Talk:List of countries by rail transport network size

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

Definition of rail transport[edit]

Is the intention here to cover only plain-vanilla rail service, or also local mass transit systems? Eg. Singapore has only 39 km railway as such, but 109 km of subway line and another ~30 km of light AGV systems. Jpatokal 11:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the blue map (Map of countries' rail network) actually showing? It has no units attached, just pure numbers. TiffaF 14:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to subdivide the figures into Km of passenger railway, Km of Freight Railway and Km of mixed use. In Europe, I would guess it is 60-80% mixed, 10-15% passenger only and 20%-30% freight only, but in other parts of the world it may be 50-80% freight only. Are such figures available? TiffaF 14:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compilations[edit]

I believe that a mileage for the European Union would be helpful, and I want to know if continent totals would be worthwhile. Finally, we have a picture of the rail mileage per sq. km., so shouldn't we also have a list of those numbers as well? (The picture IS hard to read...) IMacWin95 22:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing countries[edit]

There are 148 countries listed as having railways, and 35 in the "no-railway" list, totaling 183 countries. There are 193 members in the United Nations, and many lists mention up to 236 sovereign nations and dependencies. Thus many countries are not represented. Examples include Solomon Islands, Samoa, Tonga etc. 72.89.142.180 (talk) 08:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

European Union[edit]

I am for keeping EU in the list, it is not country but it has some aspects of country. Also it was there for a long time without problem. --Jklamo 20:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. —Nightstallion 08:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's discuss. The EU is not on the List of countries, has no legal personality, does not meet half of the Montevideo Convention criteria and, even if it were half a country ('sui generis' - a bit different), it is not a country yet. Given the very deep political differences in counties which are members of the EU about what the EU is and what it should be, to include it as a country under these circumstances has the potential to cause offence and is potentially POV. Plus putting in these lists also leads to double counting. DSuser 12:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The EU is included in many lists of this kind by international studies of all sorts; the fact that there is political debate about the direction the EU's development should take changes nothing about the fact that it has amassed a vast amount of power, commonly pooled by all member states. Double counting is not an issue, as the EU is clearly marked as being a special entry and not to be compared to the others. —Nightstallion 14:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And extra info is never bad, so it's better to put it in the list ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.65.103.122 (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EU in lists[edit]

DSuser and I have drafted a complete analysis of why it would be a good or a bad idea to include the EU in lists of countries in some form (either directly in the list or as a special note outside the list). We'd kindly invite all editors who are interested in the EU and/or lists of countries to take a look at Talk:European Union/inclusion in lists of countries, read all of the arguments presented and then state their opinion on what a sensible compromise might look like. Thanks! —Nightstallion 09:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done! You can take a look at List of countries by GDP (nominal), IMF list, no objections found.--Manlleus (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Railway network size[edit]

Any body know why the network size of India increased from 63327 km to 90569 km? Any body can provide a reliable source for this?Calvingao (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something odd about Indian railway network size. Figure indicated for total kms should be the U.S one, that has been lowered. I already changed it but it has been changed again. Some sort of explenation for that? There's a link to a chinese website which I can't understand. Frabo.it 13:00 PST, 25 September 2015

Stats issue: the report of the Indianrailways gives vert different figure: https://indianrailways.gov.in/railwayboard/uploads/directorate/stat_econ/pdf/Summery%20sheet%20Annual%20Report%20English_2021-22.pdf

82,654 electrified 102,831 total — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyh2005 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the larger figure track-km? The route-km should be lower 65.43.121.97 (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Percentage of land under Train network[edit]

Can we include the percentage of a country's Area covered by its rail network ? . (just inquiring ! )

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Lists of countries[edit]

Template:Lists of countries has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Cybercobra (talk) 06:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of rail network size[edit]

In my understanding the numbers represented in the list are a mixture of the actual track length and the network lenght of countries' rail networks. Usually the track length covers the length of all tracks in a countries network so that 1 mile of a double track is counted as 2 miles of track whereas network length would count 1 mile of a double (or quadruple or more) track only as 1 mile. As I am familiar with some countries numbers I can see that the difference in terminology has not been paid attention to. For instance Germany has 63.897km of tracks and 33.862km (2007) of network (numbers published by German network operator Deutsche Bahn). The number in this list here equals the network lenght. But turkey has a network length of 11.005km (2008 number of Turkish network operator TCDD). So the number of 18.697km in the list here is either plainly wrong or showing the track length. In my oppinion the list should show the track length as that number contains more information about the density of the network and the definition at the beginning of the article should be clarified. Papiere (talk) 08:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Papiere (talk • contribs) 09:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, Turkey was just typo error. Most of data is from UIC, thus using same methodology. --78.108.106.253 (talk) 04:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend staying with the UIC methodology. Network length is a more easily obtainable number than is overall track length (and is a more consistent measure), comes closer to describing the density of geographic coverage, and its use precludes ambiguities as to whether passing sidings and even yard and terminal trackage were in the figures. Whichever is used, I agree that the chart should be labelled to clarify exactly what is shown. (Perhaps a excerpt on the main page from a UIC document would be useful.) Irv (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No railways on Islands?[edit]

