Talk:Urban rail

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Purpose of this page[edit]

I salute you for starting this article, but are we going to list every city with a rapid transit system? How would that be useful to travelers? In case they're mass transit enthusiasts? I'm not being sarcastic here. If we think it's really good to make a list of cities with rapid transit, I'll add to the list; I'm just not sure what the overall point of this article is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

In its current form, the list takes too much space. Maybe it can be collapsed? In any case, the main purpose is a traveller-oriented guide for how to ride rapid transit. /Yvwv (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't know of any article that has a collapsed list. But what should be in a traveller-oriented guide to mass transit? Are there non-obvious things that can be generally stated about mass transit systems that are of practical use to travellers? If so, what are they? Because without those, what we could be left with is (a) a definition of mass transit, which is the function of a dictionary or encyclopedia and not a reason to create an article here; (b) a list of cities that have mass transit systems, and lists are discouraged here as not very useful to the traveller. So how do you envision this article developing? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
The article was requested at Wikivoyage:Requested articles#Transportation. /Yvwv (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Right. And now it's started, and my questions remain. Do you have an opinion about how to best develop this article? It seems like this was the key point in the article request: "Logistical information about how to use them, but also some touristy information for those travellers who like using the public transport systems of different countries around the world." So what kinds of logistical information do you think are useful to include in a general rapid transit article, and what kinds of touristy information would be most interesting? I'm not clear on the logistical side and would like to hear your thoughts.
On the touristy side, perhaps it would be fun to post about programs like "Poetry in Motion," whereby poems and similar literary excerpts are put up in lieu of advertisements in cars of the London Tube and the New York City subway, and others like Music Under New York, whereby a wide variety of performers audition for the chance to perform on subway platforms and corridors on a regular schedule. It would also be fun to put up some photos of particularly pretty subway stations in different cities. It seems to me that we would also want to include transit museums in this article - like the one in Brooklyn and arguably the Cable Car Museum in SF, except that cable cars run on tracks without grade separation and are thereby currently excluded from this article - but that's open for debate. 09:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
What I'd like to see is a general article about all forms of public transport (trains, trams, buses, ferries, monorails, chairlift/gondolas, etc) but only mentions the most famous, interesting and notable ones. No need to mention the Algiers Metro, but the London Underground, New York Subway and Paris Metro are world renowned, as well as having some nice design. Some new Asian metros may be worth a quick mention as being expansive, efficient and visionary. There is also beautiful architecture in the Moscow, St Petersburg, Pyongyang and [insert Soviet country] metros.
In terms of other transport, trams in Melbourne (which could also go in an Eat section), ferries in Sydney and numerous others I've missed being so Australia-centric. Thoughts? JamesA >talk 10:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I was just going to post this as a useful resource if we want complete listings of rapid transit systems: [1] It sounds like you don't want that, though. I'll look for some good photos. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm still not sure. In one way, I think a travel topic about particularly interesting public transport systems throughout the world would be great. But, being a public transport enthusiast, I would also find use in a list of rapid transit systems that I may want to travel on one day. However, that could be Wikipedia's job: w:List_of_metro_systems. JamesA >talk 10:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I see. I think this is one page where there's a strong argument for linking to that Wikipedia page - I think I'll link it at the bottom of the page, but we might want to do it more prominently, too. Then we could just include some of the more important and famous metros, such as the ones that are of most practical use, most extensive, or/and prettiest. That would mean deleting small systems like Foshan, Sendai, and possibly Rome and L.A. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
One person's everyday is another person's adventure. I have ridden rapid transit since childhood. But as the case for flying, rail travel and cruise ships, many adults in developed countries have never seen a rapid transit from inside, and these could use a how-to article. /Yvwv (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Should we now merge light rail systems into the existing 'Cities with rapid transit' list (perhaps to be renamed) or should a new list be created further down the page? --Nick talk 14:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we want to handle the list. As JamesA pointed out above, there's already a seemingly complete (or at least longer) list of cities with rapid transit at Wikipedia, which is linked to as a related article. I imagine they also have a list of cities with light rail systems. Denver would be an obvious one in the US - their system is excellent and extensive. But we are going to have to make a decision about whether to try to make the list complete, and perhaps itemized according to different types of rail ([1] rail with grade separation - i.e., subway or el - [3] light rail without grade separation, [3] trolleys and cable cars) or whether we should highlight particularly famous, notable, useful, and interesting or beautiful systems. But now's the time to discuss it. What do you think about this? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I think it is really hard to determine a threshold for significant metro systems. This page interested me because it would show off the diversity of metro systems I have seen around the world, and I feel even small systems have a part to play in that. That said, detailed usage of smaller systems should belong in their respective city article. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
There's one practical side advantage to listing everything under the sun: It gives us more space to include pretty and interesting photos! So I would actually vote to list everything relevant, for that reason if no other. And you're right: Details need to be left for the local articles. I do think we still need to discuss the rationale for listing everything, though. Are we being too encyclopedic and duplicative of Wikipedia? Also, I'd love more of Yvwv's input on how we can better make this a procedural "how-to" guide to urban rail travel for the inexperienced. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I took a look at the Wikipedia article on this (or at least the closest I could find). It seems they have very good technical descriptions of metro systems, although they are not really helpful for travelers. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
What kind of "how-to" information do you think would be most useful to travellers without being overly specific to each system? I think it will be important to figure that out and include it, so that this is more than a bunch of great photos with a bit of information. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
It is going to be hard to find common areas! I would suggest A) Using Ticketing Systems, B) How to determine the fastest route and C) How to make Connections between lines. I'm interested to hear other ideas on this. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I think that at some point in the article, examples should be given of how to get into and leave transit systems. For example, in New York, you must purchase a MetroCard and swipe it through, but you do nothing to leave other than to bodily exit the system. By contrast, in London, you have to tap in and tap out. In Berlin, you have to validate a one-trip ticket, but a 30-day pass doesn't get validated but just has inclusive dates and has to be kept on your person when you are taking an S-Bahn, U-Bahn, bus, or trolley. We can't list every variation, but some illustrative examples should be given. I was thinking of putting such a section before "Stay safe," and perhaps calling it "How to ride." Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Get in[edit]

