (with all of its lines to "metro standards") shouldn't be included. (I'd personally advocate cutting Los Angeles from this list because its system is predominantly Light rail...). I'm not saying there's a consensus for that point of view, but if these "mixed" systems keep proliferating, I predict it's a discussion that will take place.
 * But the point here is, to merit inclusion in this list, you have to prove that the Confederation will be fully grade-separated, and not just in the underground portion, but along the entire line. (Because the O-Train certainly is not.) Is there a reference that confirms this? --IJBall (talk) 03:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually there are tons of single metro lines on this list. It seems silly to delete a metro line just because the area also has various other kinds of rapid transit.  I'll add a source about grade sep. on Confed. If someone else doesn't eventually get around to it.Lance Friedman (talk) 04:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I agree, any system that has at least 1 line that is completely separate from traffic (no at grade crossings) should be included. However if a single line is sometimes separate and sometimes not, then it should not be considered for this list. Mattximus (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Totally agree - single-line Metro systems are A-OK (that's how metro systems start out...).
 * On my end, what I'm talking about is system's like Ottawa's(?) in which you have basically a 2-line system, one of which is light rail and the other of which is heavy rail: looking at it at the system level - does it really qualify as "a metro system" in this situation? What about L.A. where you have 17.5 miles of one-and-a-half metro lines but 70 miles and 4 lines of light rail - does that really qualify as a "metro" system? That's a question I suspect will need to be tackled one of these days - whether these "mixed" systems should be included here, or whether they should be considered to be "predominantly light rail"... --IJBall (talk) 14:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you may be over thinking the word "system" here. To not include a city in the list just because it also has more light rail doesn't mean it doesn't have a metro system. One doesn't overrule the other just because it's more extensive. Just so long as the statistics in the columns are purely for the metro, and a note explains that, it's all good to include. Otherwise the city wouldn't mentioned at all, and theat would be a non-starter in my mind. oknazevad (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * PS, no, overhead lines do not automatically make a line light rail. In fact, Tokyo's lines have overhead. oknazevad (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Such a system would still be included in the various Light rail lists, so it wouldn't just disappear from Wiki. It just boils down to how you want to define "system", and whether you want the list to be "inclusive" or "exclusive". In any case, I suspect your view is the prevailing one right now. But if 50 of these "mixed" systems proliferate over the decade, I'm not sure that opinion won't shift the other way. I guess time will tell... --IJBall (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, the Ottawa system is not 2 lines, just one very short line that I believe is grade separated (if I recall from my last visit) but infrequent (maybe once every 15 minutes) because there is only one track, so the train has to go back and forth. Mattximus (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

German S-Bahns & rest of europe commuter trains
There are other cities in Europe with "S-Bahns", like for example in Spain Madrid (9 lines, 370km, Cercanias de Madrid) and Barcelona (8 lines). I am sure there are much more, i guess in London, Paris, etc.. There should be a common policy where to include them or not, because for example the case of Madrid Cercanías could be considered much more an urban rail than Berlin S-Bahn.


 * FWIW, there was a former editor of this page, whom I believe is no longer around, who basically argued that all S-Bahns should be excluded from this list, for basically the kind of reason you give.
 * However, I think consensus has been established to look at them on a case-by-case basis, and see if they pass the 3-4 "standards qualifications" for full metro status, and if they do to include them. It appears that the list of S-Bahn systems that do meet full metro criteria is relatively short, and unlikely to grow much in the near future.
 * I'm sure others who know more of the specifics of the various S-Bahn systems will chime in... --IJBall (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This issue was discussed repeatedly (see talk archive). Consensus is really case-by-case considerations (as name itself is not criterion), that is why only two of many German S-Bahns are included. --Jklamo (talk) 10:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Catania (Italy) Metro Issue
In reading over its Wiki article, it looks to me like the Catania Metro in Catania, Sicily, Italy should be cut from this list. Reasons: Thus, even though this system is "subway" for more than half its length, it looks like the "Catania Metro" in fact only qualifies as light rail (or, at best, Premetro) (edit: or, most likely, "Light Metro"), and not as "true" metro.
 * 1) It's single track for much of its route. That, on its own wouldn't necessarily be enough to merit cutting it from this list, but single-tracking also leads to the second issue...
 * 2) The headway on the system is only once every fifteen minutes (maximum).

