Talk:List of metro systems

Tehran Metro

The Tehran Metro editing is getting ridiculous. I'm not going to revert this time and get trapped into a backdoor edit war. But somebody needs to restore some halfway decent stats there. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Catania metro

I've seen there was a discussion about the Catania metro in the past and at the end it was decided to cut it from the list although there were several reasons and opinions to leave it in the list. I absolutely would like to reintegrate it in the list, simply because it is a real metro. Maybe it's still small, but it's a normal, typical metro, with the "heavy rail" typical characteristics. The single track is just a very small part (1,8 km) of the whole system and next year the full length will be 8,9 km, all in the urban area, all underground and with double-track. This will also allows trains passing every 4-8 minutes (actually they start to run every 15 minutes simply because the line is still to short and it would be not convenient to use more trains). There are eight Firema M88 trains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreaTartaglia (talk • contribs) 17:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

There's a very simple reason we don't include it – the UITP reference that this article relies on doesn't include it in its list of world metro systems. On Wikipedia, we follow sources, and UITP not including it is definitive. There are other reasons that it shouldn't be included here, but the UITP issue is the most important factor. Note, of course, that Catania is included at the Light metro article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Where can I find the UITP world metro systems list, please? Reporting the Brescia metro (for example) and not the Catania one seems a nonsense.

It's this: [1]. Unfortunately, the map used to be "clickable" so a larger version could be viewed, and it doesn't seem to be any longer, but it can still be seen that no system in Sicily is listed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, someone has just to notice Uitp! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreaTartaglia (talk • contribs) 21:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

We can finally add Catania, as UITP replied me they were actually missing it. The mistake has been corrected as UITP added Catania to the 2014 data, published a couple of weeks ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreaTartaglia (talk • contribs) 20:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• I've removed this as it clearly falls short of the criteria for being a metro, and there is still not RS to support the claim of it being a full metro. ColonialGrid (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I add it again because I've taken it and it's a real metro, now also included in the UITP list as a metro. It's absurd and unreasonable not to put it. Also because there are other systems like the Brescia and Turin ones that are not considered real metros in Italy (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitana_in_Italia) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.83.66.57 (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

They use automated rolling stock from AnsaldoBreda; they're used on the Copenhagen and Rome metros, as well as several others in the future, so I don't see how Brescia or Turin would be considered exceptions to this, that being considered (if that were case, then Bilbao ought to be excluded as well). 74.94.48.153 (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that there is no reference currently that confirms UITP intends to include this system among its list of world metro systems. (A "personal communication" is not a reliable source as far as Wikipedia policies go.) So I still maintain it should be excluded, at least until such time as such a reference is provided.

Now, there is a larger issue in that some of the systems included by both UITP and LRTA do not objectively meet the full metro criteria (I'm thinking of a number of the French, Italian, and Spanish systems, including especially both Catania and Palma, as well as Rennes), which is unfortunate as it puts us editors in a real bind. But in Catania's case, the single-tracking, as well as the 15 minute headways and small vehicle sizes, really should rule it out from inclusion here, objectively. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Consult the 2014 Uitp data, it is possible to buy it and there's the Catania metro. The single track line is just for 1,8 km (3,8 it's the total at the right moment, fortunately in 2016 there will be almost 9 kms, the extensions are all double track). There are 8 Firema trains, usually they are used in the basic combination of two cars, that has a capacity of 442 passengers, but all the 4 (10 since 2016) underground stations can host a double train of 4 cars (the Brescia vehicle has a minor capacity). The frequency will pass from 15' to 4'. I also agree to leave Turin and Brescia, although for the Italian technical criteria they are light metro, while the Rome, Naples, Catania and Milan ones are typical "heavy" metros. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreaTartaglia (talk • contribs) 17:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I've actually said nothing about whether Catania will qualify after the extension – that's a discussion we can have at that time. I'm just saying that, right now, it doesn't appear to qualify. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, but a small line that is single track for over half its length and is restricted to four services an hour is simply not a metro. I have again removed it from the list as there is no consensus for it to be added (indeed, the majority opinion is clearly that it should not be included). If you wish to deliver a source which clearly states it for be a metro (I suspect one may be able to be found after the extensions), but until then, do not re-add it, it will simply be removed again. Regarding your contentions that other Italian systems do not qualify: I agree, however, there are reliable sources that claim them to be a metro, and we repeat what reliable sources say, this is why you need a reliable source. I know you have said the UITP now say it's a metro, and if that is the case, provide a link. ColonialGrid (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