I started a "Get in" section for this article, discussing ways to get into and out of urban rail systems, and regulations concerning what you can bring with you and whether it requires a separate fee. Please have a look at the section, edit it in any suitable way, and share your thoughts if you like. We need to figure out how to make this guide "usable" for prospective riders. I think another necessary step will be to find links to all the rapid transit systems' sites and link them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Format of museum listings[edit]

Hi, everyone. I just copied and pasted the listing for Sydney Tramway Museum from Sydney/Sutherland Shire, editing only slightly to include Sydney, Australia in the listing. Do you like this duplication of listings, or should we just use brief one-liner listings? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The content appears relevant. I'm wondering about including the cost of entry however, since it might be the beginning of people adding fares in the local currency to every rail system listed here --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Would that be bad? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Fares tend to change every year, so I see these values getting out of sync from the related article very quickly. That said, I'm concerning a problem that hasn't actually happened yet. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
You make a good point, though. Keeping track of these things in two places could be difficult. Is there anyone else who's reading this and has an opinion? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that there is any need to give museum prices - for most readers the cost of getting to Sydney is going to be far greater than the admission charge. I would suggest linking to the relevant Sydney district, and maybe putting a comment in the listing there that the museum is also listed here. AlasdairW (talk) 10:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I support this proposal from AlasdairW --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it's reasonable, too. How would you propose mentioning this page in the Sydney district listing? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I made the change to the listing here, but I'm not sure it's necessary to link from the listing in Sydney/Sutherland Shire. If we did, what would we do? Sydney [[Urban rail|Tramway]] Museum? I think that would be OK, though this article is not really tram-centered. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I have added a comment to the listing on Sydney/Sutherland Shire. This is only visible when editing the page, not reading: <!--This museum is also listed on the [[Urban Rail]] page, please update there with any major changes. --> Unfortunately the page is not a link, but I hope that most editors will realise where is being referred to, and will come here if there are major changes like the museum moving to a different site. AlasdairW (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I think you handled that well. Thanks for thinking of that and doing it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

More museums[edit]

There is at least one subway museum in Japan. The subway museum's website is only in Japanese, though. There is also a Railway Museum in Japan, but that would appear to go beyond the reach of this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a rather long list of museums on the urbanrail.net site. Pashley (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Does the Shanghai Maglev museum count? http://www.smtdc.com/en/xnlv5.html

The Maglev is urban rail within the larger Shanghai Pudong area, albeit a train that goes at more than 400kph.. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Am I understanding you correctly that it is used to travel within Shanghai? If so, that seems like overkill. But if so, yes, I think it would count. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Shanghai is a pretty big city of over 20 million people. The journey from Pudong to the airport takes something like 8 minutes (no stops). I typically use it whenever I go the main airport to avoid the smog.
Many people in Shanghai agree that it is overkill. The idea would be that it extends to other cities such as Hangzhou, but this has not happened yet. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I recall when living in Munich 10 years ago that there were serious plans to use the same German technology for a Maglev between Marienplatz and the airport. It didn't work out because it was considered overkill. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

World's most beautiful metro stations[edit]

Interesting, the world's most beautiful metro stations:

http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20140624-most-beautiful-metro-stations

Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Fodder for more pics in the article, if there are some images in Commons. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

List[edit]

Wikipedia has lists. Commons has pics (as per User:Ikan Kekek's voice above). I love pretty pics (I take every opportunity to decorate our guides and articles with nice pics) and every bit of trivia, but this is perfectly not what Wikivoyage should be about. Of course an oddball traveller with an affinity for mass transit (e.g. me) might be planning their travels so that they can use some cool mass transit systems, but seriously, some people do so for the best museums, nicest airports, good restaurants etc. etc. and there are good sources for them to research those before deciding on a destination. I do not think we are providing any extra value other than creating an inferior version of the same list on Wikipedia (quite inferior, as it is by far incomplete). PrinceGloria (talk) 06:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I would cautiously also categorize myself as an 'oddball' traveler in this respect, and relish the opportunity to use a new mass transit system. (China made that quite easy no matter where you go).
The article is currently a list, and possibly overwhelmingly so since it has every city with a tram system as well (i.e. most German cities). I still feel it has niche value to people who like mass transport. Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the way to make this article less listy is to have more "how-to" information about different systems. But if we can have a much more specialized article like Urbex, surely we can spare one for subways, even if this isn't the ideal way to do it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
It's been over a week and we don't seem to have moved forward. As regards your remarks, User:Ikan Kekek, I am not quite convinced that riding the subway requires a guide in the way that Urbex does. It is borderline humorous to describe to a traveller the possible methods of validating a ticket, finding out their route or embarking/alighting. User:Andrewssi2, I am happy I am not alone in my appreciation of mass transit systems, I am quite concerned, however, whether Wikipedia does not provide this niche value better, more consistently and broadly and, most importantly, has the critical mass of interested users who continually update (and expand) relevant articles.
How can we make it a GUIDE to urban rail (or something else, if we want to change the definition) that is worthwhile and not a poor stepsister of Wikipedia? My advice to a fellow mass transit member would be - read Wikipedia and decide where to go and what to see/experience based on that. And to casual people just wanting to use a light rail system at their destination - read our destination guide for details. PrinceGloria (talk) 05:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
It's by no means obvious to someone from New York that when you're in Berlin, you have to purchase a ticket from a machine on the platform and then go to another machine on the platform to validate it before you board your train. It's also not obvious to someone from San Francisco that you don't have to put your MetroCard through a machine on your way out of the New York subway, nor to a New Yorker that you do have to put your card through the BART machine when you leave. And none of them would find it obvious that you have to tap out when leaving the London Tube (but that on London buses, you tap in and do not tap out). So I really don't agree that these things are the least bit self-evident. It would be great if someone with more knowledge of more systems would create a "how-to" guide, but I don't think that the current lack of one means this article should be merged or deleted. We have a very limited number of editors, and I would find it strange if you're surprised that nothing has happened with this article in a week. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Where did I say it's self-evident? I only said it's humorous to describe the list of possible ways of validating a ticket and such in one article (which would be quite Wikipedic btw) rather than putting the appropriate instructions in each particular guide. Learning of them is pure trivia and knowing how one does that on the London Tube won't help me much if I am not going there. Do tell me how collecting this in one article adds value. PrinceGloria (talk) 06:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
You have a point. Let's get some other people's views on this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
But I guess before we do, what is your proposal? Do you propose to delete this article? To merge it as appropriate to various city articles? What? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Unless somebody has a good idea on how to make it a useful travel topic article I'd delete/merge for now. PrinceGloria (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I am also a fan of public transport (particularly those on rails, but since my year in Nicaragua I have a bile fascination (that sometimes borders on outright liking the machines) for battered up garishly repainted (in screaming colors with cheesy religious slogans) Bluebird school-buses). So naturally you can guess, that I am in favor of keeping this article in some form. Especially as we now have some kind of article for any kind of transportation, including a whole bunch of them for the most self evident of all, driving in x (if you didn't get your drivers license through corruption or in a country where they basically give them away, you should know how to read traffic signs and stuff). However I see that making this article nothing but a list helps nobody. That said, maybe we can link to "how to" articles of similar systems. For example the German-style system (I think it is called the "honor system") is pretty much the same whether you take a tram in Dresden or a subway in Berlin. Maybe an article for that (as the "get around" section of Germany is already hopelessly cluttered) is worthwhile and maybe this article could serve as a kind of overview from which we link to the different systems. That being said, if a vfd should arise I will almost definitely vote for keeping the article. Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
"Driving in X" actually makes sense, because driving rules CAN be markedly different and, living in Europe, you might be blissfully unaware e.g. driving from Germany to Poland, where road signs are pretty much the same, that you are supposed to turn your headlights on for the entirety of the year + what can get you stopped by the police or a ticket. And if you gather all of the truly useful and non-trivial info together, you get something that might be a bit too large for the country article. I do agree that if a country has a uniform but intricate public transportation system (or anything else for that matter) a separate article can be very useful. But not a collection of all and sundry stuff pertaining to light rail anywhere. PrinceGloria (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