Any objections to me cutting it from this list, and moving it to the List of tram and light rail transit systems in the next couple of days?... --IJBall (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I say leave it. It may be hardly the most robust system in existence, but it's rather clear that it is the beginning of a full metro system, what with the planned expansions. It's just in a early stage of development. It's clearly not light rail as conventionally defined, as it is grade separated. So it doesn't deserve to be cut. oknazevad (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * To me, the headway issue is a problem as it's apparently the subway portion of the line that's single-tracked. Unless they dig another tunnel for that section, I don't see how the subway section can ever achieve 10-minute headways, which seems like a serious bottleneck for ever achieving true metro standards. at-grade section that is single-tracked. Now, it's possible that the expansion will be able to achieve 10-minute or better headways if they open a second line that avoids the subway that section entirely (edit: or they double-track that section).
 * But, until 2015-ish, it looks to me like this system doesn't meet the strict metro criteria.
 * I'm in no hurry to cut this system from the list though, as I'd like to see a few more people way weigh in on the topic... --IJBall (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm always a little wary of being too strict in applying the criteria. If we absolutely required no grade crossings at all, Chicago and London would both be out, and that just wouldn't work. Likewise, too strict of a headway count is a bad idea. Its not like it has 30 minute headways; 15 minutes is still what anyone would call frequent service. Plus the 10 minute, which is referred to as "typical", not a strict standard, is pretty arbitrary. In other words, I'd be careful not to get hung up on "true metro standards" when the considerations listed here are themselves considerations, not strict criteria. oknazevad (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * On my end, my issue isn't just the headway, but the headway and the single-tracking - the latter is really going to restrict further up-converting the system to a full metro-type operation (at least until a second tunnel is dug), and really seems "un-metro" to me. And it's not like this system is "new" - it's been open since 1999, and has been operating like this the whole time.
 * Again, I'm not going to cut it unless there's some sort of consensus to cut it. But this is another one of those systems that if we were taking a vote, I'd vote to "cut", as this system really seems more like a "premetro" than a real "metro"... --IJBall (talk) 15:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm in favour of keeping it in just because it's called a metro. However, it's almost identical to the O-train which is not on the list. I think I'm near giving up trying to piegonhole these systems. With no universally accepted definition between light rail and metro and commuter rail, I feel it's pretty arbitrary now. Mattximus (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * While there are definitely some "borderline" cases, I really do think there is some pretty good criteria in place (here, and elsewhere) to separate metro, light rail, and commuter rail systems from each other. It really just comes down to how much of a stickler you want to be about the criteria. I think the consensus here is to be more "inclusive" with this particular list, which I really don't have much of a problem with...
 * Side question: Are you sure about the O-Train? I could have sworn I read some blog post a few months back in which someone who rode the O-Train mentioned something about one (or more?) grade-crossings while on the journey... But I could be remembering wrong... --IJBall (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: Nevermind - I just checked the O-Train route myself, and it is indeed fully grade-separated (the one place where there could be an at-grade crossing is blocked to auto traffic). But this is a lot like Catania system - single-tracked most of the way, which limits the headway to 15 minutes. --IJBall (talk) 03:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for (Minor) Table Reformat: Merging 'Route Length' Columns
I would like to propose that we merge the Length (km) and Length (mi) columns together in the Metro list table, and instead just have one System length column that lists both km & mi together (using a simpler 'convert' template (e.g. "9.2 km"), rather than the currently used 'convert' with "disp=table" parameter).

The reasons for doing this are: (Now, granted, on the last point, it's because I switched some of the other Ridership tables to using the simple 'convert' template for System length recently - but a number of them (again, e.g. List of United States rapid transit systems by ridership) were using it long before I ever got there...)
 * 1) The current format of the table makes 'referencing' a system's route length awkward (the reference will currently only appear with the figure in the Length (mi) column, despite the fact that most references will actually be for the kilometer figure).
 * 2) Having two columns is redundant - e.g. sorting by Length (km) or Length (mi) will yield exactly the same sort order.
 * 3) Nearly all Metro & Light-rail 'Ridership' tables that I have seen on Wiki (e.g. List of United States rapid transit systems by ridership) use the simple 'convert' template in a single column to list the System Length, rather than the odd 2-coulmn Length (km) and Length (mi) format that the List of metro systems table uses (and that the List of tram and light rail transit systems tables copied).

I am not planning on doing anything about this imminently. But is there any strong objection to doing this?

Right now the Metro list table is rather an odd duck with this 2-column Length (km) and Length (mi) format, and it has actually been discouraging me from referencing more of the system lengths for some of the Metro systems...

Thoughts? --IJBall (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree--Ymblanter (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Mattximus (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the responses!
 * OK, assuming no other objections here, my target date for the 'System length' columns merge for the table is the Labor Day weekend... --IJBall (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Also agree, but would recommend keeping the original "route length" header, as "system length" could also mean total track length. As metros are almost always double-tracked (and sometimes triple- and quad-tracked, like in New York City) the two figures are quite difference. Plus there's yard tracks, etc. "Route length" just seems a more specific term. oknazevad (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting point. On my end, the problem I've had with "Route length" is that it implies a single "route" (i.e. one "line"), which might confusing when there's more than one line in the metro system. Is there a third choice here for the column heading?... --IJBall (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying. Maybe "Total route length"?oknazevad (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I'll look around a bit, and see what term the agencies themselves use when quantifying this (e.g. in their system Fact Sheets) - whatever term they most use is what I'll go with...
 * Update: And not much clarity from looking around. It looks like any of Route length, System length or even Track length (sometimes not even specified as "One-way" Track Length...) are used interchangeably.
 * I'll go with whatever others prefer, though Total route length seems like a decent way to go. --IJBall (talk) 04:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree, Total Route Length is the clearest way of describing what we are listing. Mattximus (talk) 15:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Green check.svg And Done!
 * I think 'left-justifying' everything in the table makes it look much better. (But, if anyone disagrees, feel free to say so!) Anyway, I'm mostly done with my "List of metro systems" projects - the only thing left is to move some of my previous referencing around, to go with the appropriate 'stats'. --IJBall (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

A discussion has started at Talk:List of tram and light rail transit systems regarding the use of 'total route length'. Although the term may be crystal clear to you, for others it has a different meaning, and is confusing and incorrect. In Australia route length is the sum total of all routes together, not the tracks that are utilised in routes, to expand on this I have copied text over below: If you were to ask Melbourne's: Further, this line of thinking is embedded in our operations lingo: "Our peak governmental body, Public Transport Victoria, uses the exact method I am describing, see here where for trains and trams the term 'track kilometres' is used, that is how much track there is; where as for buses the term 'route kilometres' is used, that is how many kilometres of bus routes is there (add all the bus route lengths up and what figure do you get)." For this reason, and to remove further issues of crossed meanings, I would suggest that the term 'System length' or 'Length' be used, with each usage accompanied by a note explaining the method of measuring a system length used. This is clean in the tables, and offers the chance to describe the method being used; it is completely understandable, regionally intelligible, and unambiguous. Liamdavies (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Track/system length, you would be answered with 250km of double track. That is, all the physical track laid in streets added up.
 * Line length, you would be answered with, what line? Here line length refers to a line, so line/route 1's length is 13.2km.
 * Total route length, you would be answered with, about 367.7km (discounting shuttles) as we would add the length of all the routes up to form the total length, ie the total length of all routes. (Please refer here for stats.)
 * Additionally, as an aside, I feel I am supported by MOS:COMMONALITY. Liamdavies (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose changing it to just "Length" as that is completely generic and non-specific (and thus non-instructive). I originally proposed "System Length" as the column heading, so I am not adverse to a change to that term. I am also opposed putting a 'Note' next to each length stat as that is overkill - an explanation as to what the term means specifically, in the 'Legend' of this page, should easily suffice. --IJBall (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support changing it to 'System length'. When I suggested a note, I meant (and presumed it to mean) that the note would sit next to each occurrence of the term 'System length', not next to each individual figure, but simply the term as used to head the column. I apologise if that was not clear. To reiterate, I propose (and support) replacing 'Total route length' with 'System length '.


