Talk:List of tram and light rail transit systems

Cairo

There was too much of a hurry in giving the Cairo tramway system up for dead: unlike Helwan, whose lines are now gone for good, Heliopolis still (presumably) has some operational service, although it's just a short remnant (one line 3-km long) of the once extensive network. I found some references, dating after the 2014-2015 drastic curtailment which several sources took as the end game of this system, that shows something of it survived; above all (both in German):

• 2017 report about a tram-tour in Egypt,
• a 2018 article from the July issue of Straßenbahn Magazin.

I also found a some news about a couple of accidents involving the tramway occurred in late 2018 (written in Arabic, I hope Google Translator did is job well): not really “good news”, but at least the fact they happens implies that tramcars are still running. Hence I'm going to put Cairo again in the list, unless someone submit a newest source saying it closed in the meantime. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

2020 Update

Ultimately, even the last bit of this system was literally ripped off from Cairo' streets. Ironically, they're going to celebrate the heritage they've just destroyed altogether. Now we'll have to permanently remove it from the list, too. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Yak79 2.0: Trams in Greater Cairo needs to be updated as well, then... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@IJBall: that's why I was searching for the closure date, without much luck indeed. Considering the couple of sources I found, that give us a terminus post quem - this one, dated 1 August 2019, says that "it was announced last month that the tram will be completely removed from the neighborhood" - and one ante quem - this one, at the beginning of this year, refers to the tram as a thing of the past: "(...) regrette qu'un 'moyen de transport durable ait été sacrifié pour plus de voitures'. [(...) regrets that a 'sustainable mean of transport has been sacrificed for more cars'] -, the "last run" should have happened in the second half of 2019. However, after a second thought, they might both refer to the tramway infrastructure, and the operation might have ceased even before, at some time after the 2018 article of Straßenbahn Magazin.

Hence I think that it'd be better to update Trams in Greater Cairo using a rather unspecified wording, akin to this:

Only a short section of one line in Heliopolis, between Court Square and the Tivoli Dome, continued to be operated. By the end of 2019, service had ceased definitively, with tracks dismantled in order to widen the neighborhood's roads.

So, what do you say? Regards, Yak79 2.0 (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

That seems fine to me – it's certainly supported by sources, without offering anything beyond what's in the sources. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

References

"Refimprove" maintenance tag

There's a change I’ve been considering for some time but, given that it’d be relevant and maybe contentious, I decided to seek consensus here beforehand: in my opinion, the issue flagged by this template has been largely addressed since May 2013, when SJ Morg (talk) placed it, in all but the European table; hence, I intend to remove the “global” template and to place a “local” one only for that section. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I have no objection to this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's OK with me. SJ Morg (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done: I made the change yesterday. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Beijing

Why there is not enlisted the tramway "system" on Qianmen street? I know, it's a parody of tramway system, but they have two cars on normal rails, going back and forth... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.103.124.242 (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Because it doesn't provide actual transit service, one of the few criteria for inclusion - the others are "running year-round" and "being currently operational" - clearly specified in the lead section. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

eBART

eBART is classified by the FTA's National Transit Database as hybrid rail (YR), a transit mode that APTA defines ... a mode of transit operated on the routes of intercity railroads and has operating characteristics of commuter rail. This service typically operates diesel multiple-unit vehicles with characteristics of light rail vehicles. and even, more explicitly, ... a subset of commuter rail.... Consistently, it has been listed in the "Commuter Rail" summary table of APTA's ridership reports since first quarter of 2019. Conversely, I checked a bit in the Bart official website and I wasn't able - as far as I digged - to find any instance of them naming it "Light Rail".

On a side note, I observed that, when referring to eBART, the term light rail / LRT is used (rather sparingly, actually) mostly by general press/media, whereas specialized sources tend to either avoid labels or call it (diesel) commuter rail.

