This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fellow editors: In Talk:List of metro systems#Seoul Metropolitan Subway, an editor tells me:
"Stop your name-calling because it's a direct violation of WP:Civility and a blatant example of bullying."
This proclamation finds me at a loss. Could the esteemed editors (plural) please tell me where, in the referenced chapter, I have been
The editor who accuses me of using egregious epithets does not shy away from robust language herself. Measured by these exalted standards, my conduct must have been extremely serious. However, when searching for words beyond the pale, I come up empty, most likely, because, as the editor asserts, I am "blind," and because I "have a problem in English." So please help an eyesight-impaired alien with English as a third language, and tell me where, from "... appears to be losing important information pertaining to metro owners/operators" all the way to " ... until the data is changed" are the acts of name-calling, bullying and lack of civility? Or, as they say at WP, citation needed.
Should the editor who leveled these accusations choose to retract them, then we can stop the search. BsBsBs ( talk) 14:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Editors, please tell me where, in the referenced chapter, names have been called, uncivil acts have been perpetrated, or people were bullied. BsBsBs ( talk) 15:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Massyparcer ( talk) 15:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)I don't think this will be the last we've heard of an editor I shall henceforth call Massiveparser. BsBsBs (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
... Quite apparently, quite a visionary statement. BsBsBs ( talk) 16:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
How can "I don't think this will be the last we've heard of an editor I shall henceforth call Massiveparser" and "Let's learn from the Massiveparser wars" referring to user Massyparcer possibly not be considered namecalling? No background, maybe they deserve it, but insulting someone, then denying it, hardly seems like a class act. Sammy D III ( talk) 22:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be a major inconsistency when counting stations. If two lines run through 1 station, is it counted as 2 stations? In this list, New York Counts them twice, but Buenos Aires counts them once. Shouldn't the same standard be applied to all so that apples can be compared to apples? Mattximus ( talk) 16:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Frequency is one of the factors of a metro system. However, what is defined as frequent and what isn't? The number of passengers transported per hour per direction is not always available, so one has to rely on the number of trains per hour. The Staten Island Railway has a frequency of every 30 minutes, or two trains per hour during normal daytime operation, but is still included in this list. It has a frequency that is a lot higher when compared to other metro systems in this list, and is not what is considered "frequent" for a metro system. Even though it fits most, if not all, of the other criteria for a metro system, should the Staten Island Railway be considered a suburban/commuter railway instead of a metro system because of its low frequency? Unown Uzer717 ( talk) 11:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Not that it matters for this list that groups metros by operator, but here is a hint for all who still haven't thrown up their hands on the contentious ownership debate.
Seoul Metropolitan Subway lists as owner of the apocryphal system not "the government", or South Korea's Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, but:
" Seoul Special City, Korea Rail Network Authority, Incheon Metropolitan City, Uijeongbu City, Yongin City"
Of course, Seoul Metropolitan Subway is far from authoritative, but --- just saying ... BsBsBs ( talk) 14:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Here is a citation of the length of Lines 1-9 on the Seoul city infrastructure website. Courtesy of the Korean wiki.
[1]
Masseypacer's citation Articles #6-12 shows which company is operating of which sections of the metropolitan railway network.
[2]
Terramorphous (
talk) 18:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey everyone. I can only skim parts of the edit war and input a little. What makes it more confusing is it usually isn't owned/controlled by one entity:
And for some real fun Korail controls metro in Seoul, countrywide freight shipping, train-trains (Semaul, Mugwang hwa) and bullet trains (KTX). The information about the PPP system is from an upcoming book (sorry guys) which will appear on this page when the book is published in the next few months. But honestly most of what I mentioned can be gleaned from other sites. This is why it is difficult to separate the system as it really is weaved together tightly. As most all of it appears on all "subway/metro/tube" maps, most all of it has free transfers, and the "ownership" is so confusing; I can only think of it as one massive system. Trying to divide it more is like splitting hairs. Please please please, if you really want me to reply to something send me a message and I'll get back to you when I can. I just honestly can't follow this page with any real regularity. ₪Rickn Asia₪ 13:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I would like to point the attention of the esteemed editors to the work of an IP . In a few short months, that IP changed the face of the world of rapid transit.
This IP ( info here) appeared first on 8 October 2013, and tried its hand on a (rather inconsequential) edit of E-Government. A week later, it corrected the erroneous assertion that Suji-gu lies 40km south of Seoul , and brought it into a very comfortable commuting distance of 29km. Having done this, the IP found its true calling: Metros, and the promotion of the Seoul Metro to the greatest under the sun.
On 20 October, the IP showed up for the first time on List of metro systems and proceeded to eliminate a serious contender in the race for world dominance , namely JR East. Its 7527.8km, proclaimed on these esteemed pages, would have been a clear hindrance in the ascendancy of the Seoul Metro. The IP cut down JR East to 34.5km by changing it to the Yamanote Line. Finally, I have the culprit for one of the silliest edits on this list. The Yamanote is one line of the JR, well, system, and it is not more the JR than the Circle line is the London Underground. Bad IP, bad!
Don’t let this momentary lapse of judgment taint the accomplishments of 125.130.108.7.
In the same edit, the IP elevated the Seoul Metropolitan Subway from “one of” the longest systems in the world to the throne of “the” longest system. Then, it concentrated its attention on making the new king to look as splendiferous as possible.
Something that could have been in the way of Seoul’s superiority would have been, gasp, commuter trains on its vast system. As the IP quickly learned, commuter train = bad, right down there with multi trip tickets and the abominable station-to-station fares. There was an entry in Seoul Metropolitan Subway that did read:
Can’t have riff-raff commuters. The IP whacked the sentence, and drowned it in a dark corner of the Han River.
Seoul was in trouble again when an editor by the name of Terramorphous declared Shanghai the world’s largest. First the Japanese, now the Chinese! Seoul is being undermined!
The inimitable (well, we’ll see about that) IP bought time by
deleting Shanghai so that it would not disturb a long list of Seoul’s superlatives. Still, it had the second longest … rail network behind the creepy Chinese. Clearly, more work was in order to prove the fact that Seoul has is the longest. Easy!
Add a few km here, and a few stations there (in-line references? Who needs them!) and the industrious IP was ready to put Seoul back on its throne. Take that, Middling Kingdom, dig a little more!
Having done its duty, user:125.130.108.7 more or less retired from the keyboard on December 30, 2013, not without adding a few more choice kilometers and stations here and there, to trump Terramorphous and the bu hao Chinese. A few days later, Seoul attracted the services of a freshly minted Wikipedia editor, and 125.130.108.7 could rest in peace.
