Talk:Medium-capacity rail system

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Would these system classify as medium capacity?[edit]

I notice other metro networks around the work with 3 car configurations. Would they classify as medium capacity? Examples would be Bangkok BTS Skytrain, LA subway (Red Line) and Oslo T-Bane. Themanilaxperience (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say for sure. But they should be considered "MCS" when the railway official actually calls them by that definition. And MCS is only meaningful when there's heavy-capacity system(s) in the same area in comparison. Otherwise they should be simply addressed either light rail, metro or rapid transit system. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A 3-car configuration on the Los Angeles Red Line is not possible. The trains are made up of car-pairs. The line either runs with a 4-car or 6-car train (at least if I am remembering right). JoeD80 (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The last time I was in LA I rode The Red Line to Hollywood and I counted 3 cars. This line uses heavy rail stock but when I saw the config then I would classify it as medium capacity. On the other hand, the green an blue lines fit this category though they are really light rail metros. Another would be HK's MTR Ma On Shan line. A 4 car config is standard size for most heavy rail metros. Similar configs would be Johannesburg's Gautrain, Manila's LRT-2 and Vancouver's Canada Line. These metro lines are more classified as heavy rail rather than medium capacity. Themanilaxperience (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would the D Branch portion of the MBTA Green Line (Boston) qualify? If you ride from Lechmere to Riverside, you're always on dedicated right-of-way, with stations typically separated by 1 mile. Leviramsey (talk) 03:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Should Sofia metro line 3 be listed as light metro? It was often called that while it was being planned, but some reports now say its platforms will finally be 105 meters long[1] although they officially ordered 60 m trains from Siemens[2], so doubling them would be too long for those platforms and wouldn't make sense to be a bigger train. Anyway, I put Sofia line 3 on the list but I suppose it should be deleted if someone knows better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.16.45 (talk) 12:10, 8 December 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.urbanrail.net/eu/bg/sofia/sofia.htm
  2. ^ https://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/global/SiteCollectionDocuments/en/rail-solutions/metros/slideshow/metro-sofia-en.pdf

File:Ulgorchakova-mm01.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Ulgorchakova-mm01.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver SkyTrain[edit]

Can anyone explain why Vancouver's SkyTrain is included here? Is it that they only run 3- or 4-car train configurations? Or is it a ridership level issue?

Because I think the SkyTrain is usually considered to be fully "heavy rail" from what I have seen... --IJBall (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid MetroRail Gurgaon[edit]

I've removed the [dubious - discuss] tag and reintroduced the cite as all three support the supposition that the line was designed to carry 30,000pph. Railway Gazette say: "Design capacity of the line is 30 000 passengers per hour."; Totalrail say: "Design capacity of the line is 30,000 passengers per hour."; and Subway.net say: "The trains are expected to transport 30,000 people per hour with 2 minute headways." Sure, they may say that trains which can carry 800 each will operate at 120 second headways, equally a 24,000 throughput, but that doesn't mean the system isn't designed to carry 30,000 at a 96 second headway. ColonialGrid (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I missed that Subway.net had the same figure (embarrassing, as I even looked for it); and I didn't even notice that Railway Gazette had it too. But while I won't object, I am still dissatisfied – the current system is at 24,000 PPHPD, not at 30,000, and none of these refs actually explain where the 30,000 PPHPD comes from. (I assume it's running headways better than every 2 minutes, as you say (running every 90 seconds would actually be 32,000 PPDPH), but nothing in these current refs say anything about that...) With the caveat that they're only running 24,000 PPHPD right now, I am satisfied that this system is "medium" and not "full metro" currently... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda agree, but we have four different sources (including the company that built and operate the line) all saying the 30,000 pph design spec; saying anything else would be synth. ColonialGrid (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, mostly agree. But I slightly reworded that one in a way that I think satisfied my concerns (the former wording rather more implied 30,000 PPDPH "now", while I think the revised wording more clearly points in the direction of them not running it at 30,000 PPHPD right now...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Much clearer. ColonialGrid (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources to improve the article[edit]

I just noticed the tag @IJBall: placed on their own edit, so thought I'd hunt around for some sources. I'll add them here as a find them.