@IJBall, Mjdestroyerofworlds, Joeyconnick, and SJ Morg: on the grounds of both its own technical features and what reliable sources say, eBART is not a light rail system; we should take notice and edit accordingly all the related articles, this one included. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I would say if sources, esp. APTA, are calling it "commuter rail", then we should simply follow their lead. If everyone else is calling eBART "commuter rail", it would WP:OR for us to call it "light rail", even if, practically, it is generally indistinguishable from something like Sprinter (light rail)... Also ping Oknazevad for their opinion as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say if an authoritative source like the APTA says commuter rail, then we must follow. oknazevad (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Rather than everyone calling it “commuter rail”, the point is that not many call eBART “light rail” and, moreover, the weight of the sources that doesn’t call it “light rail” is far greater. As for how to classify this system once dismissed the “diesel light rail” label, we could closely mirror the APTA approach: we could categorize eBART as commuter rail (e.g. in infoboxes, lists, etc.), but specifying in the text or in side notes the “hybrid rail” thing. IMHO it’d be the most sensible choice, given that most of the sources (including BART itself) avoid to define it altogether and, on the other side, Wikipedia already uses the term commuter rail in a broader sense (including under it also European-style suburban rail services, whose operating features are quite different from their US counterparts and somewhat more akin to those of the hybrid rail).

P.S. Oknazevad, your opinion is obviously more than welcome; I really thought I included you in the group-pinging but clearly I did not: sorry, my bad. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

No offense taken. But I must apologize for reading too quickly. It does seem that the APTA doesn't call it any particular form of rail, using the catch-all "hybrid" term, while other news sources are vague. I don't know when or why "diesel light rail" was dismissed; it's a pretty accurate description of some lines (like New Jersey's River Line, the only one I've ridden). Hard to categorize, this is. oknazevad (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

For the record, while eBART is weirdly missing from the APTA summary lists of ridership by mode, it is listed as commuter rail when you dig into the breakdown of ridership by agency in the same document. Check out page 14 of the Q3 2019 numbers under "San Francisco Bay Area RTD": you have "AG", "CR", and "HR" (automated guideway, commuter rail, and heavy rail, respectively). --Jfruh (talk) 06:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Huh, actually, it's listed in the big commuter rail table on page 5 as well. I swear this wasn't true in earlier reports, but it seems pretty unambiguous. --Jfruh (talk) 06:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't have particularly strong opinions about it but following the lead of the APTA categorization sounds sensible. Maybe we should move it when the new APTA Q4 2019 numbers come out (should be in the next few weeks) and we update all the "U.S. [X] rail systems by ridership" articles. --Jfruh (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. We won't have to wait long for a more updated source, or their updated categories. oknazevad (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

References

List of tram and light rail systems in the world.

Can I list TEŽ ( Tatra Electric Railway ) in this article?! Vladimir Skokan1 (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

System length in European section

The numbers given in this section (column) are a bunch of different statistical numbers with a name System length, which means, the length of the network alongside the street axis. But the numbers given are absolutely different for different cities. For one city it is a single track length, with depot and service tracks, for another one is a correct number with real system length, then for another one, it is double track length, and for another one, it is a sum of all the route length.

The column gives wrong information to the user and not the same statistical number to be compared. Either this column needs to be removed or corrected.

Corrected number sources can not be officially found anywhere because tramway system operators do not provide all this information, some of them do, some do not. Because of that each system is measured by hand using the ARC GIS tools on the existing satellite map of the world and provided the same statistical number for every city. This is a work of more than one year then relevant information is slowly uploaded on the German page of Wikipedia of the same name.

If this is not the right and enough "source" then I suggest removing this column, it is better not to provide this information rather than provide a false one which tells you that Riga's tiny tramway network is 182 km long (real number 54 km) and huge Budapest one is 158.8 km long. When in fact Budapest one is the correct number of system length, whereas Rigas number is actually all the routes summed together (the real number of Riga network is 54 km).

Tramway networks are measured normally by three numbers, Singletrack length (with or without service and depot tracks), double-track length, System length,(which is the most important same as with metro) and route length (all the operational lines summed up).

This column should provide only system length and it is not doing so.

Well, I did correct it and provided current real numbers, but if it is not needed to provide corrected info, then let us just delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siachoquero (talk • contribs) 14:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Notice that only the European section has those system stats – they were removed from the other sections some time ago. I advocated leaving the European figures in temporarily because I had hopes that the data could be "transferred" to other articles (e.g. Trams in Germany, etc.), and removed from here. But, realistically, I am likely never getting to that myself, and no one else is likely to do that either.

Because, as you say, many of the systems' stats cannot be sourced because the stats are not publicly available, I would now support just removing those columns from the 'Europe' section as well.

Finally, you said that "each system is measured by hand using the ARC GIS tools on the existing satellite map of the world and provided the same statistical number for every city" – you can't do that: it's what is known as WP:Original research. System stats have to come from reliable sourcing (or they should simply be removed)...