Well, not quite.
For a few days, the IP graced the talk pages of List of metro systems, and introduced a certain distinctive style of debate, and editing.
That style was quickly emulated by user Massiveparser. Actually on January 3, Massiveparser purloined a long and rambling comment, made by the IP. Two minutes after the IP told Terramorphous to "watch out your words," Massiveparser declared the whole comment his own.
The IP did not complain - after all, there is no copyright on WP. The IP left the field to Massiveparser as far as trains were concerned. It made its last contribution to the cause on 24 January 2014 by establishing South Korea to its rightful top place of the Global Innovation Quotient, and finally, it retired from Wikipedia.
You will be missed, 125.130.108.7. But don’t worry. Your work will be continued by new generations, and the place of Seoul in the Walhalla of Metros is assured. BsBsBs ( talk) 18:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
“Trains on numbered lines generally run on the right-hand track, while trains on the named lines (e.g. Sinbundang Line, Bundang Line, and AREX) run on the left-hand track. The exceptions are the trains on Line 1, as well as those on Line 4 south of Namtaeryeong Station. These lines run on the left-hand track because these rail lines are operated by Korail, South Korea's main commuter rail provider.”
Sorry, but this entire section is obnoxious and illegitimate. There is nothing wrong with starting out as an anon IP editor and then deciding to register a user name. The implication that it is somehow wrong to do such is stupid and should be retracted. Yes, Massy has a singular focus, but there's nothing wrong with being a niche editor. Do I wish Massy would be more neutral, less wordy and not make dozens of corrections to their posts after their initial response (which I've mentioned to them before)? Yes. But frankly this behavior is is is getting immature and approaching harassment, and is BS. So is tagging every post by the editor. Just leave it alone. If you don't like Massy's posts, BsBsBs, ignore them. Or else I'll haul both of you off to WP:ANI where I'll bluntly suggest an interaction ban for the both of you. This behavior has to stop, on both sides! Seriously! oknazevad ( talk) 19:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
... appears to be losing important information pertaining to metro owners/operators. This is a high profile page, please monitor for consistency with what is listed here. BsBsBs ( talk) 14:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
As far as Korail's subways are concerned, there is a "Subways in Metropolitan Region" at Korail's website. I'm a bit confused, can't quite reconcile the data with what is listed. Seoul mavens, pls check. BsBsBs ( talk) 14:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Tough. We are only to work with reliable sources, and in this case Korail itself is the most reliable. The data in the article MUST agree with the source.Calling them and asking them to change the data to yours is the epitome of OR ... until the data is changed. BsBsBs ( talk) 20:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
BsBsBs, you need to stop that conspiracy theory against me. Stop your name-calling because it's a direct violation of WP:Civility and a blatant example of bullying. It's easier to get on with an editor if you don't question their motives as per WP:What is consensus? Anyways, if you haven't read what I wrote, I told them to update them, not change any data. I would really appreciate if you stop being blind to what I write and actually start to read things properly...because your conspiracy theory is clearly blurring your brain here. You really need to stop making groundless claims and please proof-read what you write. Or do you really have a problem in English as other editors have been concerned? I hope that's not the case. Now, as for IJBall, if you haven't looked at the referenced dictionary, it clearly shows that it is synonymous. I'm not interested in making up anything here. But that's not even important since the addition was to clarify why they call subways in Korean despite some sections being overground. So you're missing the point. Korail's English source defines them as subways, which is synonymous to heavy rail/metro as per APTA's source. NYC Subway and Beijing Subway are good examples of this.. Massyparcer ( talk) 21:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Massyparcer's sources are clearly not up to stuff. Just because they refer to the lines subways doesn't mean they are. The citation in does not in any way describe the technical and service standards of the line to verify that it is indeed rapid transit. It the sources translate and brand the lines as such but never produced any indication or proof that that are. In addition:
Some cities use metro as a brand name for a transit line with no component of rapid transit whatsoever.
Melbourne Trains got rebranded as Melbourne Metro is it rapid transit now? No of course not.
Terramorphous ( talk) 22:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
R: Revision as of 22:17, 23 February 2014
RR: Revision as of 22:38, 23 February 2014
RRR: Revision as of 23:24, 23 February 2014
Edit warring warning issued at 23:42, 23 February 2014
RRRR: Revision as of 23:45, 24 February 2014
WP:RRR#The three-revert rule states:
WP:RRR#The three-revert rule also states:
The edit at Seoul Metropolitan Subway was reverted a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot, and this is gaming the system, especially considering that, at 03:04, 24 February 2014, three hours after the third revert, the editor had declared his firm intent to continue the edit war.
I will not be drawn into this edit war. I have no experience in reporting these things, and I leave it to other editors to decide what to do about it. If they decide to take action, they may also take into account that the account is a repeat offender, which
You should also be aware that @ Ymblanter: will most likely recuse himself as involved, and that you may need to seek assistance from a different admin.
BsBsBs ( talk) 17:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
One lesson learned from Korean War II: This list is being used for propaganda purposes, and Superlatives invite trouble. After the recent IP edits, I have removed ALL superlatives, and we should not tolerate any on this list. With a heavy heart, the oldest metro, and the longest driverless metro fell victim of this. 17:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Im fine with this but if we can get a net of bullet proof sources then I think its fine to add it. Terramorphous ( talk) 21:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
As "commuter rail" has turned into an epithet around here, I have removed the "commuterlike" note group from (hopefully) all listings. To reintroduce, I would need to see a good source for each listing that says that this system is "commuterlike." See also previous discussion about the subtle differences between "commuter rail" and "commuter train." BsBsBs ( talk) 12:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Through its EU Committee, UITP has been recognised by the EU as a Representative Rail Association since 2005. UITP represents urban, suburban and regional rail service providers in the EU, and beyond. These particular railway services are most often operated under public service requirements following Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 in the EU. For this reason, UITP, and its EU Committee, are systematically consulted on rail issues raised by the European Commission (LINK TO www.europa.eu), or by the European Railway Agency (LINK TO www.era.europa.eu) that are in charge of setting up the regulatory framework for rail, including specifically the “TSIs” or Technical Specifications for Interoperability, as well as the European Safety specifications. These common specifications are necessary for achieving the interoperability of the European Union railway system.
