Talk:Rapid transit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussions here have repeatedly involved the same arguments and views.

Please review the recent comments below, or in the archives. New views and ideas on the subject are welcome; however, if your beliefs reflect already existing contributions, please consider withholding them.
Archive
Archives
  1. July 2003 to April 2005
  2. May 2005 to December 2007
  3. Article name discussions
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains.
See also: WikiProject to do list and the Trains Portal
B Quality: B-Class. (assessment comments)
High Importance: high-importance.
Sel Portal "Selected article" week 43, 2006.
Peer review.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rapid transit.
Top importance
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Rapid transit as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Japanese language Wikipedia.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Rapid transit as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Slovenian language Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] WP:RM suggestion

I am just thinking, maybe a separate archive page should be created for all move suggestions and place them there. Simply south (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

As long as they mentioned the timeline of discussions. I've added a circle template above. MickMacNee (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that the circle template is not appropriate. We should not discourage discussions here. But it might be useful to separate the name discussions. I suggest that we move the Talk:Rapid transit/January 2008 Requested Move (long) to Talk:Rapid transit/Article name instead, and move other article name related discussions there. -- Kildor (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It does not discourage debate, it points out that the same debate has occured periodically without reaching a conclusion, and hence it would be wise to check these previous discussions before starting new ones. MickMacNee (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 22#Template:Round In Circles, it is clear that I am not alone with my concerns. If we move the article name discussion to its own page, there will be no problem to discuss other things on this page. And I really don't see the need for the Round In Circles template - there hase been no discussion at all since the move requst was closed. -- Kildor (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not against consolidation of the moves into a separate archive, read my above response. The tag is correct as the talk page stands now, tfd discussions that did not delete the template are irrelevant. The tag refers to all the similar discussions in the archive, please feel free to start new discussions, after thinking about what the template says. MickMacNee (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I do! But there is clearly no consensus on that the tag should be used at all. It might be useful on pages that see a lot of repeated arguments over and over again. But this is not the case here. The subject has not been discussed at all since the closing of the request move. -- Kildor (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
For the last time, the tag refers to the archives. And it's proposed deletion is not a deletion, the tag exists and is therefore acceptable for use. MickMacNee (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The tag exists because there was no clear consensus for deleting it. And that does not mean that the tag is acceptable for use everywhere. There is clearly no use for it here! -- Kildor (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Take it to an Rfc then if you think it's placement is incorrect, so we can stop going round in circles on the issue of the going round in circles tag, and actually use this page as intended, discussion about the article. MickMacNee (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have now moved the talk page to Talk:Rapid transit/Article name. And removed the circle tag since it is not needed. -- Kildor (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it. Do not edit war over something so WP:LAME, if necessary, seek a third opinion. MickMacNee (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
So why did you revert my edit, if yoy think it is a lame issue? Not much is discussed on these pages, and the tag is not needed (maybe except for us two to think about :) -- Kildor (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added in the others from the other archives now (although not quite in order of date, will sort out later). Simply south (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rubber-tyred metro

The lead and definition of rapid transit has been extended to specifically include Rubber-tyred metro. I wonder if it is really necessary - does the text "rail-based transportation system" exclude rubber-tyred metros? -- Kildor (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Not by any definition I’ve ever heard. For purposes of classification — let alone actual travel — a rubber-tyred metro is only a minor variation on a steel-wheeled one, and in many cases both technologies are combined in one network. David Arthur (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
the statement "rail-based transportation system" can include rubber tyred trams if the rail based aspect only applies to guidance and not traction. MickMacNee (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, the phrase "rail-based transportation system used within urban areas to transport people" can certainly include any light rail system. But the more specific definition takes care of that problem. -- Kildor (talk) 11:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Hence the part about ‘grade separation from other traffic’, which non-metro railways usually do not have, and trams lack more or less by definition. David Arthur (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought the potential for confusion for uninitated readers was quite obvious, relying on 'grade separation' to differentiate the two only seems to suppport that, but Kildor is obsessed with this article so I can't be bothered, if they don't understand it straight away neither he or I give a rats ass, goddam noobs. MickMacNee (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Gee... thanks! But to make my point a little bit clearer: Since the definition, as it is written now, does not exclude rubber-tyred metro, it is not necessary to specifically include that in the very defining sentence (for no other reason that it is not included in the dictionary entry being quoted). In the same way we should not need to include the words overhead wire in that first sentence. But these two things could perhaps be worth mentioning in the paragraph dealing with elevated vs underground mode... Would that do the trick? -- Kildor (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Related move