I'm not going to do anything right now to see if others comment. But if there is further support for removing the system stats from the 'Europe' section, we should just do that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Valencia

@IJBall This is a mixed system and I can understand there may be debate over what is metro and what is not, but the question is whether parts of the network can be classified as tram sections? They're even referred to as "tranvia" see here where there's a photo included. Help me out here because I'm actually genuinely not sure what the difference is between tram and light rail? Valenciano (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

"Light rail" is a "catch-all" term that encompasses everything from "tram/streetcar" up through probably "light metro". Even if Valencia has a couple of technically "light metro" lines, overall the system is best categorized as simply "light rail". At this article, especially, we don't need to dig into the details... But there have be numerous discussions about this over at Talk:List of metro systems, and I believe the conclusion has always been that Valencia does not qualify as a "metro" system. If for some reason that has changed, then the systems should probably simply be moved from here to List of metro systems. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but my question specifically refers to the tram sections, since I notice that some in the list on this page have them as both. I'm trying to get what the distinction is, in other words should Valencia be categorised as light rail or light rail/tram? Valenciano (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Probably best described (overall) as "light rail". The specific distinction is "modern light rail" would generally be "grade-separated", while "tram/streetcar" includes some "street-running" sections. As Valencia has examples of both (I believe), I would just call it "Light rail", though you could call it "Light rail/tram" if you prefer. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

From what it seems to me, the Valencia metro is a regional rail system that is metrolike in the city center. It's like the RER. Rckania (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Tyne and Wear Metro

The Tyne and Wear Metro is a hybrid system using mainline railways, newly built tunnels and also light rail vehicles. For the vehicles being used and the level crossings present, some sources categorise it as a light rail system. @Metrosfan claims: Tyne and Wear Metro is NOT a light rail systems, even if it really isnt a metro system, it is still not considered a light rail right after removing two sources that support that the T&W Metro falls under lightrail.

Wikipedia was created to give different views on reality, therefor this unique and special rail system could potentially be on two list, as an exception. KatVanHuis (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

how is it a light rail system, the rolling stock is literally heavier than normal light rail rolling stock, it uses metro rail cars, even if it isn't a metro system, it still isnt a light rail system, more of a suburban Rail, considering that its rolling stock is heavier than light rail rolling stock, its new rolling stock is even heavier and look a lor more to metro/suburban rail trains than light rail trains Metrosfan (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

pinging @Rckaniaand @OrewaTelas these two argued that its a metro system on the list of metro systems article Metrosfan (talk) 13:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

How is it a light rail system? Because it is not fully grade separated. The Metro cars are light rail cars: an adaption of the light rail/Stadtbahn B cars. With the same dimensions, same top speed and same axle-layout. (the same goes for the first DLR cars, but this system is actually fully grade separated.) Once the last of the original Metro cars (light rail) will be phased out during 2025 it will be less of a light rail system and more of a suburban rail system. KatVanHuis (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The sharing track with mainline rail is a relatively recent development. So do we say it used to be a metro but now it isn't? The Athens metro and London underground also use mainline tracks.

As for the grade separation, I got news for you: Multiple systems on the list of metro systems also have grade crossings. All of those systems have a note explaining such. Rckania (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

So do we say it used to be a metro but now it isn't? Great question. If developments change the nature of a rail system, indeed it can become another type of (similar) transit. I got news for you: the system als has been classified as light rail since before it's birth.

Multiple systems have crossings at grade, but then one also needs to look at the history and the type of trainsets. Tyne and Wear Metro will use light rail vehicles till 2025. KatVanHuis (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The rolling stock is literally heavier than light rail cars, even if it isn't a metro, I'd call it a suburban rail than a light rail Metrosfan (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Have you read the link I had provided earlier? The Metro cars are technically identical to the Stadtbahn B car which is a classic (even famous) light rail car. KatVanHuis (talk) 08:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @KatVanHuis that the Tyne and Wear Metro is a Light rail network rather than a heavy rail subway or commuter network, but only until the new rolling stock is implemented.

Although many aspects the Metro are shared by subway-like systems, such as full grade separation, level crossings, and the use of UK mainline railway signalling, the system is classed as a light rail system by both the regional government (referred to as a 'light rapid transport system') and by the UK government (who class it as being similar to the Croydon trams and Manchester Metrolink, both light rail and already on this page).