 * The wording I am of course variable on, I just wrote something off the top of my head to demonstrate. Liamdavies (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, good, this is progress. What is in your 'Note' can actually be put in the 'Legend' of the List of metro systems page - that way, it wouldn't be necessary to 'Note' every system 'Note' every time the column heading is (re-)used. (And for the List of tram and light rail transit systems page, we can just move this 'Legend' over there...) --IJBall (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think it is a shame that the original proposal of system length wasn't stuck to. Route length is clearly subject to (possibly with ulterior motives) being interpreted as meaning the length of all routes added together irrespective of how much inter-running there is, which is IMHO, a particularly useless measure (unless you are trying to prove your system is the biggest). I don't think most people would misinterpret system length as track length; in any case in most metros (but less so most tramways or other rail systems) you would expect track length to be roundly double system length. At the risk of making things worse, I think we should:
 * * Somewhere define all three terms
 * * Use the system length measure where possible.
 * - chris_j_wood (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree chris_j_wood, the simple fact that within four months of this change being implemented this discussion has arisen clearly supports your supposition. System length, with a definition is the clearest way of proceeding. Regarding the definitions, User:Bahnfrend has raised this issue, and offered to translate the German language article on the subject as a start at Talk:List of tram and light rail transit systems. Liamdavies (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I also have no problem with switching (back) to "System Length" as the column heading. However, other editors did object at that time, and I'd like to see them weigh in here... But this seems like a good solution to this issue. --IJBall (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, as the editor who originally objected, my concern remains the presence oof systems with lines featuring more than two tracks, and whether or not the column accurately depicts those. (especially New York's three- and four-tracked express sections), but as it seems that the current heading is causing more confusion, I have no objection to changing it if it really clarifies the meaning. A good explanatory note in the key is needed which ever term is chosen, and indeed may be what is really needed evenmoreso than a header change. oknazevad (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I still think the term used in the column heading is confusing, but it seems that any term could be confusing. I will note that for some non-North American operators, the term does mean the length of all routes added up (see here, here, and here), so can be equally misconstrued from what you think it to mean (vis-a-vie New York Subway). The simple term 'system length' with a description of how it is being measure seems clearest. However, my original concern is from List of tram and light rail transit systems, where 'Total route length' is used three times without explanation. When I changed one instance, I was reverted and told there was consensus here, so to have the term changed there, I have been forced to change it here. Liamdavies (talk) 03:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's because there is currently an effort to keep both lists in similar formats, because they cover very similar topics. (And because discussions go better over here, as this list has many more editors and eyeballs watching it than the Tram & Light rail list does, so you get a better response on discussions like this...)
 * If there is now agreement to switch the term to "System Length", the next step is to figure out exactly what needs to be said in the 'Legend' explaining exactly what the term means in both lists. Any thoughts or suggestions as to what the 'Legend' should say on this subject?... --IJBall (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Over on Talk:List of tram and light rail transit systems, it has been proposed that Network length be used as the column heading in lieu of System length - does anyone have any strong feelings about this? Oknazevad - do you think "Network length" does a better, or worse, job at alleviating your concerns?... --IJBall (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a an improvement, as "network" to me says the same as "system". Maybe it's the engineering background, but either term makes me think of the total infrastructure of tracks, and I would think of trackage length when seeing that. Again, it comes down to the explanatory note in the key; if it clearly explains what measurement is being referred to, it doesn't really matter what the header actually is. Even just the word "length" would be sufficient. oknazevad (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've now created the new "Network length" article Liamdavies refers to above. It's here.  At the moment, it's nothing more than a translation of Netzlänge (with discussion of Swiss terminology excluded), and is not yet referenced.  I still think that "Network length" is the appropriate name for it, but it isn't in main space yet, so the name is not yet fixed (and I agree that there should be various redirects to it).  Feel free to add to it and reference it as desired. Bahnfrend (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether we go with "System length" as the new column heading, or stick with "Total route length", I suggest we use Bahnfrend's definition (slightly paraphrased) from his draft "Network length" page for the 'Legend':
 * "The system [or route] length of a transport network is the sum of the lengths of all routes in the metro rail network in kilometer (or miles). Each route is counted only once, regardless of how many lines pass over it, and regardless of whether it is single-track or multi-track, single carriageway or dual carriageway."
 * If there are no further objections, I will probably switch the column heading to "System length" (just to keep it consistent with the List of tram and light rail transit systems, and I'll change the 'Legend' to what is quoted above (I'll also eventually link to the "Network length" page when it's moved into 'Article space'...). If anyone wants to offer suggestions to improve the above text for the 'Legend', feel free... --IJBall (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no objection, but still request either the term system or network be used.  Can you also update the legend at the light rail last please? Liamdavies (talk) 04:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, column heading will be "System length", just like it is with the Light rail list now. I'll also update the Light rail legend, when I get the chance. Probably won't get to making these changes until Friday or this weekend though, which is good as it'll give time for others to comment here... --IJBall (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Missing Canadian rapid transit train systems
Could somebody add the missing Canadian metro rapid transit systems in both the already built and under construction lists.