Massyparcer ( talk) 17:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Oknazevad: Oh no, I am made to read EU-speak again! Please, and this goes for all types of bible studies here, we must always understand these things in the context they are written in. Quoting out of context is dangerous. The just cited UITP quote was not geared to define exactly what runs on what. It was written to state in which EU legal frameworks systems have to navigate, and where the possible legal (and other) overlaps are. Full quote:
"Suburban and Regional Rail: operated on ‘heavy’ rail infrastructure which is potentially interoperable with other types of rail transport services (freight and/or passenger), and which has to cope with the technical and safety requirements set up by the EU rail legislation; Urban Rail: consisting of tram, light rail, metro and some suburban-regional rail systems. Urban Rail describes a market generally physically and/or functionally separated from the interoperable EU railway network. Urban Rail is excluded from the technical rail directives under revision in the 4th Railway Package. Following initiatives taken jointly by UNIFE and UITP, and their “Urban Rail Platform” created in 2007, the harmonisation of urban rail is currently driven by EC mandate M/486 and CEN-CENELEC Guide 26, and it involves specific relationship with the European Commission, other rail associations, the ESOs and ERRAC."
So I thought I escaped Europe to get away from this, now it catches up with me again. Also, please note that they are not including blasted commuter rail with anything, because they don't mention said blasted commuter rail, most likely because commuter rail as a mode of transport does not exist in Europe.
In the interest of getting somewhere, editors are urged to understand that things are not as clear-cut as we wish, that elsewhere things can be different than in America, especially when you have highly developed and heavily used, local, national, and international passenger rail systems of all kinds that operate in densely populated areas. These things grow organically, and not necessarily in textbook fashion. BsBsBs ( talk) 17:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I've reorganized some sections due to their being so cluttered. Epicgenius ( talk) 13:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
To (hopefully) end the edit warring, I took out the left & right stuff ay Seoul Metropolitan Subway#Lines & Channels and put in the four owners of the various networks, cited form a source that I think, well, hope won't be doubted. I also added that the situation see,s to be similar to Japan and Europe, where the national railroad sometimes operates urban metros. BsBsBs ( talk) 19:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Unown:
Thank you for helping out checking sources. This list really needs it, and, I hope you will check out more. We need all the help we can get. I see you are brand-new on Wikipedia, so here a few tips: The data given must be sourced, and must jibe with the source.
Thank you for helping clean up. There are many entries that have no source at all! BsBsBs ( talk) 11:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Chongqing is a little hard to do because most sources count the monorail lines as part of the metro while this list doesn't. (which IMHO monorails should be counted if the monorail is proven to achieve over 30,000 pphpd) Terramorphous ( talk) 04:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I have added the missing info for S-Bahn Muenchen. Used route length as per intro. Not that it matters anymore, but I read that the 40 minute service frequency now is 10 minutes on most lines, and that the picturesque lone diesel line was electrified in 2013. I will now do some research on the JR. BsBsBs ( talk) 14:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I think I now realize why the Munich S-Bahn was not included in this list before. Track sharing with other intercity trains and freight traffic is a major problem with Munich S-Bahn that I have overlooked. Many lines in the Munich S-Bahn breach UITP criteria of "reserved tracks" and "totally independent from other traffic". Munich S-Bahn article says that "The S-Bahn partly operates on its own routes (one or two tracks), parts of it are double-track lines where S-Bahn operations are mixed with other traffic (passengers and freight), and in some cases more than two tracks are available. In the latter case one-or two tracks are set aside for the S-Bahn operations only and the two other tracks are used for the remaining traffic." For example, Linie S1 West is shares tracks with regional and Interregional (ALEX, DIX (Donau-Isar-Express)) services, as well as freight traffic. S2 West shares tracks with Intercity-Express services to Berlin and Hamburg as well as Frankfurt via Nuremberg, Regional services to Nuremberg and Ingolstadt and freight traffic. S3 West shares tracks with regional, long-distance and freight traffic. S4 shares tracks with various regional services every two hours, two hourly EuroCity service to Zürich, diverted long distance services from Augsburg-Munich line. The list goes on, which means these lines must be excluded from the count. I suggest removing Munich S-Bahn from the list until this is sorted out since a significant portion is commuter rail with all sorts of track sharing with ICE and freight traffic going on. Massyparcer ( talk) 18:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Here is a complete list of lines that breach the UITP definition and the full technical reasons and the traffic that's being shared:
Line | Route and section |
Distance from Hbf or Ostbf | Other traffic | Infrastructure |
---|---|---|---|---|
to | Trunk line Pasing–Hbf–Ostbahnhof |
11.4 km | Between Pasing and Hauptbahnhof some trains are operated between Donnersbergerbrücke and Hauptbahnhof by Bayerische Oberlandbahn | Three stations with three or more platform tracks, three stations using Spanish solution. |
West |
Munich–Regensburg railway Laim–Freising |
40.7 km | Regional and Interregional ( ALEX, DIX (Donau-Isar-Express)) services, as well as freight traffic. | Two tracks in mixed operation for 34.5 km. |
West |
Neufahrn Link Neufahrn–Airport West (7.3 km) |
40.8 km | S-Bahn only, except for occasional freight trains | Two tracks. |
West |
Munich–Ingolstadt line Laim–Petershausen |
36.4 km | Intercity-Express services to Berlin and Hamburg as well as Frankfurt via Nuremberg, Regional services to Nuremberg and Ingolstadt and freight traffic. | Separate S-Bahn (one or two tracks) in addition to high-speed tracks for ICE and other traffic. |
West |
Munich–Augsburg railway Pasing–Mammendorf |
31.0 km | Regional, long-distance and freight traffic. This is one of the busiest lines in Germany, so it was upgraded to four tracks for the S-Bahn. | Separate tracks for the S-Bahn (two to Maisach, then one to Mammendorf). |
West |
Allgäu Railway Pasing–Geltendorf |
42.1 km | Various regional services every two hours, two hourly EuroCity service to Zürich, diverted long distance services from Augsburg-Munich line | Two tracks mixed operations for 34.7 km. Electrified for the S-Bahn to Geltendorf. |
West |
Munich–Herrsching railway Pasing–Herrsching |
38.3 km | Only S-Bahn services. | Two tracks to Weßling, then single track. |
West |
Munich–Garmisch-Partenkirchen railway Pasing–Tutzing |
39.6 km | Regional services and occasional long distance trains to Garmisch-Partenkirchen. | Two separate S-Bahn tracks to Gauting, then two tracks in mixed operation. |
West |
Isar Valley Railway Solln–Wolfratshausen |
31.3 km | Only S-Bahn services. | Two tracks to Höllriegelskreuth, then single track. |
East |
Airport line Ostbahnhof–Ismaning–Airport |
33.1 km | Freight traffic between Daglfing and North Ring. | Continuous two tracks, some in mixed operation with freight. |
East |
Munich–Mühldorf railway and