  • Mandri-Perrott, C 2010, Private Sector Participation in Light Rail/Light Metro Transit Initiatives, The World Bank, Washington, <http://www.ppiaf.org/sites/ppiaf.org/files/publication/PSP-LightRail-CMandri-Perrott.pdf>. - The glossary on page XVII has some succinct descriptions, while chapter one has a bit more depth (p. 11 has a definitions, but not great; pp.17-19 has a table 1.1 and prose with a good comparison of attributes). The case studies in the annex (thought it would have been appendix) pp. 205-243 may be use for this page and articles. ColonialGrid (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also found Comparative Analyses of APM and LRT Systems for Medium-Capacity Guideway Transit Applications but can't find it publicly available yet. It does however support IJBall's assertion that medium-capacity is sometimes referred to as 'light rail transit'. Also, IJBall, I'm not trying to give you a work load, just do some research to help you out; these links come without any expectations or time frame. ColonialGrid (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh. I get it believe me – it's just that I'm currently distracted on another project (trying to get an article relisted as a Featured list...). And, FTR, I didn't make the claim that light metros are sometimes called "light rapid transit" (though, I believe that this claim is likely true) – someone else did; I just added the {{citation needed}} tag. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you did, I missread your edit summary, my mistake. Either way, the article is now a little better sourced! ColonialGrid (talk) 10:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs a retitle...[edit]

While we're on the subject, I have strongly disliked the title of this article for a while (effectively, as far as I can tell, the article's current title comes straight from an English translation of a Chinese source, which would explain the current title's clunkiness....) and The World Bank reference that ColonialGrid links to above pretty much synches the case against it. One of these days (...and I don't know when, as I'm starting to get busy again these days), I'm planning on launching a Requested move on the topic. In the meantime, I definitely think we should mull over suggestions for a new article title. Based on The World Bank source (and my own feelings on the subject), I really think Medium-capacity rail should be the concise revised title. But, like I said – suggestions to achieve a better consensus title are welcome... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Completely agree, the current name is far from ideal. I support a move to Medium-capacity rail but would also be happy with Light metro. ColonialGrid (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also wouldn't have a problem with "light metro", but I think it was moved from that as "light metro" is considered a "European-only" term that is completely unused in North America (dunno about Australia...), which seems to be a fair enough criticism, I guess. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Australia we don't really use either term. Metro is used by politicians to describe the modernisation process of our commuter rail systems, with Sydney having many attempts at a metro (now building a line in the 'burbs) and Melbourne building the Melbourne Metro which, like the City Loop is a tunnel to provide an alternative route for commuter trains. Similarly, we use the term light rail almost elusively for what are essentially trams (but the term tram seems antiquated, and light rail modern). So I can only go on what sounds best. I'd be okay with Medium-capacity rail or Light metro. ColonialGrid (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little late to this discussion but William Middleton called the Buffalo Metro Rail a "light metro." Mackensen (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd still like to start a WP:RM discussion for this article. It just needs to be at a time of my own choosing (i.e. launching the RM when I have a little more time). So that probably means December. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Medium-capacity rail transport system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bangkok MRT: MRT Purple Line.[edit]

Is this a light metro? If so, we may need to add BTS Skytrain on the list because the system is more "light" than purple line (actually the Purple line, one of the MRT lines, is regarded as a heavy rail). Does anyone have data of the capacity or p/h/d?--Fly2Blue (talk) 12:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MRTA stated that BTS was built with more than 50,000 p/h/d in mind. Since MRT Blue and Purple line use same type of train as BTS. It can be safely assumed that it will have the capacity of more than 50,000 p/h/d too. Point is, while platform can handle train with the length of 120m (6-car train). They only use 3-car train right now (BTS using 4-car train). And I don't know if "more than 50,000 p/h/d" is with 3-car and 4-car trains. Or they have to run 6-car train.WASDPro (talk) 11:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Medium-capacity rail transport system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Medium-capacity rail system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Error in table[edit]

For some reason Taiwan has ended up as a city of Spain. It happened a while ago but I cannot find what has been coded wrong. Maybe somebody with more technical knowledge than me, can correct it. Fomalhaut76 (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. This is the downside of using 'rowspan' in tables, a practice that I find myself increasingly against using. FWIW... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to no rhyme or reason to the inclusion of examples[edit]

So, there are two logical ways to determine that something counts as a member of "medium rail."

1. The system is designated as "medium rail" by the authority that runs it. 2. The system is "medium rail" by some objective measure.

Take the Miami Metromover for example. It's classified as a people mover by Miami, and it runs small, one- to two-car trains. Compare this objective size to a Docklands Light Rail train.

I think the "list of systems" part of this article needs to be overhauled with more consistent principles of inclusion.

Pretendus (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Currently included systems are based on sourcing calling them "light metros", etc. not on WP:OR. If you don't like the current list, then you need to find new (secondary) sources. (Note that referencing the authority running a system qualifies as a primary source, and is less preferable than a secondary source defining a system...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Budapest Line M1[edit]

I know officially it is not considered as light rail, but it is definitely not a heavy rail and I don't think it is a tram - so being in between them, Metro Line M1 (Budapest Metro) might be referred as a light rail as far as I know. Please correct me if I misunderstood the definition of the medium-capacity rail system. Best. vampeare (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

O-train Confederation Line[edit]