(beginning on the left of the page again) Well for somebody who basically grew up with trains, there might not be much to say in general about trains, yet still we have tips for rail travel. I think this article may well be worthwhile if we make some geographic subdivisions where we mention the different systems and link to country specific articles for more details. Or we could keep it much like we have the article tipping still around that as it is now basically says: tipping exists, please look it up in the country articles. We could also have a "public transport system of the month" at some point, as there seem to be a couple of people who are very interested in stuff like that (me not entirely excluded ;-)) Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Please do plunge forward and make it a succint guide to the topic like Tipping is - I might not be able to imagine how it might look like, but Tipping is actually a rather good article. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with PrinceGloria that a comprehensive list of light railway system is not particularly useful or even interesting to the traveler. My idea would be to completely revamp the list and make it a small selection of 'iconic metro journeys'. It can include large ones (such as the Paris Metro) as well as small ones (The Wuppertal Wuppertaler Schwebebahn is really interesting) .
It would exclude any 'generic' systems, such as Stuttgart or Guangzhou, which are functional but not particularly interesting.
I would also extend the 'interesting' rule to trams/trolley busses, so unless they have something special to offer then they don't make the list Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I seem to remember that when there was a previous attempt to make a list of "interesting" systems, Algiers' would have been left off of it, but there was such a nice picture of the Poste station. :-) Anyway, I'd like to see your list. I think the New York subways have to be on any such list, but other than Music Under New York, what special do they have to offer? Some nice tile-work, I guess? Isn't it more about getting places and getting a feel for a way of life in the city? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey, how did this become a list again???? Look at tipping - where o they have a list of interesting tipping customs? I would never leave out Stutggart from MY list of interesting light rail system, while I find the Paris Metro quite generic and uninteresting to ride. This list would grow expotentially as everybody's definition of "interesting" is different, this is why we should leave research to travellers' own devices, there is Wikipedia and so many other sources if their only criteria for planning their travels is their inherently subjective perception of the cities' transportation systems relative "interestingness"... PrinceGloria (talk) 04:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I guess the Stuttgart S-Bahn became a lot more interesting since the time I lived there 10 year's ago ^-^
I was suggesting more of an 'itinerary' of world metro systems rather than a list, but as others noted we do not have a common understanding of awesome transit systems.
Open to any other ideas how to take this article --Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Please see my suggestion(s) at the pub Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this train going anywhere or is it a permanent service disruption? PrinceGloria (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Even speaking as a transit geek, I can't see any value in this topic as a Wikivoyage page. I love exploring transit systems when I visit a new city, but then my approach is to go to the guide for the individual city to find out anything I need to know. And really, that's the problem I see with this page: urban rail functions and customs vary dramatically from city to city (and hell, sometimes just from system to system) for this guide to be of much use, except to tell me that a rail system exists in a particular city (and again, I can just go to the individual city guide for that piece of info). Given that Wikipedia already handles lists of this kind far better than we possibly could, I don't see this guide as a helpful addition to Wikivoyage.
The one possibly useful addition this page offers is the list of transit museums. That's an interesting list which I'm not sure is replicated elsewhere, but it's also a pretty darn niche interest, so I don't think it's really enough on its own to warrant preserving this page. PerryPlanet (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that the list is a useful bit of the article. I find it much easier to get around a large city that has an urban rail network than one that doesn't, especially if I don't speak the language. I might use a list at the start of planning a visit to a country to narrow down the cities to look at. So I see value in having a list either here or as a part of each country's get around section. AlasdairW (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
To me that changes the purpose of the article from being for "People who like transit systems" to "People who want convenience when traveling to cities". Not incompatible but a marked distinction nevertheless. I also don't see the utility of a list of convenient transit systems. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Public transport and short and medium length rail systems[edit]

Swept in from the pub

As it now stands the article on urban rail appears to be not to the satisfaction of most of those that contribute to its talk section. That got me thinking, and as some of the possible solutions are rather global issues, I decided to present them here.