Markt Schwaben–Erding railway Ostbahnhof–Markt Schwaben–Erding |
34.7 km | Freight and regional traffic towards Mühldorf and Freilassing to Markt Schwaben, then only S-Bahn traffic. | Two tracks in mixed operation to Markt Schwaben, then single track to Erding. |
East |
Munich–Rosenheim railway and
Grafing–Wasserburg railway Ostbahnhof–Grafing–Ebersberg |
31.0 km | Regional services to Rosenheim and Wasserburg, long distance services to Salzburg, as well as freight traffic. | Four tracks to Grafing (S-Bahn operations separated), then single track with mixed traffic. |
East |
Munich East–Deisenhofen railway and
Munich-Giesing–Kreuzstraße railway Giesing–Kreuzstraße |
30.1 km | S-Bahn only. | Single track. |
East |
Munich East–Deisenhofen railway and
Munich–Holzkirchen railway Ostbahnhof–Giesing–Deisenhofen–Holzkirchen |
31.2 km | S-Bahn only to Deisenhofen. The Bayerische Oberlandbahn also operates between Deisenhofen and Holzkirchen. | Two tracks. |
Sendling Clasp Pasing–Mittersendling (8.7 km) |
38.8 km (from Pasing) | Runs in part over freight tracks to/from Munich Laim marshalling yard. | Single track to Mittersendling, then continuing on the Munich–Holzkirchen railway. | |
Munich–Holzkirchen railway Hbf–Holzkirchen |
36.5 km | Regional services of the Bayerischen Oberlandbahn. | Two tracks in mixed operations. |
Massyparcer ( talk) 19:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
The Munich S-bahn should not be included as it is operated with other non-metro traffic. Terramorphous ( talk) 22:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, I think this system was originally added to "prove a point". Now that I think the issue of the "definition" of a true "metro" system has been settled, can we please agree to delete the Munich S-Bahn systems from the list, as is shares rails with other rail types, and therefore doesn't truly operate in its "own right of way" (i.e. exclusively)? Thanks in advance... -- IJBall ( talk) 16:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
IJ: I recommend to allow things to settle a bit. I think the matter of the list inclusion/exclusion still needs some work. Once we can do this constructively, this should not be long. Trust me, I am completely agnostic when it comes to who is the biggest metro (the Chinese are winning this anyway, they are digging furiously, and there is no doubt that the system has one owner ........). I have a valid NYC MetroCard, a Hong Kong Octopus, a Tokyo SUICA (where $100 evaporate quicker than water on a hot tin roof), and whatever they call those things in Beijing, and Shenzhen, China. I am metromultisexual! Please no fait accompli until dust and nerves settle. Thank you! BsBsBs ( talk) 16:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Comment: How is the S-Bahn considered a metro system? It's actually a form of commuter rail, in my opinion. Epicgenius ( talk) 02:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Why am I being forced here to write legal briefs without earning the customary $500/hr?
In the old media handout from 12.11.08 (preserved in Google cache), the UITP said:
"Metros are totally independent from other traffic, road or pedestrians. They are consequently designed in tunnel, viaducts or on surface level but with physical separation." (Emphasis mine.)
In the new, formal definition from 5 October 2011 the UITP says:
"[Metros] are consequently designed for operations in tunnel, viaducts or on surface level but with physical separation in such a way that inadvertent access is not possible." (Emphasis mine.)
I would not be surprised if between 2008 and 2011, a WP-like debate over the meaning of "physical separation" took place, and that the "physical separation" was amplified to "in such a way that inadvertent access is not possible." To my regret, I must say that I have too much experience with EU regulatory language. One of the devices to stop inadvertent access is a boom barrier, just like a lockable door can (when closed) prevent inadvertent access to our house, and just like with such a lockable door, the inside of our house is "physically separated" from the public outside, even when there is a door, and not just a window- and door-less wall, which some (but not many) may erroneously assume.
In Europe at least, an inspector who is looking for the required prevention of "inadvertent access," will put a big check mark next to "physical separation" when he is shown the closeable gate.
If the UITP would have wanted to say "no level crossings," it would not have needed all that complicated verbiage. It could have simply written "Level crossings are not allowed." (And the cement manufacturing and civil engineering lobbies would have high-fived.)
Why do I have to write all this? This is getting big-time ludicrous. WP:OR warns us not to read things into sources that aren't there. If a newer definition is found that expressly disallows level crossings, and that disqualifies a metro if such devices are found, then I will myself remove any alleged metros that have these nasty implements. Until this is done, I strongly recommend to table this matter.
If we no longer want to trade threadbare arguments, we should focus on writing a better list definition instead of reading moldy tea-leaves. This process starts with discussing what we want from this list. If we can find a way to exclude sub-standard wanna-be metros from this list, I will be the first one to hit the delete button. The inclusion of the S-Bahnen (and there will be more) was expressly meant to move this discussion into this very productive direction. If we don't think they are a metro, then we should discuss it, and, depending on the outcome, find a way to exclude them. Inclusion and exclusion criteria offer a wide latitude. See operator vs. owner. BsBsBs ( talk) 17:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Whoa. It seems whenever things turn out unfavorable to you, you go straight to questioning my motives with groundless claims and attacking me personally in an attempt to mislead other editors. Stop being deliberately hostile to me and convince the editors with hard-cold sources instead of resorting to dirty tactics like personal attacks and questioning the others' motives as per WP:NPA:
What is considered to be a personal attack?
- Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream
- Criticisms of, or references to, personal behavior in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page.
Remember: Comment on content, not on the contributor.
Please read WP:NPA. You really need to stop your wikidrama and stop getting overly emotional about me. Massyparcer ( talk) 15:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
"inadvertent access" = access resulting from or achieved through deliberate planning. A closeable gate provides none of that sort. Most people can easily vault over or get around a the most well built grade crossing barriers if they deliberately wanted to. A self contained subway system on a viaduct or tunnel or completely fenced grade separated ROW is pretty hard to break into even if you want to. Long story short the Munich S-bahn is not Rapid Transit. Terramorphous ( talk) 04:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
This is a slightly unrelated question, but does the existence of low-level platforms disqualify a railway from being a metro? Epicgenius ( talk) 14:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
What do you think about adding ridership data from Metro_systems_by_annual_passenger_rides to this article? So that we get rid of a slightly redundant article and make this one more complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.1.82.160 ( talk) 21:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fellow editors: In Talk:List of metro systems#Seoul Metropolitan Subway, an editor tells me:
"Stop your name-calling because it's a direct violation of WP:Civility and a blatant example of bullying."