Confederation Line opens next week, just wondering what we're doing with it? My assumption is it belongs here especially since it's fully grade separated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nlsanand (talk • contribs) 16:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With this list, I've tried to pare it down to just those systems where a (preferably secondary) source specifically describes the system as a "medium-capacity" system or a "light metro". So if somebody can produce sources calling the Confederation Line either a "medium-capacity" system or a "light metro", then it belongs here. But if there are no sources calling it that, then it doesn't belong. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go [1] Terramorphous (talk) 00:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That uses neither the terms "medium capacity" or "light metro". In fact, I don't see any WP:RS using those specific terms after a quick look. (Though we'll still have to see how the Light Rail Transit Association categorizes the line...) I see some sources maybe quoting capacity numbers for the Confederation Line, but I don't see them using these actual terms. I think it's hard to justify including this line either here, or at List of metro systems, without some RS actually categorizing this line as such. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Metrolink and other similar systems[edit]

Would systems like the St. Louis Metrolink, the D Line in Boston, LA Metro's Green Line, and Seattle's Red Line be considered a light metro? They all seem to be closer to that of a rapid transit service than other light rail systems. Grade crossings are sometimes brought up, but the Chicago "L" also has grade crossings. --Rckania (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No – because they aren't categorized as such, and secondary sources do not refer to them as such. Even LA Metro's Green Line, when I looked, is not really referred to as a "light metro" or anything like that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is this source that suggests Seattle's Link Red line could be considered [2], this website, which has been used to cite Wikipedia before, suggests that that the Green Line can be considered a full metro line [3], and there is also the fact that the D line was converted from a commuter line, but I guess light rail will always be this big gray area with a wide range of transit types, at least in the United States.--Rckania (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jakarta LRT[edit]

In reply to the comment -> Again, LRT Jakarta only 2 carriages, the Jakarta LRT is only a light rail (equivalent to a tram). And also the line only covers 5 km. and the Jakarta LRT is already on the list Here. If you want to add here please start discussion in Talk Page.

Light rail and light metro both have their own definitions, the main divider being whether the whole line is grade-separated or not. Since the Jakarta LRT is fully grade-separated, it classifies as a metro. The fact that it runs only with two carriages then makes it a light metro. The fact that it is roughly 6 km doesn't affect much, even if it did: works have started to expand it.

If two points of view exist, due weight hast to be given to both points of view. Since I found sources [4][5][6] stating the Jakarta LRT is a light metro line, it deserves to be mentioned here as well. KatVanHuis (talk) 09:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Ave shuttle[edit]

Does the Franklin ave shuttle count as a light metro? It's considered part of the NYC subway, but it uses short train and the infrastructure is designed to only handle these short trains. There is also the fast that it is considered a different type of service by the MTA than the normal subway routes. Rckania (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least this article shouts it is a SUBWAY LINE. Perhaps another source will point out its lower capacity. KatVanHuis (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
nycsubway.org: BMT Brighton Line This source also points out that the infrastructure is only enough to handle 2 cars. Rckania (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In Brooklyn, It’s the Little Train That Can - The New York Times (nytimes.com) This article from the NYT also points out it's lower capacity and different operating practices, but I'm not sure if it's enough to qualify. Rckania (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second source is more official and also reveals the daily ridership of 20k per day, so it looks good for now! KatVanHuis (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you for your recent additions @Rckania! I didn't have a clear picture of Chicago's Yellow Line, but the century old history is more than interesting. Indeed I've read the sources mentioning it to be "light-rail like", but I think that has largely been lost after renovating the line around 2004. The trainsets that are used are regular heavy rail trains; the Yellow lines sometimes even uses trainsets from other lines. Anyway: just my two cents.
And I was wondering how they created level-crossings with a third rail, but the result is rather disappointing. KatVanHuis (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they were still using overhead wires, I think there would be very little question about whether Yellow Line is considered light metro (light rail using heavy rolling stock). However, even the CTA themselves have described the Yellow Line as being more like a light rail line. I think that's enough RS to push it over the edge. But, if someone decides to remove it, I won't argue with them. Rckania (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before 2004, the Yellow Line even had it own dedicated fleet. Rckania (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Light rail using heavy rolling stock" is impossible as light rail uses tramcars/trolleys (or at least cars with tram-like capabilities) by definition.[7][8] Yes, the Yellow Line's former fleet adds up to the interesting history! KatVanHuis (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although the three shuttle routes of the NYC Subway are limited by platform length to short trains, they have full track connections to the rest of the system to allow trains to be moved on and off for maintenance at shops and yards with the rest of the rolling stock. They also have history as remnants of former through services with other full lines. As such, they aren't considered separate systems from the rest of the decidedly heavy rapid transit NYC Subway. oknazevad (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is medium-capacity rail system really the most commonly used term?[edit]

I've never heard it used in casual conversation, while I have for terms like "light metro". Eldomtom2 (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with you, however the current name seems to stem from early World Bank reports (partially) about light (capacity) metro systems in the Chinese speaking world. KatVanHuis (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Medium-capacity_rail_system&oldid=1215697585"