As we all know we have (sometimes quite extensive) articles on e.g. rail travel in Germany or even driving in Los Angeles County. What appears to me to be lacking are articles on short to medium length systems such as the S Bahn Central Germany. Now I know some of those systems are can be and should be dealt with in the city or region articles they are relevant to, but some systems (such as the aforementioned) are rather big and unwieldy, have horribly complicated fare-systems or rules (can you enter without a ticket and buy one inside the system? Does your ticket stay valid once you leave the system? What is and isn't integrated? etc.), or cover huge cities (e.g. New York City) and their surroundings. Now I have raised the same issue in the German WV and the answer was basically: We already do that for some cities. Knowing of the "cultural differences" so to speak between the two (just look at the number of articles on German airports like Hahn), we may find the consensus that no such articles are needed. However for some systems, I think we can at least make an exception to the rule (much like huge airports get articles):

  • If the system is ridiculously complex
  • If it is of historic or touristic interest (e.g. some lines of the London and New York system are or may be reasons for travel just like some funicular railways)
  • If it covers a huge area not adequately represented by our region articles and changing the layout of the region(s) would make no sense or be of little benefit besides public transport
  • If integrating the content somewhere else would make that article too large and unwieldy.
  • If ttcf otherwise indicates or mandates doing so

I am open to discussion and would like to hear what you think about the issue. If we do something like that, we can preserve the article urban rail (and later expand it) much like we now have an article on bus travel, that primarily links to that phenomenon across the globe (this article should as well be expanded later, but alas I have limited time...) Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe we should simply refer the readers to the appropriate websites. We can (and should) advise the readers about the most economical or convenient or otherwise advisable routings as well as particularly attractive ticket types in the destination articles, which is generally being done. I have not come across any case, with Germany in mind in particular, where it wouldn't fit within a destination guide. Describing a system just for the sake of it is better suited for Wikipedia or specialist sites, we are here to advise travellers how to get from A to B, focus being on from A to B and not on the getting part. PrinceGloria (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
In addition to what PrinceGloria said above, I think we should strive to keep our info about a city's transit system as much on the city page as we can, so as not to force users to dig through multiple pages; in fact, I think there's been some rumblings about merging that Driving in Los Angeles County page into the Los Angeles page. PerryPlanet (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Are you familiar with Verkehrsverbünde? So far we sorta kinda mention their existence in general in the rail travel in Germany article but the individual thingies are hardly ever mentioned at all. And a lot of them cross our traditional region boundaries. And yes they are of value to the traveler, as they often offer (steeply discounted) day or week tickets fro trips e.g. from Dresden to Bad Schandau or from Nuremberg to Bamberg (the VGN which applies there is the second biggest Verkehrsverbund by area after that of Berlin/Brandenburg). So what your proposal be? clutter a bunch of articles in the same region with the same info on how a five day ticket is only worth it if you are between 15 and 23 and use it at least seven point four times, unless you want to drive after two AM but before seven AM? (sorry if that came out too snarky). And the alphabet soups of many an American metro area are hugely confusing as well. Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
PerryPlanet and others: If you haven't been reading the discussion at Talk:Urban rail, please do. I may not be the best person to summarize the discussion there, but basically, the question is whether that article, with nice pictures, is really the kind of list Wikipedia does better, and should either be redesigned to focus on more practical advice for the traveler or be merged to destination articles as relevant and then redirected to Rail travel.
Without prejudice to that discussion, I do find Hobbitschuster's remark above persuasive, as it sounds like not only would this information be useful for travelers and relevant in a bunch of destination articles (and therefore more appropriate to put in one place and link than to copy a bunch of times) but also that there will be enough to cover to merit an article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Hobbitschuster, is there any particular reason why more extensive information on the Verkehrsverbünde can't be included in the Rail travel in Germany page? It seems like that sort of information would be a natural fit, and it's an already established, centralized topic page that can be linked to from destination pages. That seems to me like a better place to put that sort of info than creating pages for individual transit systems. PerryPlanet (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry that it took me some time to respond... Anyway, here goes.. First the Verkehrsverbünde while they have some things in common are not universally the same, as they are mostly the domain of state or even local politics. Some of them offer through tickets on trains and buses, some some accept Ländertickets, some don't (Leipzig does for example while Dresden doesn't, don't ask me why). The ticketing systems are somewhat different as well although most systems in Germany operate on the proof of payment / "honor system" method, many buses are front-entering only (which means everybody has to have or buy a ticket). Than there is the issue of validating tickets. Some machines sell tickets already validated, some don't sometimes you have to validate day tickets, sometimes you don't sometimes you have to validate day tickets but not week tickets.... It goes on and on and on, and once you've listed all the exceptions, there is not much of a general rule left to talk about (just like with German grammar or English orthography). In short, while we can (and should) update and/or expand the information about the issue in our rail travel in Germany article, I doubt that this will solve the issue. And if you have a look at some ridiculously long (and complex) "get around" sections of some American cities (San Francisco or New York come to mind) I doubt that this is a German issue exclusively. Also if we create separate articles, we get a chance to mention quirky details like a station that is worth a visit all by itself (arguably found in many systems all around the world) or maybe if there is need for it or it might interest the traveler some historical notes or what lines are currently being built or upgraded and will open within the next five to ten years. Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 08:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I am familiar with Verkehrsverbünde so there I go - the only way those are important to tourists and thus should be covered by us is how they enable one to travel to or within a destination. This can easily be covered AND IS COVERED in our German destination articles. We just need to explain how to buy tickets, validate them and just a cursory overview of the fare system. Then for specific destinations and POIs we simply give directions on what station or connection to use to get there. It really isn't complicated. We don't need an article to do that. PrinceGloria (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Hobbitschuster, I could conceivably see a situation where you write a travel topic to take the place of a metro area or a region's "Get around" section (e.g. "Getting around the New York City area"), where you cover information on all the modes of transportation available in that area. Of course, there would be resistance to this, since it would require splitting off this info from the main city/region page, but if a Get around section got too unwieldy, I could see something like that happening.
What you're proposing, however, is creating articles for individual transit systems, which strikes me as an invitation to put in a lot of unnecessarily detailed and encyclopedic information about a system that would only be of interest to transit geeks (and mind you, I say all this as a transit geek). If there's a particular station that's worth visiting, why not just note that in the destination page (which we already do - take the example of City Hall Station in Manhattan/Financial District#See)? Is it really necessary to have detailed information about lines under construction? Maybe we don't need to cover info about every possible little rule and exception in the complicated fare system, when more general notes and a link to the agency's up-to-date website will suffice?
There is a benefit to the length of some of these Get around sections, and that is that it forces us as travel guide writers to consider what kind of information is truly essential for travelers to know. It acts as a natural incentive to avoid overwhelming the reader with info, and because there's more eyes on the city page than there ever would be on a transit system page, there's more likelihood that the info would be kept up-to-date. PerryPlanet (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I am biased, but it seems to me that as of now we focus more on driving and flying than on public transport, especially short to medium distance rail. As a matter of fact most travelers to most major cities in developed countries are much more likely to take public transport than a car. I mean, even places like L.A. have an accessible enough downtown area to make a stay without a car feasible and that is one of the most car dependent cities on the planet. But it seems to me the consensus is not even a "not yet" as to creating articles about public transport systems but maybe even a "never" or a "only integrated with other modes". Maybe the way to deal with the driving in LA county article should be to change it to get around Los Angeles county...Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
User:PerryPlanet, I couldn't have put it better myself. Lots of love, PrinceGloria (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
>Maybe I am biased, but it seems to me that as of now we focus more on driving and flying than on public transport
At the risk of being impolite; Hobbit, I think you're biased. Just about all of our huge city pages have much longer sections devoted to getting around by public transit than by car. In fact, L.A. is the only one I can think of that has a longer "By car" section, and even there I think a lot of that is extraneous info that I'm looking to take a hatchet to. PerryPlanet (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I do not consider this remark to have been impolite. In fact, I am all for clarity and directness ;-). And yes if you look at huge cities there is (unsurprisingly) more information about their public transport than their notoriously congested streets. To put it bluntly: It's because no (pleasure-) traveler in their right mind would sit in a traffic jam for hours if public transport can get him/her there in half the time, unless she/he has a sort of car-fetish bordering on the... extreme. But maybe that is just like.. you know, my opinion ;-) Best wishes. Oh and thanks for cutting down the undergrowth ;-) Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Reforming this into an actual article[edit]