Here is one list of them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_transit_in_Canada

Toronto, Ontario https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Subway/RT

Ottawa, Ontario https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-Train

Calgary, Alberta http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-Train

Edmonton, Alberta http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmonton_Light_Rail_Transit   tumaru (talk) 03:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Toronto's system is already included (not the Streetcars, just the rapid transit part).
 * The other three, for various reasons, are all light rail, not "heavy rail" or "metro", and so are not included here, but in the List of tram and light rail transit systems and the Light rail in North America article. --IJBall (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Ulaan Baatar metro
I can not find a single source which mentions that the construction actually started. The en.wp atricle was created a cross-wiki vandal, a sock of Губин Михаил, previously caught for spreading hoaxes and blocked on the majority of Wikimedia projects he ever participated. (Here, at some point he created a number of articles on Mongolian footballers, completely made up, the names taken of some ramdom Mongolian facebook users). The Ulaanbaatar hoax was created and widespread in the Russian Internet several years ago. Whereas some of the links present in the article indeed mention some plans, none of them actually sources statements it is brought for. (I had to removed some - for example, two references saying that there are future construction ideas, were used to source the statement that the decision was taken in 2011). I believe it is safer to remove the system from our list until we have some really reliable sources (if the construction has started, it should be visible on Google maps, after all).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussions should maybe be in the most relevant article to have some certain information. In this case this is Ulaanbaatar Metro. There it is written that the project is under construction, but that is maybe not true. Please change that article in that case. The Mongolian article is erased, strange. And the Russian article about Ulaan Baatar does not metion the metro, strange.--BIL (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The Russian article was taken to AfD and deleted as a hoax (twice) and salted: .--Ymblanter (talk) 22:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Self-reverted based on this discussion. At best, we cannot verify that construction has begun, which is the criteria for inclusion on the list. At worst, it's a hoax, and the article should be speedily deleted. oknazevad (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There are some references in the article that seem to be reliable, and I would not be able to defend an AfD nomination. It is quite possible that some plans do exist. However, we only include systems which are already under construction, and I think it is indeed good to wait until we have sources which verify that the construction has started. Thank you for undoing the change.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Zhenzhou Metro
Zhenzhou, the capital city of Henan province in China, inaugurated its first metro line on December 28, 2013, making it the latest Chinese city to have a rapid transit system. The newly opened phase one project of Zhenzhou metro line 1 is 26.2KM long and was built entirely underground with total 20 stations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.246.26.28 (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Added (resp. moved). --Jklamo (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Suin Line
Suin Line has been added to the Seoul Subway's tally because it fits all definition of the previous consensus:

1. The entire metro line is dedicated to only subway cars. 2. There is rapid transit service of typically one subway car per 10 minutes during daytime. 3. It physically connects to Seoul Subway Line 4 at Oido Station. 4. Will be connected as a single metro line with the Bundang Line soon (hence the exact same color sharing with Bundang Line). 5. Subway cars are of identical technology to the ones used in Line 2,3,4, and so on 6. Other metros with far worse service frequencies like the Catania Metro have been around for a very long time and it would be a clear case of discrimination if the Suin Line is excluded. 7. Existing consensus on the Bundang Line with an identical service frequency, so this is essentially respecting previous consensus.

Massyparcer (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * How are the fares handled? Is it a single fare to use both systems? Mattximus (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Fares integrated with the Seoul Subway. However the Suin line is above 10 min headways most of the day.
 * 10 min per train AM rush.
 * 12 min per train PM rush. (at Oido Station it goes up to 20 min per train between 3 to 4PM)
 * 15 min per train mid day.
 * I think we have to wait unit it connects to the Bundang Line and ramp up the service to count.Terramorphous (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Seconded, on the last point. --IJBall (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That does seem pretty border line, but what cut-offs for frequency do we use and where does this number come from? Mattximus (talk) 03:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The numbers are official from Korail, the operator of this line. The Catania Metro in Italy has a service frequency of 15 minutes and has been included in this list for a long time, hence the Suin Line more than enough qualifies to be included, otherwise this would be a clear case of discrimination. Massyparcer (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * FTR, I've advocated cutting the Catania Metro for precisely that reason - it's a "Light Metro" not a "true metro" system. If we're going to set up a set of criteria for "metro status", we should stick to it... And, for the same reasons, I'd oppose including the Suin Line until it connects to the other line, or at least meets the headway cutoff criteria established. --IJBall (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, FTR, the U Line is also more of a "Light metro" than a true "metro" as well, as it has a lower passenger capacity (only 2-car trains) than regular metro systems. --IJBall (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, this discussion is about the Suin Line, please put any discussion about the U Line in the previous discussion. You're discriminating here against the U Line because if we follow your logic, we better remove the Toulouse Metro and Rennes Metro in France, or Taipei's Brown Line and Turin's Metrotorino, yet they have been in this list for a very long time. They use the exact same French VAL system and 208 subway cars as the U Line. U Line is simply an identical import from France. Massyparcer (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * OK just to clarify, what cut off do we use for frequency, is it a "hard line", and where did the number come from? I'd be very worried if it's just a arbitrary number... Mattximus (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We've been using headways of 10 minutes or shorter (at least during "peak" or rush hours) to define "heavy rail" metros since I've been around here. I don't know where the number came from, but it seems like a fair cutoff for "rapid transit", as light rail systems often have headways of 12-15 minutes or more. --IJBall (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