This proclamation finds me at a loss. Could the esteemed editors (plural) please tell me where, in the referenced chapter, I have been
The editor who accuses me of using egregious epithets does not shy away from robust language herself. Measured by these exalted standards, my conduct must have been extremely serious. However, when searching for words beyond the pale, I come up empty, most likely, because, as the editor asserts, I am "blind," and because I "have a problem in English." So please help an eyesight-impaired alien with English as a third language, and tell me where, from "... appears to be losing important information pertaining to metro owners/operators" all the way to " ... until the data is changed" are the acts of name-calling, bullying and lack of civility? Or, as they say at WP, citation needed.
Should the editor who leveled these accusations choose to retract them, then we can stop the search. BsBsBs ( talk) 14:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Editors, please tell me where, in the referenced chapter, names have been called, uncivil acts have been perpetrated, or people were bullied. BsBsBs ( talk) 15:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Massyparcer ( talk) 15:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)I don't think this will be the last we've heard of an editor I shall henceforth call Massiveparser. BsBsBs (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
... Quite apparently, quite a visionary statement. BsBsBs ( talk) 16:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
How can "I don't think this will be the last we've heard of an editor I shall henceforth call Massiveparser" and "Let's learn from the Massiveparser wars" referring to user Massyparcer possibly not be considered namecalling? No background, maybe they deserve it, but insulting someone, then denying it, hardly seems like a class act. Sammy D III ( talk) 22:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be a major inconsistency when counting stations. If two lines run through 1 station, is it counted as 2 stations? In this list, New York Counts them twice, but Buenos Aires counts them once. Shouldn't the same standard be applied to all so that apples can be compared to apples? Mattximus ( talk) 16:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Frequency is one of the factors of a metro system. However, what is defined as frequent and what isn't? The number of passengers transported per hour per direction is not always available, so one has to rely on the number of trains per hour. The Staten Island Railway has a frequency of every 30 minutes, or two trains per hour during normal daytime operation, but is still included in this list. It has a frequency that is a lot higher when compared to other metro systems in this list, and is not what is considered "frequent" for a metro system. Even though it fits most, if not all, of the other criteria for a metro system, should the Staten Island Railway be considered a suburban/commuter railway instead of a metro system because of its low frequency? Unown Uzer717 ( talk) 11:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Not that it matters for this list that groups metros by operator, but here is a hint for all who still haven't thrown up their hands on the contentious ownership debate.
Seoul Metropolitan Subway lists as owner of the apocryphal system not "the government", or South Korea's Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, but:
" Seoul Special City, Korea Rail Network Authority, Incheon Metropolitan City, Uijeongbu City, Yongin City"
Of course, Seoul Metropolitan Subway is far from authoritative, but --- just saying ... BsBsBs ( talk) 14:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Here is a citation of the length of Lines 1-9 on the Seoul city infrastructure website. Courtesy of the Korean wiki.
[1]
Masseypacer's citation Articles #6-12 shows which company is operating of which sections of the metropolitan railway network.
[2]
Terramorphous (
talk) 18:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey everyone. I can only skim parts of the edit war and input a little. What makes it more confusing is it usually isn't owned/controlled by one entity:
And for some real fun Korail controls metro in Seoul, countrywide freight shipping, train-trains (Semaul, Mugwang hwa) and bullet trains (KTX). The information about the PPP system is from an upcoming book (sorry guys) which will appear on this page when the book is published in the next few months. But honestly most of what I mentioned can be gleaned from other sites. This is why it is difficult to separate the system as it really is weaved together tightly. As most all of it appears on all "subway/metro/tube" maps, most all of it has free transfers, and the "ownership" is so confusing; I can only think of it as one massive system. Trying to divide it more is like splitting hairs. Please please please, if you really want me to reply to something send me a message and I'll get back to you when I can. I just honestly can't follow this page with any real regularity. ₪Rickn Asia₪ 13:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I would like to point the attention of the esteemed editors to the work of an IP . In a few short months, that IP changed the face of the world of rapid transit.
This IP ( info here) appeared first on 8 October 2013, and tried its hand on a (rather inconsequential) edit of E-Government. A week later, it corrected the erroneous assertion that Suji-gu lies 40km south of Seoul , and brought it into a very comfortable commuting distance of 29km. Having done this, the IP found its true calling: Metros, and the promotion of the Seoul Metro to the greatest under the sun.
On 20 October, the IP showed up for the first time on List of metro systems and proceeded to eliminate a serious contender in the race for world dominance , namely JR East. Its 7527.8km, proclaimed on these esteemed pages, would have been a clear hindrance in the ascendancy of the Seoul Metro. The IP cut down JR East to 34.5km by changing it to the Yamanote Line. Finally, I have the culprit for one of the silliest edits on this list. The Yamanote is one line of the JR, well, system, and it is not more the JR than the Circle line is the London Underground. Bad IP, bad!
Don’t let this momentary lapse of judgment taint the accomplishments of 125.130.108.7.
In the same edit, the IP elevated the Seoul Metropolitan Subway from “one of” the longest systems in the world to the throne of “the” longest system. Then, it concentrated its attention on making the new king to look as splendiferous as possible.
Something that could have been in the way of Seoul’s superiority would have been, gasp, commuter trains on its vast system. As the IP quickly learned, commuter train = bad, right down there with multi trip tickets and the abominable station-to-station fares. There was an entry in Seoul Metropolitan Subway that did read:
Can’t have riff-raff commuters. The IP whacked the sentence, and drowned it in a dark corner of the Han River.
Seoul was in trouble again when an editor by the name of Terramorphous declared Shanghai the world’s largest. First the Japanese, now the Chinese! Seoul is being undermined!
The inimitable (well, we’ll see about that) IP bought time by
deleting Shanghai so that it would not disturb a long list of Seoul’s superlatives. Still, it had the second longest … rail network behind the creepy Chinese. Clearly, more work was in order to prove the fact that Seoul has is the longest. Easy!
Add a few km here, and a few stations there (in-line references? Who needs them!) and the industrious IP was ready to put Seoul back on its throne. Take that, Middling Kingdom, dig a little more!
Having done its duty, user:125.130.108.7 more or less retired from the keyboard on December 30, 2013, not without adding a few more choice kilometers and stations here and there, to trump Terramorphous and the bu hao Chinese. A few days later, Seoul attracted the services of a freshly minted Wikipedia editor, and 125.130.108.7 could rest in peace.