We never resolved how to prevent this article being a list.

I saw this article on the Guardian website about the 10 best public transport rides. It tries to find interesting public transport rides around the world, and does so quite successfully.

Can we just do something similar? Basically use Urban rail examples that are tourism experiences in themselves. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Please plunge forward if you are inspired. Do it in your own userspace first if you are in doubt, but since it sounds like the consensus otherwise is moving toward merging and redirecting this topic, I think it's totally fine for you to substitute whatever you have in mind for what's here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Sounds cool. The Guardian article is full of old cliches - basically every other ferry or everything in a poor country - my proposals would be:
  1. Wuppertal Schwebebahn (to cover all monorails and "futuristic" people movers - because the system is extensive and vital to the city's transportation system, not just a novelty)
  2. XXL buses in Hamburg
  3. Phileas guided bus in Eindhoven - not the only one, but the original one from the new generation
  4. Double-decker buses in Berlin due to their particularly scenic routes and design allowing great view and convenient usage (to cover all double-deckers in the world)
  5. Zacke in Stuttgart - because of its long route and heavy usage vs. many other cog railways
  6. Hydrofoils between Szczecin and Świnoujście
  7. Hovertravel between Isle of Man and Portsmouth
Perhaps there are better examples. TRying to keep the list limited to 10 is a good way to limit people from adding their personal favourites indiscriminately later on. PrinceGloria (talk) 06:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
All your examples are in Europe, so maybe no more than 9 or 10 examples per continent? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I doubt it Australia has 10. Let's make it 10 globally, feel free to choose 3-4 as I guess Europe has disproportionally many due to the popularity of public transportation, history and advancement in technology. PrinceGloria (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
9-10 per continent would be the maximum, not the minimum, and I don't know if Australia would have that many. I know they have trolleys in Sydney, but I am not that knowledgeable about Australia otherwise. I think the subway systems in Moscow and Saint Petersburg, or at least one of those, should be mentioned because their highly artistic and decorated stations are so famous (and that's in addition to their historical function as bomb shelters, which they share with the London Tube, which I believe is the oldest subway system in the world?), so those are 2 (or 3?) more European examples. I don't know if it's a problem if most of the examples are from Europe, but it's definitely a problem if all of them are. For North America, I think the San Francisco cable cars are definite because of their beauty, and then the New York Subways probably have to be mentioned because of their age and extent. Then maybe Mexico City? That system seems to have a lot of nicely artistic stations. In South America, Buenos Aires' system strikes me as the most worthwhile to mention, again because of its age. I don't know about Africa (probably Alexandria's very old tram system would be worth mentioning?) or Asia. I'm starting to think that there should be more than 10 from Europe, because don't we kind of have to list the Paris Metro, with its well-known traditional decorative "Metropolitain" signs that have become part of an internationally recognizable trademark of the city? I agree that lists are something that Wikipedia does better, and that we should avoid those, but I doubt limiting the number to 10 worldwide or even 10 in Europe alone will cover enough of the really interesting systems. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, I now think the article can be a list, sorted e.g. by type (e.g. subways) and one-liner descriptions of why they are notable/interesting, e.g. London = oldest, Moscow = decorated, Stockholm = exposed rock walls etc. PrinceGloria (talk) 09:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I buy this. If there's nothing notable about a transit system, it definitely doesn't belong in the list. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I too agree that the systems should be interesting in a way or another in order to be listed. Also, some interesting urban rail systems aren't necessarily located in the larger cities (e.g. Trondheim, Lausanne). Perhaps we should add a map like in the nuclear tourism article? ϒpsilon (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
To respond to Australia, Melbourne's tram system is very notable in size, style and history. (Sydney has a small modern light rail, but not that interesting) Also in Asia the Tokyo metro system is rather interesting in its complexity and mixed styles. The Hong Kong tram line is actually something every visitor must do to experience Hong Kong island. Pyongyang metro doubles as a nuclear bomb shelter and full of soviet art. Most other Asian metros (Korea/China etc) are mostly pretty bland. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd include Sydney (though it'd be nicer if the monorail would still be operational). The system is quite large, and it's quite a scene to see the double-decker carriages that one elsewhere in the world would see as intercity trains coming in at the small underground stations in the CBD. Seoul would likely merit an inclusion thanks to its size. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I now live in Sydney.. and can't say there is anything really notable about the rail system here (although the CBD stations do look a bit funny as you say, and taking the train across the Harbour Bridge is always very nice). Seoul is very large (possibly the largest by some measures) but nothing actually notable about any of the lines. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Isn't the metro in Glasgow also peculiar in that it opened in 1896 (or something) and still has the same "route" (you can't really call it a "network") Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Glasgow#By_subway. They surely shouldn't have any problems getting around! :D ϒpsilon (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Guys, REALLY NOTABLE OR UNIQUE. Every system is notable for some reason - it is either old, extensive, still has the same route, stations are nice etc. But we are going for either world-famous or relatively unknown and absolutely unique (and interesting - the longest total track count is not truly interesting to visit). I could see a record like "oldest" (in absolute terms, not "oldest in Asia that has not been built by white men and is east of Jakarta but west of Tokio and has a station starting with 'R' ") being appropriate, but I wouldn't cry if London were out.