First of all, there is already existing consensus to include the Bundang Line, and the Suin Line's service is already identical to the Bundang Line (Jukjeon-Suwon). The "10min during typical daytime" has no source whatsoever and is more like a general guideline set by a certain user. The Suin Line will be continued to count since it would be a discrimination against other metros in this list that have been around for a very long time with far worse service frequencies. The article needs to be fair and reasonable. Like I said before, it doesn't make any sense to wait until it connects to the Bundang Line because the service frequency won't change and is identical to the Bundang Line (Jukjeon-Suwon) so it will be included as per previous consensus on the Bundang Line. Massyparcer (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 10-minute headways is not a "general guideline by a specific user", but one of the long-standing consensus guidelines used around here to separate "heavy rail" from other types of rail. You also aren't doing yourself any favors by ignoring what everyone around here is saying, and just doing whatever you want. Regardless, please stop changing the figure caption - I changed it for a reason, because the claim of "which metro system is the longest" is currently unreferenced independently, and is contentious. --IJBall (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * the Bundang Line has good metro service towards Jukjeon and 95% of the line is underground. However, I expected them to ramp up service after the extension to Suwon. That didn't happen. Well that's a huge discrepancy the editors didn't catch. But generally newly opened sections of line take time for service to increase. The Suin Line has been open for almost 2 years and nothing happened. Of course this is due to its short length. Regardless like oknazevad said in the original consensus: "I'd be wary of declaring the Seoul system the longest in the world without at least one source stating such." Its been almost a year and there still is not a source that has stated Seoul is the longest published before late 2012 to back the claim. Yet sources today published in 2014 that still claim Shanghai is the longest despite Wikipedia saying otherwise for a year. This perhaps is showing the disconnect between what users are presenting here and what the public thinks. Regardless Suin is very borderline. It's got a fairly poor frequency across the line for a metro system. There are systems with sections of line that operate like that but not whole entire lines for years. Terramorphous (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As somebody without a horse in this race, it really seems to me like we should probably revisit the idea of splitting the current Seoul entry (e.g. Seoul Metro Lines 1-9; others), if outside media is looking at the Seoul metro system differently than this list-article does.
 * But I definitely think that I don't want to see any of the "longest system" claims put back in to the article unless it is backed up by an independent reference (e.g. a newspaper source) - the unreferenced dueling claims stuff is getting to be an unnecessary distraction. --IJBall (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * While normally simple addition such as this falls under the routine calculation exception to WP:OR, I stand by what I said that's quoted above. For us to call Seoul the longest system without anyone else saying such is too close to OR for comfort. oknazevad (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I think part of the issue on why its so difficult to build consensus is that that the page Seoul Metropolitan Subway behaves more like Rail Transport in Seoul National Capital Area. With every rail transit line regardless of standard, type, ownership and locale being dumped in. This can be attributed to how is how blurred, integrated and mixed the network is in Seoul. However, The korean page of Seoul Metropolitan Subway, if directly translated it means Metropolitan Railway. The English Seoul Metropolitan Subway is actually a misnomer. The Korean page also makes it very clear which lines is subway and which is "wide area rail". Wide area rail lines are rail lines with a more regional flavor that may or may not be rapid transit. The korean page of Seoul Metropolitan Subway also links to A different page which when translated it means Seoul Subway. It presents itself with the original, extremely strict definition of only Seoul Metro 1-4, SMRT 5-8, and Line 9. Terramorphous (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Impressive that you can read Korean!
 * In any case, I really suggest that we think hard about doing the exact same split here - have one entry for "Seoul Subway" or "Seoul Metro" with Metro 1-4, SMRT 5-8, and Line 9, and one (or more?) entries for some of the other (explicitly "rapid transit" or "heavy rail") lines. Because I'm increasingly uneasy with how the Seoul entry in the table is currently entered. I realize that there are some unique issues vis a vis Seoul. But I think we have to pay very close attention to how sources outside of Wiki are counting Seoul, and I think it's pretty clear that they're counting Seoul Metro differently, and that's a problem as Wiki is supposed to follow what the outside world is doing, not the other way around... --IJBall (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't read Hangul but Hanja lends itself to be very useful. All you do is sprinkle in some Google translate and your good.Terramorphous (talk) 13:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree about any split on a universally considered single metro system. Well for a starter, this discussion was about the Suin Line, not any split. None of you seem to be able to read Korean or have even been to Seoul. As a foreigner living here for almost a decade, it has been integrated into a single metro system ever since its creation in 1974, with Line 1 deliberately created for through operation to Suwon and Incheon. Universal fare system is something that is completely different from the Japanese where each of their system has completely different fare structures. To anybody using the Seoul subway, it is a single metro system, with universal maps that consistently show all lines in the Seoul Metropolitan Subway article, which is where it is based on. The Korean Wiki simply lists them by ownership, which you guys are seemingly not aware of. Line 1-9 owned by Seoul government, the rest owned by the government or private companies. This has been discussed multiple times in the Seoul Metropolitan Subway article, with a consensus to keep it as one article and one system.
 * Everybody is blatantly ignoring that this is a clear case of discrimination against the Suin Line, since the Catania Metro with far worse service frequency has been in this list for a very long time, yet nobody has ever challenged this line. This simply suggests that users are trying to cut back on Seoul's tally with no regard to universal consensus on what qualifies as a metro. Why not apply your views to the Catania Metro, and only force it on the Suin Line? This is clearly against consensus and not a fair or even reasonable attempt to sort out the Suin Line. Clearly, everybody is keeping quiet on this one. Massyparcer (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what you or I think specifically - sources outside of Wikipedia are not counting the Seoul Metro the way this list currently is. That is a huge problem because Wikipedia is supposed to follow what the external world does, not do things independently.
 * On the Suin Line specifically, I'm coming around to thinking it should be included because of the 10 minute headways.
 * But I strongly think that the Seoul entry in this table needs to be split, so that we start counting it the way everyone else outside of Wikipedia seems to view the system. --IJBall (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Catania Metro is getting evaluated as we speak there is a talk page on it. I don't see how you can argue that the system is "universally" regarded as a subway. It seems to be viewed and used as one giant seamless urban rail system but that doesn't necessarily mean it's viewed as one giant subway system. Yes they display all lines on the subway map but so does the Paris metro with RER and most German cities with the U and S bahns. If the Korean page and the Korean Media makes a distinction then clearly there is a distinction. To be fair Seoul Metropolitan Subway should really be called Seoul Metropolitan Railway Network or something.Terramorphous (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep. And the Subway part should probably get a page separate from the whole Railway Network page, as Korean Wiki does...
 * As for Catania Metro, I'm the one who challenged its inclusion here - I still think it should be moved over to the List of tram and light rail transit systems... --IJBall (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Significant consensus exists already and substantial discussion was already carried out by multiple users on Seoul Metropolitan Subway's talk page that it is a universally accepted single metro system. Terramorphous claims' that the so-called "outside sources" like the Korean Wiki is separating the line is highly misleading because the Korean Wiki lists the Seoul Metropolitan Subway article just like the English article - Here is the proof: https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EC%88%98%EB%8F%84%EA%B6%8C_%EC%A0%84%EC%B2%A0. There is a separate Korean article listing subway lines owned by the Seoul government, which exists for revenue counting purposes ONLY. Terramorphous is trying to mislead others by claiming as if this is a separate system in existence, which it is not, and this was already discussed and a consensus was achieved twice on the Seoul Metropolitan Subway talk page. Regarding the naming issue, this was discussed in extreme lengths and multiple consensus were achieved. I have put multiple official consensus from their talk page since clearly nobody has bothered to look at Seoul Subway's talk page:

IJBall, you're completing correct in saying it doesn't matter what you or I think about this issue. I'm not putting forward something I think because that is obviously against WP:POV. And you're correct that "Wikipedia is supposed to follow what the external world does, not do things independently". What I have shown you and everyone here is universal consensus held in the outside world - The subway operators, the daily users of the Seoul subway system, and the way a separate article exists on the Korean wiki that lists them for ownership and revenue counting purposes only. This is a consensus you can ask anybody using the Seoul subway in Korea. Both official and unofficial and in Seoul subway's talk page, there is universal consensus that it is a single metro system. The only user claiming against this is Terramorphous with his misleading claims that there is somehow a separate subway system in existence, when this is nonsense. His claim that the Korean media somehow separates them is also nonsense because the country's No.1 portal Naver (the equivalent of Google with 70% market share) lists it just like the English wiki and so does the No.2 portal Daum with 20% market share, which even operates subway map stands in the Seoul subway. (Sources: www.map.naver.com and www.map.daum.net, click on the Subway icon or subway and you will see it is listed just like the English wiki) The only reason we are separating out some lines here is to fit the technical definition of a metro, which I agree should be done in a fair and reasonable manner that respects fully sourced consensus from reliable sources.I agree with IJBall that Suin Line should be included since it fits the 10 min headway and it would be completely unfair and unreasonable to exclude it when other metros with far worse service frequency in this list like the Catania Metro have been around for a very long time with nobody even mentioning them. Massyparcer (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC) Massyparcer (talk) 09:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * When I said "external sources", I didn't mean the Seoul Metro operators (they'd actually be "primary sources") - I'm talking about newspapers and 24-news channels and book authors, etc. The fact is none of those consider Seoul's system to be the "longest metro system in the world" (i.e. because no sources make that claim) - therefore, we, on Wiki, are counting it wrong. That is something that needs to be fixed. Therefore, Seoul's entry here should probably be split into "Seoul Subway" and "Seoul Metropolitan Railway" entries.
 * I'm waiting to see if other editors object to this. Because, if not, I think this split needs to be done, so Wikipedia conforms to the outside world on this Seoul issue... --IJBall (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have read all of rickinasia's posts on the Seoul Metro talk page months ago. However they were beyond the scope of this article at the time so I didn't comment. Massyparcer I have never said there was a separate sysway system to begin with. I just showed everyone that the Koreans count the network very differently from us and a huge discrepancy exists in the Korean page along with the media. After 1 year we are still the minority opinion. If you ask me I would say "when in korea, do as the koreans do."
 * The seoul metro maps having every line does not mean anything. As I have said before many time Europe lumps commuter rail and subway lines in one map with the same emphasis in each network. In addition for the name and branding: "The name of the system is not a criterion for inclusion or exclusion. Some cities use metro as a brand name for a transit line with no component of rapid transit whatsoever. Similarly, there are systems branded light rail that meet every criterion for being a rapid transit system. Some systems also incorporate light metro or light rail lines as part of the larger system under a common name. These are listed, but the light rail lines are not counted in the provided network data."