Well, not quite.
For a few days, the IP graced the talk pages of List of metro systems, and introduced a certain distinctive style of debate, and editing.
That style was quickly emulated by user Massiveparser. Actually on January 3, Massiveparser purloined a long and rambling comment, made by the IP. Two minutes after the IP told Terramorphous to "watch out your words," Massiveparser declared the whole comment his own.
The IP did not complain - after all, there is no copyright on WP. The IP left the field to Massiveparser as far as trains were concerned. It made its last contribution to the cause on 24 January 2014 by establishing South Korea to its rightful top place of the Global Innovation Quotient, and finally, it retired from Wikipedia.
You will be missed, 125.130.108.7. But don’t worry. Your work will be continued by new generations, and the place of Seoul in the Walhalla of Metros is assured. BsBsBs ( talk) 18:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
“Trains on numbered lines generally run on the right-hand track, while trains on the named lines (e.g. Sinbundang Line, Bundang Line, and AREX) run on the left-hand track. The exceptions are the trains on Line 1, as well as those on Line 4 south of Namtaeryeong Station. These lines run on the left-hand track because these rail lines are operated by Korail, South Korea's main commuter rail provider.”
Sorry, but this entire section is obnoxious and illegitimate. There is nothing wrong with starting out as an anon IP editor and then deciding to register a user name. The implication that it is somehow wrong to do such is stupid and should be retracted. Yes, Massy has a singular focus, but there's nothing wrong with being a niche editor. Do I wish Massy would be more neutral, less wordy and not make dozens of corrections to their posts after their initial response (which I've mentioned to them before)? Yes. But frankly this behavior is is is getting immature and approaching harassment, and is BS. So is tagging every post by the editor. Just leave it alone. If you don't like Massy's posts, BsBsBs, ignore them. Or else I'll haul both of you off to WP:ANI where I'll bluntly suggest an interaction ban for the both of you. This behavior has to stop, on both sides! Seriously! oknazevad ( talk) 19:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
... appears to be losing important information pertaining to metro owners/operators. This is a high profile page, please monitor for consistency with what is listed here. BsBsBs ( talk) 14:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
As far as Korail's subways are concerned, there is a "Subways in Metropolitan Region" at Korail's website. I'm a bit confused, can't quite reconcile the data with what is listed. Seoul mavens, pls check. BsBsBs ( talk) 14:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Tough. We are only to work with reliable sources, and in this case Korail itself is the most reliable. The data in the article MUST agree with the source.Calling them and asking them to change the data to yours is the epitome of OR ... until the data is changed. BsBsBs ( talk) 20:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
BsBsBs, you need to stop that conspiracy theory against me. Stop your name-calling because it's a direct violation of WP:Civility and a blatant example of bullying. It's easier to get on with an editor if you don't question their motives as per WP:What is consensus? Anyways, if you haven't read what I wrote, I told them to update them, not change any data. I would really appreciate if you stop being blind to what I write and actually start to read things properly...because your conspiracy theory is clearly blurring your brain here. You really need to stop making groundless claims and please proof-read what you write. Or do you really have a problem in English as other editors have been concerned? I hope that's not the case. Now, as for IJBall, if you haven't looked at the referenced dictionary, it clearly shows that it is synonymous. I'm not interested in making up anything here. But that's not even important since the addition was to clarify why they call subways in Korean despite some sections being overground. So you're missing the point. Korail's English source defines them as subways, which is synonymous to heavy rail/metro as per APTA's source. NYC Subway and Beijing Subway are good examples of this.. Massyparcer ( talk) 21:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Massyparcer's sources are clearly not up to stuff. Just because they refer to the lines subways doesn't mean they are. The citation in does not in any way describe the technical and service standards of the line to verify that it is indeed rapid transit. It the sources translate and brand the lines as such but never produced any indication or proof that that are. In addition:
Some cities use metro as a brand name for a transit line with no component of rapid transit whatsoever.
Melbourne Trains got rebranded as Melbourne Metro is it rapid transit now? No of course not.
Terramorphous ( talk) 22:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
R: Revision as of 22:17, 23 February 2014
RR: Revision as of 22:38, 23 February 2014
RRR: Revision as of 23:24, 23 February 2014
Edit warring warning issued at 23:42, 23 February 2014
RRRR: Revision as of 23:45, 24 February 2014
WP:RRR#The three-revert rule states:
WP:RRR#The three-revert rule also states:
The edit at Seoul Metropolitan Subway was reverted a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot, and this is gaming the system, especially considering that, at 03:04, 24 February 2014, three hours after the third revert, the editor had declared his firm intent to continue the edit war.
I will not be drawn into this edit war. I have no experience in reporting these things, and I leave it to other editors to decide what to do about it. If they decide to take action, they may also take into account that the account is a repeat offender, which
You should also be aware that @ Ymblanter: will most likely recuse himself as involved, and that you may need to seek assistance from a different admin.
BsBsBs ( talk) 17:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
One lesson learned from Korean War II: This list is being used for propaganda purposes, and Superlatives invite trouble. After the recent IP edits, I have removed ALL superlatives, and we should not tolerate any on this list. With a heavy heart, the oldest metro, and the longest driverless metro fell victim of this. 17:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Im fine with this but if we can get a net of bullet proof sources then I think its fine to add it. Terramorphous ( talk) 21:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
As "commuter rail" has turned into an epithet around here, I have removed the "commuterlike" note group from (hopefully) all listings. To reintroduce, I would need to see a good source for each listing that says that this system is "commuterlike." See also previous discussion about the subtle differences between "commuter rail" and "commuter train." BsBsBs ( talk) 12:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Through its EU Committee, UITP has been recognised by the EU as a Representative Rail Association since 2005. UITP represents urban, suburban and regional rail service providers in the EU, and beyond. These particular railway services are most often operated under public service requirements following Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 in the EU. For this reason, UITP, and its EU Committee, are systematically consulted on rail issues raised by the European Commission (LINK TO www.europa.eu), or by the European Railway Agency (LINK TO www.era.europa.eu) that are in charge of setting up the regulatory framework for rail, including specifically the “TSIs” or Technical Specifications for Interoperability, as well as the European Safety specifications. These common specifications are necessary for achieving the interoperability of the European Union railway system.