Moscow and Stockholm truly have outstanding stations and it's worth taking the tube while being there to just see it and calling them a major attraction is absolutely appropriate. Same for the Schwebebahn in Wuppertal. A few hundred metres of monorail at an airport or office park does not really count IMHO. Let us be conservative for now - who's up for starting to prune/rewrite the article? PrinceGloria (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. London is a good example of an objectively very important transport system that is not really what we are after. Again, we are after urban rail systems that you would want to visit as a stand alone attraction rather than as an important part of the city that you are visiting, and so with regret would also exclude Paris, New York and Tokyo metros as well. I'd also exclude 'novelty' rides such as funiculars and tourist trains if they are only for the benefit of tourists.
I'm thinking:
  1. Wuppertal Schwebebahn - because ... awesome
  2. Moscow metro (specific metro stations with history / art)
  3. Pyongyang metro (ditto)
  4. San Francisco Cable Cars
  5. Melbourne trams
  6. Hong Kong Island tram line
  7. Stockholm metro (the bare rock face and art are interesting for sure)
  8. Alexandria tram - If ever go to that city then the wikipedia page makes this look pretty compelling
I'm trying to find some central America / South America examples, but the wikipedia pages for Mexico City / Brazil don't look particularly exciting.. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
The Mexico City Metro may have less art in the stations than I thought (by the way, Mexico City is in North America, not Central America). Linea A of the Buenos Aires Metro used to have the oldest rolling stock that could still be ridden, but it was taken out of service in 2013 after 99 years, so that system may no longer have a really powerful attraction as something to see or do, by the very high standards we're now using. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I think (as you suggested before) I will just create the article separately in my space first and see how it comes together. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
TBH, if the list of systems should not be longer than absolutely necessary we'll end up with a silly short list that would outright worsen the article making it look like an outline. ϒpsilon (talk) 04:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Sure, let's see how the first experiment looks :)
I would also suggest that we are not now applying 'very high standards' but rather 'more defined criteria' Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I can still see this as branching out into articles on individual systems at some point. Or articles like get around x. Do we include things like the Metrocable Medellin? It does definitely have sightseeing value but it is also indispensable public transport for lots of people in Medellin. Also I would (somewhat) challenge the implicit the assumption that funicular railways are novelty first and transport second. The two systems of Dresden were built in the late 19th / early 20th century to provide transport for the higher ups (literally) in one of the richer neighborhoods, and while they are marketed towards tourists, they provide a valid public transport value, as anybody who has ever tried to walk the route they travel or walk between the two upper endpoints (located on separate mountains) can tell you. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Hobbitschuster is completely right in that funicular railways should not be assumed to be 'novelty'. I was just using them as an unfair example of novelty rides. There are plenty of other examples, such as the Seattle tram that do not have much utility beyond tourism
I also think maybe funicular railways can be another self contained travel topic? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
This might run into the similar criticism of becoming just another (though shorter) list. But I do think that systems like the two of Dresden or the one in Wuppertal (which is a suspension railway not a funicular, but Dresden has a suspension railway as well that is usually mentioned in the same breath with the funicular) are travel attraction that might deserve some kind of mention outside their city articles... Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
We don't do articles on stuff that "deserves a mention". We do guides on topics that a traveller could use a guide to. Riding a funicular is quite a straighforward issue, no need to guide tourists through that. PrinceGloria (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Looking at a sight is also pretty straightforward and nobody needs to be guided through that. It is however essential if we want to serve travelers that have an interest in seeing sights to have an article that tells them which are where. Hence why we have travel topics telling people where to watch a Baseball game or see a Civil War battlefield (I just noticed that those are rather focused on the US). If I like funicular railways but don't want to sift through a bunch of closed down systems on WP and want to know their travel value and current rates (and how to get where they are etc. etc.) a WV article DOES have value. Best wishes. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Funicular rail is often important precisely because it leads to high ground where there are great views. I could easily see a separate Funicular rail topic for that reason. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Ikan Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

[Unindent] I was thinking about ϒpsilon's comment above. One thought I have is that in the "Understand" section, some of the more famous systems can be mentioned in an off-handed way, perhaps something like this:

"Most of the world's larger cities have mass transit systems, and some of them are famous for being old and extensive, like the London Tube and New York City Subway, or for being part of the fabric of the city and having a highly recognizable traditional symbol, like the Paris Metro. However, this article does not cover such systems, concentrating on the truly unusual urban rail systems which are so outstanding to see or ride that they are major tourist attractions in themselves, and do not derive the overwhelmingly greater part of their reputation by virtue of fulfilling their basic function of helping people get around their cities." Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Urban rail adventures[edit]