I removed the "No Railways" lead-in comment: Islands are not likely to have many railways, except perhaps for metro railways. Although this is generally correct, it's not universally true, and in any event doesn't add to the encyclopedic content of the overall article. Irv (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content of subsidiary sections[edit]

This is a very useful site, and I'm appreciative of those who assembled the basic data and created the page. However, I removed the "No Data" section, because it's obvious that places with no data aren't mentioned. And I suggest the "No Railways" section be edited to remove places that never had railways (e.g., the smaller islands). Instead, this section could be retitled ("Railways -- Past and Future"?) and limited to a) places that once had railways &/or b) places in which railways now are proposed. Comments? Irv (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

per area? & Historic per area?[edit]

I'd be interested in the rail network per area calculation, to get more comprehensive view on this subject. Also, per population/area should be interesting in thinking of passenger trains. 80.186.134.146 (talk) 05:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be implemented at august 2020, but i found the artical looking for historic rail network per country size. I imagine there's a potential problem by states changing size, but would it be fair to use current size, if noted in tabel? Alseimik (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rankings incorrect[edit]

I don't know how to edit these things easily, but if you sort the table by railway length, you'll see that the "rank" column values are incorrect in a number of places. I don't know whether this is because they are out of date -- but if this is the reason, does anyone know of a way to make the rank automated with the value? Davemnt (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC) See Help:Table for table syntax, it is not so bad to understand it, you can try to correct it by yourself. Incorrect ranking occurs because somebody updated just figure (also without source) and not also ranking. Unfortunately i do not know any automated way to update these ranking (but I'd love to know it). I will be updating whole talbe soon, so i will correct it. --Jklamo (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated all the rankings, could anyone changing data in the future remember to change the rankings as well, and to move the wikitext itself as well. I'll put a note in the source actually. Davemnt (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

India should moved up a place, according to offical statistics: https://indianrailways.gov.in/railwayboard/uploads/directorate/stat_econ/pdf/Summery%20sheet%20Annual%20Report%20English_2021-22.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyh2005 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify data on this page[edit]

I think that the data, which is used in this ranking, should be clarified. That means, it should be made clear what exactly counts. Do Metro trains count too? For example, Germany has a lot of different figures for its rail networks; DB Netze AG mentions even approx. 65.000km of trackssee here - however, these do not seem to be operational, but even the German Statistics Administration has quite some different figures available.see here Depending on which figures are actually taken, the rank of Germany would change. --Shurakai (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Island of Alderney has a railway[edit]

Folks,

Alderney in the Channel Islands has a railway which was established in 1847 (see link to Wikipedia article)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alderney_Railway

Freedom1968 (talk) 10:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa[edit]

The South African network is here given as 20247 km total, but 24800 km electrified. Could someone fix it? --Pavel Q (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, Why not done by yourself? -- ZH8000 (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of countries by rail transport network size. 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) 01:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia Railway Network[edit]

Dear,

KSA has more than 5900 km of existing railway network as of 15-Oct-2017. Please edit this information

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of countries by rail transport network size. 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) 18:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of countries by rail transport network size. 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) 16:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updated figures[edit]

@RailwayFan: You contributed some substantial changes to the list. Thanks for that!

But I wonder what sources you used for this update. Would you mind to update/add the respective references? WP:REF (please use the {{cite web}} template accordingly ad sufficietly!)

Further, there is a column called Date year. You did NOT update this column at all. I think you need to update this information as well, otherwise your changes are not complete and valid.

And probably you should update the hidden population figure as well according the year you used for the other figures!! Finaly, you left an editing error. Please make sure you review your edits for the future! -- ZH8000 (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalised or private[edit]

What's the stance if a country (like Spain) has only public companies operating passenger services, but has multiple (private and public) operators for freight transport? Should it still be considered "nationalised" or be changed to "both"? --Metalpotato (talk) 09:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, we should restructure a bit that section, considering that there are some inaccuracies as well.
For Spain, i'd write "Nationalized, with private competitors", and this can very well apply to many other EU countries (Italy, Germany and so on).
Countries with an UK-style privatization should be listed as "Pubblic infrastructure ownership - operations subject to franchising, majority privatized".
Japan isn't also entirely privatized: some JR companies (JR Hokkaido, Shikoku and Freight) are in pubblic ownership and many third-sector railways are in prefectural ownership. Socimi (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source and data for Pakistan[edit]

The article on Pakistan Railways uses this source for the extent of track and routes in 2014-2015. [1] This is this archived page here from Archive.org.