Massyparcer ( talk) 17:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Oknazevad: Oh no, I am made to read EU-speak again! Please, and this goes for all types of bible studies here, we must always understand these things in the context they are written in. Quoting out of context is dangerous. The just cited UITP quote was not geared to define exactly what runs on what. It was written to state in which EU legal frameworks systems have to navigate, and where the possible legal (and other) overlaps are. Full quote:
"Suburban and Regional Rail: operated on ‘heavy’ rail infrastructure which is potentially interoperable with other types of rail transport services (freight and/or passenger), and which has to cope with the technical and safety requirements set up by the EU rail legislation; Urban Rail: consisting of tram, light rail, metro and some suburban-regional rail systems. Urban Rail describes a market generally physically and/or functionally separated from the interoperable EU railway network. Urban Rail is excluded from the technical rail directives under revision in the 4th Railway Package. Following initiatives taken jointly by UNIFE and UITP, and their “Urban Rail Platform” created in 2007, the harmonisation of urban rail is currently driven by EC mandate M/486 and CEN-CENELEC Guide 26, and it involves specific relationship with the European Commission, other rail associations, the ESOs and ERRAC."
So I thought I escaped Europe to get away from this, now it catches up with me again. Also, please note that they are not including blasted commuter rail with anything, because they don't mention said blasted commuter rail, most likely because commuter rail as a mode of transport does not exist in Europe.
In the interest of getting somewhere, editors are urged to understand that things are not as clear-cut as we wish, that elsewhere things can be different than in America, especially when you have highly developed and heavily used, local, national, and international passenger rail systems of all kinds that operate in densely populated areas. These things grow organically, and not necessarily in textbook fashion. BsBsBs ( talk) 17:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I've reorganized some sections due to their being so cluttered. Epicgenius ( talk) 13:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
To (hopefully) end the edit warring, I took out the left & right stuff ay Seoul Metropolitan Subway#Lines & Channels and put in the four owners of the various networks, cited form a source that I think, well, hope won't be doubted. I also added that the situation see,s to be similar to Japan and Europe, where the national railroad sometimes operates urban metros. BsBsBs ( talk) 19:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Unown:
Thank you for helping out checking sources. This list really needs it, and, I hope you will check out more. We need all the help we can get. I see you are brand-new on Wikipedia, so here a few tips: The data given must be sourced, and must jibe with the source.
Thank you for helping clean up. There are many entries that have no source at all! BsBsBs ( talk) 11:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Chongqing is a little hard to do because most sources count the monorail lines as part of the metro while this list doesn't. (which IMHO monorails should be counted if the monorail is proven to achieve over 30,000 pphpd) Terramorphous ( talk) 04:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I have added the missing info for S-Bahn Muenchen. Used route length as per intro. Not that it matters anymore, but I read that the 40 minute service frequency now is 10 minutes on most lines, and that the picturesque lone diesel line was electrified in 2013. I will now do some research on the JR. BsBsBs ( talk) 14:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I think I now realize why the Munich S-Bahn was not included in this list before. Track sharing with other intercity trains and freight traffic is a major problem with Munich S-Bahn that I have overlooked. Many lines in the Munich S-Bahn breach UITP criteria of "reserved tracks" and "totally independent from other traffic". Munich S-Bahn article says that "The S-Bahn partly operates on its own routes (one or two tracks), parts of it are double-track lines where S-Bahn operations are mixed with other traffic (passengers and freight), and in some cases more than two tracks are available. In the latter case one-or two tracks are set aside for the S-Bahn operations only and the two other tracks are used for the remaining traffic." For example, Linie S1 West is shares tracks with regional and Interregional (ALEX, DIX (Donau-Isar-Express)) services, as well as freight traffic. S2 West shares tracks with Intercity-Express services to Berlin and Hamburg as well as Frankfurt via Nuremberg, Regional services to Nuremberg and Ingolstadt and freight traffic. S3 West shares tracks with regional, long-distance and freight traffic. S4 shares tracks with various regional services every two hours, two hourly EuroCity service to Zürich, diverted long distance services from Augsburg-Munich line. The list goes on, which means these lines must be excluded from the count. I suggest removing Munich S-Bahn from the list until this is sorted out since a significant portion is commuter rail with all sorts of track sharing with ICE and freight traffic going on. Massyparcer ( talk) 18:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Here is a complete list of lines that breach the UITP definition and the full technical reasons and the traffic that's being shared:
Line | Route and section |
Distance from Hbf or Ostbf | Other traffic | Infrastructure |
---|---|---|---|---|
to | Trunk line Pasing–Hbf–Ostbahnhof |
11.4 km | Between Pasing and Hauptbahnhof some trains are operated between Donnersbergerbrücke and Hauptbahnhof by Bayerische Oberlandbahn | Three stations with three or more platform tracks, three stations using Spanish solution. |
West |
Munich–Regensburg railway Laim–Freising |
40.7 km | Regional and Interregional ( ALEX, DIX (Donau-Isar-Express)) services, as well as freight traffic. | Two tracks in mixed operation for 34.5 km. |
West |
Neufahrn Link Neufahrn–Airport West (7.3 km) |
40.8 km | S-Bahn only, except for occasional freight trains | Two tracks. |
West |
Munich–Ingolstadt line Laim–Petershausen |
36.4 km | Intercity-Express services to Berlin and Hamburg as well as Frankfurt via Nuremberg, Regional services to Nuremberg and Ingolstadt and freight traffic. | Separate S-Bahn (one or two tracks) in addition to high-speed tracks for ICE and other traffic. |
West |
Munich–Augsburg railway Pasing–Mammendorf |
31.0 km | Regional, long-distance and freight traffic. This is one of the busiest lines in Germany, so it was upgraded to four tracks for the S-Bahn. | Separate tracks for the S-Bahn (two to Maisach, then one to Mammendorf). |
West |
Allgäu Railway Pasing–Geltendorf |
42.1 km | Various regional services every two hours, two hourly EuroCity service to Zürich, diverted long distance services from Augsburg-Munich line | Two tracks mixed operations for 34.7 km. Electrified for the S-Bahn to Geltendorf. |
West |
Munich–Herrsching railway Pasing–Herrsching |
38.3 km | Only S-Bahn services. | Two tracks to Weßling, then single track. |
West |
Munich–Garmisch-Partenkirchen railway Pasing–Tutzing |
39.6 km | Regional services and occasional long distance trains to Garmisch-Partenkirchen. | Two separate S-Bahn tracks to Gauting, then two tracks in mixed operation. |
West |
Isar Valley Railway Solln–Wolfratshausen |
31.3 km | Only S-Bahn services. | Two tracks to Höllriegelskreuth, then single track. |
East |
Airport line Ostbahnhof–Ismaning–Airport |
33.1 km | Freight traffic between Daglfing and North Ring. | Continuous two tracks, some in mixed operation with freight. |