"a small line that is single track for over half its length and is restricted to four services an hour is simply not a metro". This is only your opinion. WP:NPOV. Next time found an excuse smarter of it.--79.13.0.179 (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• It may be my opinion, but what you are proposing is WP:OR, at least my opinion is consistent with [[WP:V]. Want it added? Find a source. ColonialGrid (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I added three sources and I adjusted the formatting, that you deleted. All in english. I think they are very clear. Ok, you think they are not verifiable? Why? The list of UITP include Catania also, only the image do not. :|--79.13.0.179 (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so delete Milan Metro, becouse it isn't in the UITP list. Delete Bresca Metro, it isn't on the list. Delete Porto Alegre Metro, that it no resulte in the UITP list. And so on...--79.13.0.179 (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• But Milan, Bresca, and Port Alegre are listed as metros by the UITP, that is why they are included. I may not agree with the UITP on that, but, our policies regarding WP:V kinda force our hands on it. ColonialGrid (talk) 15:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

But what sense does it pretend to Catania sources inclusion in UITP (which by the way is only an observer, not valid as a primary source ...), but only and exclusively for this city? I mean, no one ever asked for a source on the UITP regarding the other services in the metropolitan world. Why? I can see that all of metropolitan services Italian does not refer to the UITP, but note overs exclusively or almost exclusively to the official website, I think. And so in other parts of Europe. Require the source UITP exclusively on Catania it has something embarrassing. If it requires for all other meter, then we can discuss it.
Ah, I do not accept judgments on writing in Italian on wp.eng, considering that in the past I have received several calls for collaboration on wp.it by admin of this wiki, strictly in English. I would also tired to have to write in a language not mine, when the other side there is no reciprocity. Thank you for understanding [USED GOOGLE TRANSLATE - bofatinculu]--82.51.35.241 (talk) 07:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