One argument that the Tyne and Wear Metro is not a light rail system is due to the size, weight, and speed of the current rolling stock, but again this conflicts with systems already mentioned on this list. For example, the Addis Ababa Light Rail has an average running speed of 70mph which is faster than many subway systems across the world. As for rolling stock, the Sheffield Supertram (which is street running, classed as light rail, and is also interlining with heavy rail of both freight and passenger types) has vehicles that are heavier at 66tn compared to the T&W Metro's 40tn cars. In terms of physical footprint, Japanese trams such as the Fukui Railway F1000 Series LRVs are the exact same width, and trams like the Škoda Artic are about the same length (27.6m for the Finnish trams vs 27.8m for the T&W cars). As stated by @KatVanHuis, the Stadtbahnwagen B light rail cars are what the original metro cars were based off, and these German trams are larger and about the same weight as to the metro cars.

One factor to mention, is the new rolling stock that will be introduced later this year. The new British Rail Class 555 stock is a big departure from what is currently on the system, due to its size and weight change. They are based on the Stadler Rail METRO rolling stock, and are more of a full subway oriented design, with systems such as the Berlin U-Bahn using a similar METRO stock version and the Glasgow metro implementing it in the future.

What I suggest is that the Tyne and Wear Metro be listed as a Light rail system until these new trains arrive, because the current system resembles more of a interurban Light rail and is classified as such. After these new trains arrive, I agree with @Metrosfan that the system will resemble more of a medium-capacity rail system. SamuraiArmada (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your extensive reply, appreciated. Agreeing here largely with your proposal: the new trains will change the nature of the system quite a bit. I'd like to propose the system to be classified from 2025 onwards as a "suburban rail system with metro-like infrastructure in core areas".

Note: Light in light rail isn't related to weight. Quote from Track Design Handbook for Light Rail Transit, Second Edition, chapter 1.2.2: "light rail vehicles may be as massive as transit cars on heavy rail systems". Instead light refers to capacity or infrastructure investments: "light infrastructure investments, with short applications of heavy infrastructure investment in critical areas": from Defining an Alternative Future: Birth of the Light Rail Movement in North America, page 26. KatVanHuis (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

the rolling stock is

it's heavier than literal light these rolling stocks cannot run on roads like what others can rs, you've Metrosfan (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Metrosfan, I’m not exactly sure what you’re trying to say there, but the argument “if a system isn’t road capable it’s not light rail” is fundamentally wrong. A light rail system does not need that capability, that is the reason why a distinction between the term “tram” and “light rail” is used in naming.

Additionally, @KatVanHuis is totally right that a light rail system isn’t dependant on weight to be described as such. It is much more dependant on physical infrastructure like turning radii, station lengths, signalling system, and other factors that increase the construction cost of a project. Light rail systems are designed to be scaled back in these regards, and of course having lighter vehicles is just one factor that reduces cost of infrastructure. SamuraiArmada (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

It probably should also be noted that the term originated in engineering circles as a reference to rail weight, not vehicle weight, as these systems could use lighter rail weights as part of the scaled back designes you mention. oknazevad (talk) 10:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

It should probably be noted that the etymology of the term "light rail", which was coined by the engineers working on the design of the early modern systems, is a reference to their ability to use a lesser rail weight as part of that infrastructure cost savings. It's not the weight of the rolling stock, per se, that makes them "light". oknazevad (talk) 08:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies @oknazevad! After many years of searching (albeit not always actively) just last week I found the actual document that coined the term "light rail". Already on page 1 it mentioned: "Light rail mode combines to a considerable extent low investment (and, therefore, better collection-distribution capability) of buses (trams???) with high level of service, capacity and potential for automation of rapid transit mode." Although (and I'm shocked, as many sources written later fight against this) a light weight is actually mentioned: Light rail transit consists of modern light weight urban rail vehicles operating predominantly on private rights-of-way, at surface level or fully grade separated. Luckily the autor retrurns to the cost aspect on page 18: The "missing mode" should have a capability to transport 2,000- 15,000 persons per hour per direction; more importantly, it should offer an intermediate level of service/cost combination: a level of service higher than bus at a much lower cost than rail rapid transit".

Also interesting to note is that even in the nineteen-seventies the term semi-metro was in use for premetro and stadtbahn networks, but the mentioned term cityrail has vanished... That is, until one YouTuber found it last year (well... calling it CityTrains i.o. CityRail!) and made an interesting video about it. KatVanHuis (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

References