I've been working on Urban rail adventures for a while now as an alternative (although not a replacement) for this article. It is still a list, but a select list of very interesting metro systems that are in use by actual residents. I also included a separate short selection of 'heritage' systems that cater more to the tourist crowd. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Once you're further along with it, we can discuss whether it should be a replacement for this. The problems with this article are amply discussed above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Sure... but I thought my sentence above was sufficiently clear that I wasn't proposing a replacement? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I am quite confident that we can have an article on both, just like we have an article on tourist trains and tips for rail travel. The problem seems to be to me that we just haven't found the right kind of approach. Yet. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm saying that perhaps this article should eventually be merged as appropriate and redirected to the new one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
My main problem with this article ( Urban rail ) is that I didn't see anyway to fix it based on the lengthy thread above. I decided that working on a new selective article and judicially adding to it would be more productive than the current comprehensive approach. I'm more than happy Urban rail adventures as a reference point for reforming this article. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The "Tube Challenge"[edit]

I expect other systems around the world have their own version of the Tube Challenge (where competitors race around the entirety of the network trying to get the fastest possible time), and if this is the case, that would be something to add to the 'do' section. A different, but related, challenge exists in Glasgow to have a drink in every pub on the system, so I'm guessing there are a variety of similar activities in cities elsewhere.

So what do you think, is this worth adding? And if so, would it be better here, or on the snazzy Urban rail adventures article? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Generic term for grade-separated rapid transit?[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Many big cities have a grade-separated passenger rail system, which is called subway, metro, elevated rail, underground or rapid transit. Which term should be used for these systems where there is no official English name? /Yvwv (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Is it (mostly) underground or above ground? If it's mostly above ground, it can't reasonably be called a "subway". But the local name could always be used, I suppose, unless we have to use non-Roman writing for the purpose. What's the particular case you're thinking of? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Working on Stockholm and Stockholm County. Saw now that SL uses the term metro in English; though English-speaking expats in Stockholm usually refer to it as the tunnelbana. /Yvwv (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Urban rail system? --Traveler100 (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
There isn't one single term that's used all over the English-speaking world, in addition to the ones mentioned above there are all sorts of MRT's and MTR's in Asia and the Aussies just call them trains... At least downtown, Stockholm's T-bana is underground so I'd say subway. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
More of the Stockholm T-bana is above ground than under. /Yvwv (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe we should just call it metro, then. Or just call it T-bana/Tunnelbana, just like our articles of German major cities use the local terms U-bahn and S-bahn. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Our generic term is, at the moment, "urban rail". Powers (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
When I started the article urban rail it was intended to include trams, commuter rail, monorail, and all other kinds of short-range passenger rail transport. Metrorail (or whatever you call it) is only one of several categories. /Yvwv (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Well I can say that even the terms for non or partially grade separated systems can be confusing and contradictory... Is a "light rail" the same thing as a "Stadtbahn"? And why do some Stadtbahn systems have a U for a symbol in Germany? And the Berlin U-Bahn does not run underground nearly as much as "Untergrundbahn" would imply. And the S-Bahn runs outside the city more than one would think hearing of a "Stadtschnellbahn" not to mention that it also runs underground... as does the Hamburg U-Bahn which is run by the "Hamburger Hochbahn"... I am really glad I don't have to write a book on definitions for those terms... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
If the transportation authority has an official term in English (whether the country is English-speaking or not), can we agree to use that term? /Yvwv (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
See also w:Rapid transit, which suggests that "rapid transit" might be a good catch-all term that meets your criteria, and also mentions that "metro" is pretty commonly used, and our page on English language varieties, which mentions several alternatives but also indicates that "metro" is understood in pretty much all varieties of English. --Bigpeteb (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
In other words, should we use the term metro for the rail system in Stockholm? /Yvwv (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The "Libertarian lament"[edit]

In light of this let me point out, that this is not true - especially in the US, where public transit is very often approved by ballot referenda. Plus, if "the evil the government man" decides where the metro goes or the bus or whatnot, the very same evil government man decides where roads are built. And there is a thing about public transit: It is the only form of transit that has ever made a profit. Yaknow, before the evil commie Eisenhower started building all those highways...

Aaaanyway... My point is, if you don't like your existing bus routes, start your own bus company. If you can't do that because it makes no profit, complain about the subsidies for cars and roads, not the minuscule aid for railways and urban rail. And more to the point, I don't think we should have such an inflammatory, politically biased statement on this page. And I say this as someone who'd like to privatize all highways, because I know privatization results in worse service and/or higher prices in almost all cases. Hobbitschuster (talk) 03:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree. This should be a practical article or it should be deleted or merged/redirected, but it should not be a place to give political opinions about mass transit. Does anyone disagree, when things are presented this way? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
You have a point. Quote removed. /Yvwv (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Usage of "S-Bahn" like terms[edit]

With regards to this edit and the confusion expressed in the edit summary; our sister to the rescue!

In short, beginning with Denmark in the 1930s many countries have named and continue to name rail systems that share characteristics with German S-Bahn systems "S-something". The reasons vary locally, but by now it is simply that transport geeks know what to expect when talk of an "S-train" is heard and as such things tend to get talked about a lot before they get built, preliminary terms have a habit of sticking (this seems to be the reason for the Danish "S-tog"; which was an accidental preliminary coining that stuck). Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

So, in response to my question, and please just take this as playful pedantry, the answer is none ;-) A couple of countries have riffed on the stylised S-for "suburban" (not "schnell" or "stadt", as in D, A and CH) logo, certainly. Denmark has a native spinoff but even they say "S-Tog" and not S-Bahn. I don't think any of the other examples - other than the unusual and transport geeky "S-train" - have any etymological link with the word S-Bahn, even if the systems themselves are similar. But S-Bahn is not a word which, unlike "metro", has entered numerous languages as a common term without being translated. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
The S-[something] format can be considered a "similar term" to "S-Bahn", don't you think? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right, it could actually. However, S-[something] still only applies to Denmark, I believe. Or are there specific systems called "S-Train"? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Prague Esko (Which is like "S-train") Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Which takes knowledge of Czech to understand. Few people will make the link between the words Esko and S-Bahn, though I might be wrong there. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
The symbol is an S and I know no Czech... And the symbol of many S-Bahn like systems is an S. Maybe that can be mentioned... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, and especially alongside the metro M that hundreds of cities use. Just to be awkward, the Glasgow Subway uses an S logo. I've always found it odd that the NYC Subway doesn't have its own system logo. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
American railroading has a lot of "we've always done it this way" practices that don't make much sense from the standpoint of other cultures. That may just be one of those things... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Though Washington has an 'M-logo' Metro, of course. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Move to public transportation?[edit]