East |
Munich–Mühldorf railway and
Markt Schwaben–Erding railway Ostbahnhof–Markt Schwaben–Erding |
34.7 km | Freight and regional traffic towards Mühldorf and Freilassing to Markt Schwaben, then only S-Bahn traffic. | Two tracks in mixed operation to Markt Schwaben, then single track to Erding. |
East |
Munich–Rosenheim railway and
Grafing–Wasserburg railway Ostbahnhof–Grafing–Ebersberg |
31.0 km | Regional services to Rosenheim and Wasserburg, long distance services to Salzburg, as well as freight traffic. | Four tracks to Grafing (S-Bahn operations separated), then single track with mixed traffic. |
East |
Munich East–Deisenhofen railway and
Munich-Giesing–Kreuzstraße railway Giesing–Kreuzstraße |
30.1 km | S-Bahn only. | Single track. |
East |
Munich East–Deisenhofen railway and
Munich–Holzkirchen railway Ostbahnhof–Giesing–Deisenhofen–Holzkirchen |
31.2 km | S-Bahn only to Deisenhofen. The Bayerische Oberlandbahn also operates between Deisenhofen and Holzkirchen. | Two tracks. |
Sendling Clasp Pasing–Mittersendling (8.7 km) |
38.8 km (from Pasing) | Runs in part over freight tracks to/from Munich Laim marshalling yard. | Single track to Mittersendling, then continuing on the Munich–Holzkirchen railway. | |
Munich–Holzkirchen railway Hbf–Holzkirchen |
36.5 km | Regional services of the Bayerischen Oberlandbahn. | Two tracks in mixed operations. |
Massyparcer ( talk) 19:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
The Munich S-bahn should not be included as it is operated with other non-metro traffic. Terramorphous ( talk) 22:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, I think this system was originally added to "prove a point". Now that I think the issue of the "definition" of a true "metro" system has been settled, can we please agree to delete the Munich S-Bahn systems from the list, as is shares rails with other rail types, and therefore doesn't truly operate in its "own right of way" (i.e. exclusively)? Thanks in advance... -- IJBall ( talk) 16:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
IJ: I recommend to allow things to settle a bit. I think the matter of the list inclusion/exclusion still needs some work. Once we can do this constructively, this should not be long. Trust me, I am completely agnostic when it comes to who is the biggest metro (the Chinese are winning this anyway, they are digging furiously, and there is no doubt that the system has one owner ........). I have a valid NYC MetroCard, a Hong Kong Octopus, a Tokyo SUICA (where $100 evaporate quicker than water on a hot tin roof), and whatever they call those things in Beijing, and Shenzhen, China. I am metromultisexual! Please no fait accompli until dust and nerves settle. Thank you! BsBsBs ( talk) 16:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Comment: How is the S-Bahn considered a metro system? It's actually a form of commuter rail, in my opinion. Epicgenius ( talk) 02:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Why am I being forced here to write legal briefs without earning the customary $500/hr?
In the old media handout from 12.11.08 (preserved in Google cache), the UITP said:
"Metros are totally independent from other traffic, road or pedestrians. They are consequently designed in tunnel, viaducts or on surface level but with physical separation." (Emphasis mine.)
In the new, formal definition from 5 October 2011 the UITP says:
"[Metros] are consequently designed for operations in tunnel, viaducts or on surface level but with physical separation in such a way that inadvertent access is not possible." (Emphasis mine.)
I would not be surprised if between 2008 and 2011, a WP-like debate over the meaning of "physical separation" took place, and that the "physical separation" was amplified to "in such a way that inadvertent access is not possible." To my regret, I must say that I have too much experience with EU regulatory language. One of the devices to stop inadvertent access is a boom barrier, just like a lockable door can (when closed) prevent inadvertent access to our house, and just like with such a lockable door, the inside of our house is "physically separated" from the public outside, even when there is a door, and not just a window- and door-less wall, which some (but not many) may erroneously assume.
In Europe at least, an inspector who is looking for the required prevention of "inadvertent access," will put a big check mark next to "physical separation" when he is shown the closeable gate.
If the UITP would have wanted to say "no level crossings," it would not have needed all that complicated verbiage. It could have simply written "Level crossings are not allowed." (And the cement manufacturing and civil engineering lobbies would have high-fived.)
Why do I have to write all this? This is getting big-time ludicrous. WP:OR warns us not to read things into sources that aren't there. If a newer definition is found that expressly disallows level crossings, and that disqualifies a metro if such devices are found, then I will myself remove any alleged metros that have these nasty implements. Until this is done, I strongly recommend to table this matter.
If we no longer want to trade threadbare arguments, we should focus on writing a better list definition instead of reading moldy tea-leaves. This process starts with discussing what we want from this list. If we can find a way to exclude sub-standard wanna-be metros from this list, I will be the first one to hit the delete button. The inclusion of the S-Bahnen (and there will be more) was expressly meant to move this discussion into this very productive direction. If we don't think they are a metro, then we should discuss it, and, depending on the outcome, find a way to exclude them. Inclusion and exclusion criteria offer a wide latitude. See operator vs. owner. BsBsBs ( talk) 17:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Whoa. It seems whenever things turn out unfavorable to you, you go straight to questioning my motives with groundless claims and attacking me personally in an attempt to mislead other editors. Stop being deliberately hostile to me and convince the editors with hard-cold sources instead of resorting to dirty tactics like personal attacks and questioning the others' motives as per WP:NPA:
What is considered to be a personal attack?
- Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream
- Criticisms of, or references to, personal behavior in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page.
Remember: Comment on content, not on the contributor.
Please read WP:NPA. You really need to stop your wikidrama and stop getting overly emotional about me. Massyparcer ( talk) 15:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
"inadvertent access" = access resulting from or achieved through deliberate planning. A closeable gate provides none of that sort. Most people can easily vault over or get around a the most well built grade crossing barriers if they deliberately wanted to. A self contained subway system on a viaduct or tunnel or completely fenced grade separated ROW is pretty hard to break into even if you want to. Long story short the Munich S-bahn is not Rapid Transit. Terramorphous ( talk) 04:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
This is a slightly unrelated question, but does the existence of low-level platforms disqualify a railway from being a metro? Epicgenius ( talk) 14:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
What do you think about adding ridership data from Metro_systems_by_annual_passenger_rides to this article? So that we get rid of a slightly redundant article and make this one more complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.1.82.160 ( talk) 21:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)