What do you think the Catania metro is? It is just a metro. Nowadays it's underutilized, no doubt about this aspect (looking forward summer 2016), but even so it's a metro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreaTartaglia (talk • contribs) 14:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• I have again removed this entry from the list, please do not read add it without first gaining consensus to do so, also be aware that edit warring is verboten and can lead to a block. All entries in this list have reliable sources claiming them to be metros, with most listed as such by the UIPT, this is consistent with Wikipedia's variability policy, and to make additions without a reliable source supporting is original research or synthesis. However, I will engage in some OR to support why I do not think Catania should be included. The UIPT define a metro as (with this article containing a similar definition): "Metros are high capacity urban guided transport systems, mostly on rails, running on an exclusive right-of-way without any interference from other traffic or level crossings and mostly with some degree of drive automation and train protection. These design features allow high capacity trains to run with short headways and high commercial speed. Metros are therefore suitable for the carriage of high passenger flows, and as such constitute the backbone of many public transport systems. Metro lines included in the above statistics run with trains composed of minimum two cars and with a total capacity of at least 100 passengers." On this criteria Catania fails badly in headway with only four trains per hour and therefore cannot sustain "the carriage of high passenger flows", having a maximum throughput of less than 2000 people per hour. If, however, a source can be found and provided that claims Catania to be a metro, it will need to be included, and the upcoming extension may provide that. Until that happens, or there is local consensus for it to be added, it should remain omitted from the list. ColonialGrid (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello; I repeat that is possible to buy the Uitp 2014 Data including the Catania metro, actually a demonstration it satisfies their criteria. If you can't have a look, you can note that the 2013 Uitp data report 45 european cities having a metro system and the 2014 one reports 46; at the same time there were no new metros inaugurated. The difference is due to the Uitp update. If I could, I would attach the communication I've received from Uitp. I also inform you that each two-cars train has a capacity of 442 passengers (Uitp asks at least 100) and there are 8 trains per hour (in both directions). Anyway, as the sources about the upcoming extensions may provide that Catania is a metro, I report some hoping they can be useful. :) https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/WXSgOMZ75exXVc0NQawkQWg3HmAK4O8szWSbuqtrSPoDLpX4d5mIOCOXz2SLtyix9hqoRrnyeo-tQ80PMuf5ed-wJ17yEA_axotnKL8KE804ETDz3xWCXzGpOmbYXhM0Bpko4decjjGRhOhFpulCw0ooUdpv6veDZzuiWAda_3tFNuaPglzFBG_TiJg0xW5CIyXwmKoEIz3F9F-RwX_PchJp2eY8RMKAaWdAUbLwXDSYszjbim5l7GtjRN6AcAW1lb0Es03WCWBBL0bApiX6ZHmin2BdxfNFlb11QxLzJEvC3Yl5F1wb2LabiUHsC-CEm0Gmd8tiJxI1GDUaokUDld9y1Ijoq4N6PnLRxw3GQNZ7RLLJGFsxVWhmparerwpRWenZJ_nmmzNR3kI4GoShPPsAr2dMRBOe7y_Q48VaRxkB-B_ucdlNdvTSUc8rCAa_7tETslfVK_tvvT_JNeZANBOYmClyhXFicnbsdLFg8g-skyyyJ-p2yaQaOR9JBUuKXuc9zoaSi1Y-OCf7OXjcHdCZs3eJZne5bpnwjFCZbAjDZplZt2j4QNQQbkpDdjrbqDkn=w720-h769-no — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreaTartaglia (talk • contribs) 17:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC) http://www.ravennanotizie.it/articoli/2015/07/25/il-ministro-delrio-visita-il-cantiere-cmc-della-metropolitana-di-catania.html http://catania.gds.it/2015/11/28/metropolitana-di-catania-i-lavori-proseguiranno-regolarmente_442447/ http://catania.mobilita.org/2015/12/09/metropolitana-i-lavori-procedono-spediti-rispettato-il-cronoprogramma/ http://catania.blogsicilia.it/caso-tecnis-garanzie-per-lavoratoristipendi-salvi-per-cantiere-metropolitana/317643/ http://catania.mobilita.org/2015/05/09/metropolitana-il-cronoprogramma-ufficiale/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTuBz1jisTw http://catania.mobilita.org/2015/08/04/video-dentro-la-stazione-milo-della-metropolitana/ http://www.lurlo.info/it/metropolitana-di-catania-la-promessa-e-che-arrivi-a-meta-2016/ http://catania.mobilita.org/2015/11/20/metropolitana-da-lunedi-ingresso-con-abbonamento-solo-attraverso-titoli-elettronici/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neLDO5wjd-U http://catania.mobilita.org/2015/09/09/metro-stazione-stesicoro-piccoli-passi-avanti/ OFFICIAL PRESS CONFERENCE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PikAFjN_hGc http://catania.mobilita.org/2015/07/27/fotometropolitana-stazione-di-via-milo-mancano-solo-i-lavori-di-completamento/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ShwoX9vaRM — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreaTartaglia (talk • contribs) 17:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• The Google link doesn't work, can you try again (a link to the actual page rather than a Google redirect would be much better)? I have no doubt that the system is often called a metro, but that doesn't make it a metro. In my state the capital city's (Melbourne's) commuter system is called metro, a new tunnel called Melbourne Metro is being built, and the state government has just announced a 'Bendigo Metro', however, none of these qualify as actual metros, just as Catania may call itself a metro, but isn't one (yet). ColonialGrid (talk) 06:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Not a metro, short and simple. With 4 trains per hour the Catania system has a capacity of 1768 people per hour per direction. A tram line has a larger capacity. When the southern expansion of the line opens and frequencies ramp up then we could look at adding it.Terramorphous (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly classifying a public transport network has become somewhat a “slippery subject”, due to tireless marketing efforts from both planners/manufacturers, who has to sell their product to municipal authorities, and political deciders, who has to “sell” their project to voters; hence the need to rely upon reliable, authoritative and unbiased sources. Sure UITP does have these features, and checking in its list is indubitably the best way to corroborate some network claims to be a metro; but unfortunately UITP list isn't free of charge, on-line available and this is a big issue from Wikipedia perspective: the only thing we can provide with a public link (an annual report synthesis: here the 2015 one, referring to 2014 data) is how many system they acknowledge as metro (numbers are aggregated by geographical area). The aforementioned “UITP metro world map” that is being repeatedly quoted in this talk and stated as a source for the article is an una tantum graphical work, drown in 2014 merely for an UITP seminar (as you can easily realize once you read the “news” page from which the image is taken); therefore, referring to this map as the definitive criterion to consider when you decide whether a system is actually a metro or not is rather inappropriate: since the image may not (and likely won't) be updated and might never show new items and later addenda or corrections, this way no more system could be added to the Wikipedia list. At the most, we can usefully employ UITP references that can be found on internet as a necessary condition: even if we aren't able to find a proof that a city is among the UITP list, we can't tell for sure it isn’t there. Consequently, the Wikipedia list need other sources upon which to base the judgment: I humbly suggest to use, alongside UITP and LRTA, the R. Schwandl (a well known and recognized author) site www.urbanrail.net and another qualified source just like a sort of electoral college: if at least three out of four of these sources agree in classifying a certain system as “a metro”, that system can be add to this Wikipedia list. I think the “fourth elector” could be the metrobits.org “World Metro Database”; although the main list is rather liberal (the site criteria page states “The Metrobits database includes full metro systems completely. But it also includes cities with metro-like sections ...”), clicking on and opening each city page you can see there's a record named System type which clearly indicate whether is counted as a real metro or not (by database authors): two example, one (Paris) that both the database and everyone thinks is actuality a metro; ad one (Haifa Carmelit) that hardly anyone could think it is a metro, and neither the database does.