- List of metro systems


 * Terramorphous (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I also don't think we, here, should be swayed by how the English-language Wiki page handles the Seoul system - I've looked at the page, and I definitely think it could use some "clean up" (including a separate page on the Seoul Subway portion, as the Korean Wiki does). The bottom line is, as you say, the discrepancy between how Seoul is handled in this table versus how it is handled by the media - that discrepancy has be solved. --IJBall (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Terramorphous, you're completely correct that the Seoul Subway map includes commuter rail lines, which we have ruled out and removed from the count. That doeesn't mean that a different system exist here. Massyparcer (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Good point IJBall - I can go on and put thousands if not millions of newspaper, 24news-channels or book authors that show the Seoul Metropolitan Subway as one system as it has always been. The problem with you guys is that you are not Koreans, Korea is an isolated country and the only way you get information is from extremely narrow-viewing English media. You're judging a completely different country based on a narrow spectrum of English media. This is NOT how the outside world sees it, this is how the English media sees it, and basing your views on this is highly misleading and against Wikipedia guidelines. IJBall, the single biggest problem with your claim is that you're basing your entire judgement on this issue on English media only - which is wrong, especially because this is an issue dealing with a completely foreign subway system. Since when did Wikipedia start judging other countries based on English media? Like you mentioned, here are the newspapers, 24 hour news channels and book authors that clearly see it as a single system: English sources: http://www.urbanrail.net/as/kr/seoul/seoul.htm http://www.eatyourkimchi.com/how-to-use-the-korean-subways/ http://asiaenglish.visitkorea.or.kr/ena/TR/TR_EN_5_1_4.jsp http://www.korea4expats.com/article-seoul-metro.html http://www.kias.re.kr/sub06/sub06_06.jsp http://english.seoul.go.kr/cav/ga/subway.php Newspapers and 24 news channels: http://news.kbs.co.kr/news/NewsView.do?SEARCH_NEWS_CODE=2782243&ref=A http://www.ytn.co.kr/_ln/0103_201401061611223011 http://www.siminilbo.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=345892 http://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=102&oid=422&aid=0000043112 http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2014/01/06/2014010601462.html Book authors: http://book.naver.com/bookdb/book_detail.nhn?bid=6725966 http://nstore.naver.com/ebook/detail.nhn?productNo=1328287 http://book.naver.com/bookdb/book_detail.nhn?bid=6078888 http://book.naver.com/bookdb/book_detail.nhn?bid=6764452
 * Terramorphous is correct: just because it is a "single system" doesn't mean it is always counted that way - there are multiple examples of that in the table here.
 * The bottom line is that no media source lists Seoul as the longest metro system in the world. That means we are counting it wrong. Regardless of what you say, this list needs to conform to outside sources, none of which seem to be counting Seoul the way you are advocating, which is against Wikipedia's mission statement on requiring outside sourcing and against original research. --IJBall (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Clearly, you haven't bothered read the sources above. Yes, that list perfectly matches numerous outside sources such as the above, all of them which account Seoul's subway system the way it has always been. I have never said it is the longest, neither do I advocate, and frankly, I don't care what is the longest. But what I do advocate is a fair and reasonable assessment that obeys what the outside world says, not what you or Terramorphous say, which is clearly original research. Massyparcer (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, like I said there is a lot of mixing of terms because the system is so seamless. Its hard to draw the line. However I would like to bring everyone's attention to the terms 지하철 (subway) and 수도권 전철 (Metropolitan Railway). Which the is used interchangeably in the news articles Massyparcer posted. In the korean wikipage of seoul metro here are the lines names which are consistently used across all Korean wiki articles:
 * 수도권 전철 1호선 Metropolitan Railway Line 1
 * 서울 지하철 2호선 Seoul Subway Line 2
 * 수도권 전철 3호선 Metropolitan Railway Line 3
 * 수도권 전철 4호선 Metropolitan Railway Line 4
 * 서울 지하철 5호선 Seoul Subway Line 5
 * 서울 지하철 6호선 Seoul Subway Line 6
 * 서울 지하철 7호선 Seoul Subway Line 7
 * 서울 지하철 8호선 Seoul Subway Line 8
 * 서울 지하철 9호선 Seoul Subway Line 9
 * 수도권 전철 중앙선 Metropolitan Railway Jungang Line
 * 수도권 전철 분당선 Metropolitan Railway Bundang Line
 * 수도권 전철 수인선 Metropolitan Railway Suin Line
 * 수도권 전철 경춘선 Metropolitan Railway Gyeongchun Line
 * 인천국제공항철도 AREX Railroad

It seems 2, 5-9 lines which are bulletproof in rapid transit standards (completely isolated form all traffic, below 10 min frequencies, fully grade separated) are called subways. Lines which are owned by Korail or mixed with them are called Metropolitan Railways. Also note that AREX is just simply called a railway but I digress. Now I am not saying Lines 1, 3, 4 are not subways, the mixing of the trains is already handled by The original consensus. However the issue is the counting the Korail operated sections and lines of Metropolitan Railways. All I know is that we can't declare it the longest metro explicitly in words on the intro or implicitly in numbers on the table because that is original research.

However I do propose a compromise which has been done before When Shanghai surpassed London in 2010. There was the issue of the London underground not counting the DLR's length into it's network. Combined with the DLR London was longer. However sources where still saying Shanghai is the longest. So a compromise naturally formed. Shanghai is the longest subway system as per the sources. However London's page says it still has the longest rapid transit network (Tube+DLR). I think similar can be done to Seoul.