As most urban rail systems are integrated with buses, would public transportation be a better scope for this article? Urban rail adventures would focus on urban rail systems which are an attraction in their own right. /Yvwv (talk) 08:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what to do with this article. I kind of gave up on it a long time ago and decided to stop working on it. You can read through the long discussions above to see what the problems are. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Yvwv's suggestion probably makes sense. Listing all of the cities that have rail transit provides little value, but listing those that are have some interesting feature (and the museums) would be worthwhile. Ground Zero (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Light Rail[edit]

Can we really draw a hard and fast line between "light rail" - including systems that have tunnels - and "rapid transit"? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Not a useful one, I think. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Except for the odd case of the horse drawn tram, which is light rail, but is not rapid! AlasdairW (talk) 07:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Copyedits[edit]

I am restoring a bunch of copyedits that were reverted without explanation. Please discuss which ones you disagree with instead of restoring capitalization, punctuation and formatting errors:

  • "in Belgium one single line connects the entire coast." A sentence begins with a capital later in English. "One single" is redundant and clumsy. "A single" flows better.
  • "riders to be able to physically — or at least legally — enter the platform" - I changed this to "for riders to be able to enter the platform legally" because it is obvious that "entering" refers to physically entering the platform, rather than spiritually enters it, whatever that would mean. There were other meaningless words that I removed (currently, originally, both), but we can discuss those if you want.
  • New York is a city and a state, so clarification is needed
  • Time for string - we have a policy on that WV:tdf. Reverting a formatting correction is disruptive.
  • Compound adjectives like the one in "1.6-mile tram line" are hyphenated in English, and we should provide conversions to the international system for our non-US/UK readers.
  • "kph" is a non-standard abbreviation. Let's use "km/h" like the rest of the world, and per WV:units.

These are not controversial edits, but I am willing to discuss any of them. Restoring punctuation, capitalization and formatting errors to make some point without explaining what that point is is harmful to Wikivoyage. Ground Zero (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

New York without clarification always means the city, not the state, unless the other use is obvious from context. And in this context it is of course obvious it isn't the state that's meant. And while you are not legally allowed to enter many platforms without a platform ticket or a ticket to ride, there is nothing physically barring you from doing so in many place. And your sneaky trick of packing in non-controversial edits with oversights and your personal little crusades is of course a good thing to present yourself as the persecuted innocence, but it gets old and tiring pretty fast. If you were to split up your edits more, one could revert the bad and let the good stand. Because indeed, some of what you do is indeed good. But you bury it under... other edits... In one single diff. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
As a New York City native, I would have to disagree that "New York" always means the city by default, but if the context is clear, we don't use the "City" part. "New York subway" obviously refers to the city, for example. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Firstly, I completely reject and condemn Hobbitschuster's unnecessary personal attack, and would ask him to show the same respect to others that he would expect to receive. I am fully aware that you and GZ don't always see eye to eye and have argued before, but there was no need to be rude here.
Secondly, while I support Ground Zero's copy-edits in general, I do agree with some of what Hobbit is arguing: that it is usually best to split edits up, rather than doing a whole article in one go. It does make it more difficult for others to keep track of every single change when they are confronted with a wall of orange and blue. It is correspondingly more difficult to undo certain parts of the edit without infringing on other parts. Now, this is not a policy as far as I'm aware, but it is something we often encourage of new users, and I don't see why the rest of us shouldn't follow suit.
I note that similar issues have come up between you two on this before, so instead of having another argument, let's try to work around the issue. I like both of you as colleagues, so would really like to help you not to irritate each other. Do you think we can all be mindful of one another, and try to avoid doing things which experience has taught us annoys the other party?
So, one simple thing that Ground Zero could do to avoid further conflicts like this would be if he split more edits up, especially when mixing edits of "substance" (changes of content) with those of "style" (copyedits). This would make it easier for fellow Wikivoyagers to review and amend your edits.
Hobbitschuster could contribute to this conflict avoidance by doing something called a partial revert: click "edit", rather than "undo" or "rollback", and put right the mistakes without compromising the improvements. Alternatively, if it's easier, he could click the rollback button, and then reinstate the parts of the first edit he doesn't object to with a further edit. This would demonstrate that you mean it when you say "some of what you do is indeed good".
I for one would appreciate if you both went the extra mile (or kilometre, if you prefer) to respect one another's views and try not to perpetuate personal bad feeling. All the best --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
ThunderingTyphoons: thank you for your comments.
First, I acknowledge that I put too many changes into one Edo. I am working on that. And I know I've said that before, but I will keep trying to change how I edit. I understand that it bothers other editors when I do a whole bunch of changes at once, and I do not mean to do that.
Hobbitschuster: your comments suggest bad faith on my part. Do you mean to do that? How am I using a "sneaky trick" when I make a bunch of copyedits with the edit summary "Copyedit"?
Yes, occasionally I make mistakes in my editing. I have seen you make mistakes too. Restoring a dozen punctuation, capitalization and formatting errors because I made one or two errors while making those corrections does not improve Wikivoyage. And yes, I am reviewing more of my changes before publishing than I used to, but you know, I don't always see the errors. I am guessing that's why you publish errors sometimes too. And I do thank editors who correct my errors, as people do in a collaborative project.
With regard to "physically/legally", I think the simpler version is clearer without getting into the semantics of the lack of physical barriers. The extra words obscure the meaning here.
With regard to "some systems such as New York's", I will point out that Buffalo also has a subway, but if Ikan Kekek doesn't think the clarification is needed, that is good enough for me. Ground Zero (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, the Buffalo system would never be called the "New York subway". Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)