I'm not sure on a title. Anyway, i have proposed to move Rapid transit in the United Kingdom to Metro systems in the United Kingdom. Simply south (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More comments on article name

Some more comments on article name:

The American Public Tranportation Association (APTA), have a glossary of transit terminology. Their primary word for what is described in this article is heavy rail: ´

An electric railway with the capacity for a "heavy volume" of traffic and characterized by exclusive rights-of-way, multi-car trains, high speed and rapid acceleration, sophisticated signaling and high platform loading. Also known as "rapid rail," "subway," "elevated (railway)" or "metropolitan railway (metro)."

Their definition of rapid transit:

Rail or motorbus transit service operating completely separate from all modes of transportation on an exclusive right-of-way.

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Rapid transit use the word rapid transit in a quite a generic way:

This project is an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of the information on Wikipedia related to: subways, light rail, trams and anything else that may fall under the category "rapid transit".
This project covers just about any type of rapid transit imaginable. It's a child project to WikiProject Trains.

The UK Transport Research Laboratory use the word rapid transit in several reports to describe "lighter" modes of public transport, as BRT, light rail and trams (example). In a recent report, The demand for public transport, a practical guide, the term heavy urban rail is used as a term that "comprises underground and metro systems designed for high capacity, and fully segregated from surface traffic". The term metro is used throughout the whole report to represent this mode of transport.

Another site [1] divide transit systems into tram, light rail, metro, tramtrain, commuter rail and rapid transit, where the metro definition is right on target, while rapid transit is used to describe high standard S-Bahn and similar commuter rail systems ("beefed up metro suited for longer distances"). The World Bank has a page about Public Transport Modes & Services. Their only useage of the term rapid transit is for bus rapid transit, or mass rapid transit that " is used to denote public transport modes operating on fully or partially exclusive tracks (rail or road)". In a report ([2] they define four generic forms of mass rapid transit:

  • Busways – these are generally segregated sections of roadway within major corridors, with horizontal protection from other traffic, and priority over other traffic at junctions, which are generally signalised
  • Light rail transit (LRT) – this is at-grade, with similar horizontal protection to busways
  • Metros – these are fully segregated, usually elevated or underground. It is the segregation that is critical to providing a rapid service, and the technology that allows a high mass ridership to be carried
  • Suburban rail – these services are usually physically part of a larger rail network, usually at-grade and fully-segregated incorporating road-rail segregation or controlled level-crossings -- Kildor (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "heavy urban rail"

I remember "heavy urban rail" or something like it suggested in the past (I think it was SPUI who first suggested this article name). Of all the suggested new names for this article, if we come to consensus on a move, this seems the least ambiguous to me. Slambo (Speak) 15:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment: If this was used, I suspect urban heavy rail would make more sense; the "heavy rail" portion is already a reasonably widely used term. —Sladen (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
'Heavy Rail' for metro type systems is a north americanism. Plus common sense says heavy rail is the heaviest type of rail transport. MickMacNee (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
‘Heavy rail’ in this context is a U.S. usage — in Britain it refers only to the real railway network — and is always jargon; how many people talk about taking the heavy rail to work? David Arthur (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
In the UK or America? Probably no-one in either case I would have thought. MickMacNee (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)