If everyone is fine with that then we can start a talk page on how to get this going.Terramorphous (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Terramorphous, please do not try to mislead others with completely false translations. 전철 means (Am) subway (train), (Brit) the Underground according to the dictionary: http://endic.naver.com/krenEntry.nhn?sLn=en&entryId=911498c182994cd39d8f6c3568adbae4 The only reason they call it 전철 is because some sections are overground, so they can't call it 지하철, which is literally underground train. "The system is so seamless" - Good point Terramorphous. The system is so seamless as you say because it has been a single subway system for many decades. Like you said, it is used interchangeable, because in Korea, there is no distinction between any lines - To anyone, it has been a single system all along history and is ultimately controlled by a single authority, the Metropolitan Transit Authority: http://www.mta.go.kr/main.jsp. There is only one Seoul Metropolitan Subway that is controlled by only one authority with a universal fare structure. It is operated by different operators because the authority gives contract to any public or private company to operate it if they want. But ultimately, there is only one authority at the top of the chain. A subway system and rapid transit network sounds like the same thing to me, why make a distinction? Massyparcer (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * 수도권전철 and 서울지하철 is a name just used due to Korean law that distinguishes railway lines to decide which line is mainly subsidized by the city government and which is mainly subsidized by the national government. Passenger management is done with the operators (Seoul Metro, SMRT, KORAIL, NeoTrans, Seoul Metro 9 Management Corp, Incheon Transit Corp., KORAIL Airport Railroad, and Yongin Rapid Transit Corp.).
 * Crudely saying, in Korean Wiki, by '수도권 전철' is first, and broadly defined as
 * Line 1 [Jongno Section: Seoul Underground - Cheongnyangri], [Gyeongwon Section: Hyoegi - Soyosan], [Gyeongbu Section: Seoul Underground - Cheonan], [Gyeongin Section: Guro - Incheon], [Gyeongbu KTX & Siheung Section: Geumcheongu Office - Gwangmyeong], [Byeongjeom Section: Byeongjeom - Seodongtan], [Cheonan Interconnecting & Janghang & Chungbuk Section: Cheonan - Sinchang]
 * Line 2 [Uljiro Loop : City Hall - Seongsu - City Hall], [Seongsu Section: Seongsu - Sinseoldong], [Sinjeong Section: Sindorim - Kkachisan]
 * Line 3 [Seoul Section: Ogeum - Jichuk], [Ilsan Section: Jichuk - Daehwa]
 * Line 4 [Seoul Section: Dangdogae - Namtaeryeong], [Gwacheon Section: Namtaeryeong - Geumjeong], [Ansan Section: Geumjeong - Oido]
 * Line 5 [Mainline: Banghwa - Sangildong], [Macheon Section: Gangdong - Macheon]
 * Line 6 [Mainline: Eungam - Bonghwasan], [Eungam Loop: Eungam - Yeonsinnae - Eungam]
 * Line 7 [Bupyeong-gu Office - Jangam]
 * Line 8 [Amsa - Moran]
 * Line 9 [Gaehwa - Sports Complex]
 * A'REX [Seoul Aboveground - IIAC]
 * Jungang [Gyeongwon Section: Yongsan - Cheongnyangri], [Jungang Section: Cheongnyangri - Yongmun]
 * Gyeongchun [Mangu Section: Gwangun Univ / Seongbuk - Mangu], [Jungang Section: Sangbong, Mangu], [Gyeongchun Section: Mangu - Chuncheon]
 * Gyeongui [Gyeongui Section: Munsan - Seoul Aboveground], [Yongsan Section: Yongsan - Gajwa]
 * Bundang/Suin [Bundang Section: Wangsimni - Suwon], [Suin Section: Oido - Songdo]
 * Sinbundang-DX [Jeongja - Gangnam]
 * Incheon [Gaeyang - International Business District in IFEZ Songdo]
 * U [Balgok - Tapseok]
 * Ever [Giheung - Jeondae / Everland]


 * Seoul Metropolitan Area Rolling Stocks, Nuriro, ITX-Cheongchun, A'REX Express Rolling Stocks are included as rolling stocks in broad sense


 * I'm surely not expecting you to read all of these :o but listing as it would be good future references. In Korean Wiki, 수도권 전철 is narrowly defined as all above, excluding Seoul Aboveground - Sinchang Nuriro, Seoul Aboveground - IIAC Express, U Line, ITX-Cheongchun, Everline. Sources in Korean Wiki say that Seoul Metro replied to question related to this that they consider this list to be part of system.


 * Even Koreans use the word 지하철 - originally Underground Train - to even services run in ground level, and elevated level. The term 지하철 has been linguistically transferred to indicate what is really a 전철 - which includes all metro services in Seoul Metropolitan Area. I personally live in area near elevated part of the system, but the locals just call them '서울 지하철'. The system is completely flawless. MinSik CHO (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

A single subway for decades? No it's branded as single subway. Not for decades only since year 2000. As shown in the korean wiki. Korail lines and Seoul metro lines where branded and coloured differently until 2000 when passengers found it confusing as they through operated and connected with each other, so they unified the branding of the network. Also, please explain the mostly underground Bundang Line as "수도권 전철" not "전철". The "Metropolitan Transit Authority" is just some planning and coordination body, just like Metrolinx in Toronto. Tokyo and Osaka has similar agencies too yet they are divided up of separate rail networks. So I don't see where your going with that. If the koreans can make the distinction on the korean wiki then we can too. I am not sure what the subway system and rapid transit network distinction was but a consensus was reached and everyone was happy. Terramorphous (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * By what you are saying, I think you are referring to '국철' time. 국철 just means that the railway is owned by KORAIL - which is now Korean Rail Network Authority Corp. Even at that time, trains departed from areas owned by Seoul City, to arrive at Suwon, Incheon, and Seongbuk. The 국철 term also encompassed now called '중앙선', '과천선', '일산선', '안산선', '경원선', '경부선' which is also owned by KORAIL. The term was just classification by owners of the track, rather than distinct companies that is in Japanese networks. MinSik CHO (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The Suin Line (I read from the top but had to skim as this is getting way too long) is part of the large Seoul Metro/subway/tube/whatever-name-you-want-to-use system. It is included on all current subway maps, it allows for free transfer, it is part of the yet to be completed 'outer Seoul circle' metro system they are installing as Line 2 is the 'inner Seoul circle,' it connects with Line 4 and Incheon Line 1 currently, it will be connected with Line 1 when the west extension is finished and will connect with Bundang Line when that extension finishes. The people that run/operate the system consider it one system. It's one system. ₪Rick n Asia₪ 12:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes but the question is is it a metro line in a more strict definition.Terramorphous (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's both branded and exists as a single metro system. From 2000, they introduced the universal fare structure and colouring, that doesn't mean they haven't existed in a single from before the decades. Bundang Line has an overground station at Jukjeon and had another overground station at Bojeong before it closed down in 2011. The fact is the majority of Korail lines are overground, not underground, hence why people prefer to call it 전철, not 지하철, whereas most of the other lines are underground, hence why people call it 지하철. These names are purely informal terms used in the Korean Wiki made up by Korean Wiki users for practical reasons - They have never been official and there are no sources backing up these names, which is why we can't put original research from the Korean wiki here. Like Rickinasia said, the Suin Line has been part of the Seoul Metropolitan Subway since its opening and given that it fits all the technical requirements of a metro (including the 10min headway rule as IJBall agreed, despite the fact it is a made-up arbitrary number with no source whatsovever and must be dropped as per Wiki rules), it will be included in Seoul's tally. Massyparcer (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)