Speaking about the latest controversy about Italian systems, it's undeniable that from an infrastructural point of view Catania doesn't lack anything: the line is built under heavy metro standard and everything allows real metro operations (line geometry, loading gauge, platform length, signalization, power supply, railway equipment, etc.). So this city case has nothing to do with those, like the Melbourne commuter rail network mentioned by ColonialGrid, where the infrastructure is per se inadequate to host a full-fledged metro service. It's true that, by now, the Catania line is blatantly short (3,8 km), but this was, officially and from the start, only a first phase of a wider project: issues, mistakes and misfortune have lead to an humungous delay, leaving the line in this temporary startup condition. Even the single track section is a pretend issue, amplified by the incomplete status of this metro: although rather unusual, single track outer portions (e.g. Bilbao L1 between Urduliz stop and Pletzia terminus) or short spur branches are not unseen. Contrariwise, the current service can be objectively deemed not enough to get the lower “metro” threshold in a lot of aspect (headway, global capacity, length, patronage, etc.) and is conceivable that someone object about it, but I think this situation could, very openhanded, be equated with service disruptions that can follow a major harmful occurrence: with the difference that in this case the “previous state of good repair” was only on paper (literally) and “restoration work” are progressing with a lazy snail pace. While there isn't a linkable support about UITP has actually added it now to its list, however you can find an indirect clue that this is really happened comparing their latest annual report synthesis with the previous one: in Europe area, metro systems have grown by one (from 45 to 46), notwithstanding no new metro was opened there during 2014. According to this foregoing considerations, and since LRTA, Urbanrail.net(note the red square and the bold letters for Catania) and Metrobits.org count Catania as a metro, an acceptable compromise could be to put Catania again in the Wikipedia list, adding an Nb note that clearly explain the situation. Otherwise (but personally I don't endorse this choice), at least put Catania in the “under construction” list, adding an Nb note that explain how a short section is already opened, but the current service isn't enough to satisfy “real metro” parameters. Excluding this city at all from the page in spite of a lot of positive circumstances, only because it was missed in a not up-to-date map or because someone think so, would be arbitrary and unfair. (93.57.250.62 (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC))

Brescia and Genoa

User:Oknazevad wrote "light metros" have their own list. This does not belong here. Ok. I can read "Brescia-Brescia Metro-Trains: 3-car config, 39 metres length." on Medium-capacity rail transport system; I can read also "Genoa-Genoa Metro-Generally considered to be a "light metro" considering its low frequency, limited hours of operation and reduced transport capacity. It is actually categorized as "light rail" by LRTA." in the article. Ok?--79.13.0.179 (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• As I said earlier, the UITP classifies both these systems as metros, that is why they were in the list. I think they should probably remain in the list because a reliable sources claims them to be metros, and that is pretty much what WP:V says we should do, but, similarly agree that they are probably light metros not full metros. ColonialGrid (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, I can read "The Genoa Metro (Italian: Metropolitana di Genova) is a light metro consisting of a single line that connects [...]". Just here: Genoa Metro. :|--79.13.0.179 (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, I read: "The Turin Metro (Italian: Metropolitana di Torino) is the VAL metro system serving Turin". Here: Turin Metro. :|--79.13.0.179 (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, there are quite a few that are considered a metro by one source and a light metro by another, this discussion has arisen multiple times (look through the archives of this talk page) and it has generally been the rule that if a highly reliable source such as the UITP consider a system a metro, it is included. As I've said before, I don't know that I agree with the UITP on some of there calls, but WP:V kinda dictates that these systems should be included. ColonialGrid (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Ehm... Catania is included in the UITP list (now). It wasn't on the map only for distraction :|--79.13.0.179 (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Where? Provide a link to support your claim. ColonialGrid (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)