The source given in this article is dead. The archive link brings me to a page showing two words and no data. I think the numbers are different than are now in the table of railway data for Pakistan. I am willing to clean up refs, add trans-titles for foreign languages and fill out bare url, but I hesitate to alter the data. - - Prairieplant (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "PRINCIPAL STATISTICS" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 February 2017. Retrieved 18 November 2016.

Country flags[edit]

It seems like the flags have been removed from the table as a "mere decoration"[1] However, to me the table seems like a complete visual mess without them, and it's extremely hard to see the difference between countries with just one glance. There have been edit wars over flags in tables on countless lists, and I don't want to start one – but believe we should return them as soon as possible. —Ynhockey (Talk) 14:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey[edit]

Hey 41.222.180.96 (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The values for Argentina are wrong[edit]

If you go to the World Bank website you can see Argentina has 17,866 km of railway, not 36,966 like this page shows. the 17,866 data is from 2018 which is the most recent, but even if you look to the 2014 data (which is the data stored on this page) it shows 18,097 km. So I ask for the value to be changed to the true one (I don't know how to do that). I realized this because I live in Argentina and it felt off that we had so much railway. 190.191.79.193 (talk) 09:01, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should we include metros and trams and light rail ect.?[edit]

I noticed that Puerto Rico's track length matched up with the length of the Tren Urbano. But it isn't a proper railway. It's a metro. Should we include those? QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Countries, out of date but official data, duplicate entries[edit]

In order to be comprehensive, accurate and definitive.

There are accepted 'lists of countries'. ISO 3166 and UN membership status being widely used and having pages on Wikipedia explaining them.

Hong Kong and Macau are 'special administrative regions of China' rather than countries.

The status of Taiwan is 'complicated'.

Puerto Rico is a dependency of the United States rather than a country.

Bermuda I have noted as being a dependency rather than a country.

I don't want to meddle with the main table if it is based on an official source but there needs to be clarity.


Brunei, Guyana and Suriname appear in the table as having railways and in the list of not having.

In the case of Brunei I have not established whether it has any 'proper' railways beyond the private gas terminal pier railway of 4km. In the case of Guyana and Suriname I believe the data to be out-of-date as the railways are no longer in operation or existence but if the data is still reported in official tables what should be done?

The data I entered for Niger, Qatar and South Sudan is based on research rather than the official statistics the table is based upon. As an aside, I find a lot of the 'mileage' data to be inaccurate when analysed but, again, it is the official data! AdrianintheUK (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese source in almost all countries[edit]

I have noticed that most countries have a Portuguese Railways source that Portuguese Railways has data on other railway systems in other countries. It's just absurd. This needs to be changed. I noticed this problem when I was introducing UTK statistics for Poland.

Also, does anyone have a source on Romanian railway data? I noticed a big discrepancy in the data here and I don't know if Romania has more than 10,000 or 20,000 kilometers of railway lines, as well as with the length of electrified railway lines, which are three times longer than last time. KujKuń (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine missing?[edit]

Palestine is at List of sovereign states as a UN observer state, but isn't in either of the lists here. Is there any data for them? Thanks a lot! ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 17:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's complicated.
There are two UN Observer States. The Vatican appears in the list because it has rail lines (all 0.3km of them!). Palestine doesn't currently have rail lines and how many it might once have had depends upon the boundaries eg Gaza and West Bank or a different area.
Open Railway Map shows a former line running through Gaza from 'checkpoint Erez' inland from and parallel to the coast, crossing into Egypt at a road named El-Bahr. AdrianintheUK (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An update.
In Gaza there was approximately 47km of rail line. That being the distance between Deir Suneid and Rafa (various spellings available).
In the West Bank, any former lines will be shown on the 'Israel' list here: https://www.branchline.uk/jfpdf/israelrlys.pdf
I tend to get lost when trying to cross-reference between historic place names (in Latin script) on the pdf, current spelling of place names (in Latin script) and those displayed on Open Street Map / Open Railway Map (in Arabic script). AdrianintheUK (talk) 10:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_countries_by_rail_transport_network_size&oldid=1190874722"