Talk:Light rail

Cleveland?

In Cleveland, we have two rail systems, referred to as heavy and light. The former is post-war construction; the latter is 1920s construction to support real estate developers (who incidentally bought a controlling interest in the Nickel Plate RR to support their efforts).

Does that qualify? Is it not listed because it's nearly a century old on a fifty year old concept, or just because nobody has bothered? Snile (talk) 11:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Added it to the appropriate passage; don't know why it was left off, but Cleveland's Green and Blue Lines totally fit the description of pre-World War II streetcars that were upgraded to modern standards over the years. oknazevad (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Lead

[…] tram […] is a form of tramway […] that constitutes a form of tram.

Perhaps we could find a better way to phrase that? Cheers ⌘ _hugarheimur 18:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

That terrible wording crept in through some bad rewrites in September that plainly ignore that tram (aka streetcar or trolley) has a separate article. I restored the older version of the lead. oknazevad (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Tyne & Wear Metro

I think the Tyne and Wear Metro Should not be include in Light Rail & instead Commuter rail because it better follows the requirement's to be a commuter rail instead of Light Rail. Also the Tyne & Wear Metro only has level crossing which are at about Right Angles to the Road. Also the Tyne & Wear Metro get's some quite heavy freight trains heading to/from Drax Power Station & Tyne Dock running on the same track as the Tyne & Wear Metro. I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

You may be right, especially after the old stock (based on type B trams/LRVs) will be phased out by 2025. KatVanHuis (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

'Light rail' versus 'light rail transit'

The most WP:COMMON NAME is 'light rail'. I am happy for 'light rail transit' to be mentioned too, but it must be afterwards. Will Thorpe (talk) 13:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed by KatVanHuis with the result of no consensus. Fork99 (talk) 10:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

---

I propose merging Semi-metro into Light rail. The distinction between semi-metro and light rail systems is often minimal and can significantly overlap.

Consolidating both topics under one article would enhance clarity and streamline information for readers interested in urban transit systems.

Rationale

1. Minimal Distinction: Semi-metro systems, characterized by sections of independent right-of-way, are a significant aspect of light rail networks globally. This integration reflects a widespread practice across many light rail systems, making it practical to discuss these systems together.
2. Merging Semi-metro into Light rail will provide readers with a comprehensive overview of all aspects of light rail systems, including those with semi-metro characteristics. This approach avoids redundancy and provides a unified resource for understanding urban transit.
3. Maintaining separate articles for semi-metro and light rail can lead to confusion due to their similar operational and infrastructural features. Consolidation will clarify terminology and improve the coherence of information presented.
4. A single, consolidated article reduces maintenance overhead and ensures that updates and improvements are applied uniformly. It also avoids duplication of effort across related topics.
5. Readers interested in semi-metro systems could find a dedicated section within the Light rail article, if necessary, for accessibility and usability without the need to navigate between multiple articles.
6. Language Pages: The language pages linked to Semi-metro often cover different topics or were created by the initial same user, suggesting redundancy or a personal drive for the page to exist.
7. The term 'semi-metro' is not widely recognized in major dictionaries and has limited search engine results beyond this Wikipedia page, indicating its specialized usage within transit terminology.

Do please share your thoughts on this proposal. Lea 4545 (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

It may be no surprise that I oppose; but thanks for the invite to share my thoughts.

1. The distinction between light rail and semi-metro is that both have different definitions; light rail being the broader one. Light rail expert Vuchic describes three levels of right of way:

A. street running

B. separate right of way (not independent/with level road-crossings)

C. independent right of way (conflict free/without level road-crossings)

Having category A defines tram. Having also category B defines light rail. Having also category C defines semi-metro (as part of light trail).

2. We could also merge light rail with public transport to create an even more comprehensive article. But that would make it too long, right? In this case, the semi-metro article isn't finished yet. Especially the history section needs to be expanded, but also a few others.

3. Their operation is indeed similar; being tram-like vehicles. But their infrastructure in different; semi-metro uses tunnels and viaducts just like a metro.

4. Currently I don't see much duplication.

5. Isn't it a big pro of Wikipedia over paper encyclopedias to have easy navigation by clicking only once, instead of turning many pages?

6. As far as I can tell all the language pages cover the same phenomenon. Besides that: I have only created one other language page, which is not even the most extensive language version.

7. Most importantly: the semi-metro article uses reliable and independent sources. Even if semi-metro might be specialised transit terminology, many Wikipedia articles focus on either mathematical, biological or astronomical terms not found in a dictionary. I think it's a good custom to include specialised terms. KatVanHuis (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• Merge

I would like to support the proposal to merge the Semi-metro article into the Light rail article. There is no distinct need to have this page when there are already pages for Premetro and light rail.

• Overlap: “Semi-metro” describes a type of light rail system with both dedicated and shared tracks, making it a term within the light rail category rather than a distinct type. Merging the articles will better place this information under light rail.
• Better Information: Combining the Semi-metro article with Light rail will provide a single, comprehensive resource for light rail systems, including those termed with 'semi-metro' features.
• Terminology: “Semi-metro” seems to be a specific term used in some papers for describing light rail systems with certain characteristics, but not a separate category from Light rail. It seems to be a term that has emerged from particular contributors who are trying to use Wikipedia to broaden its popularity, rather than a widely recognized and distinct classification.
• Language Pages: Some of the linked language pages discuss trams in tunnels but don’t mention “semi-metro,” in any form at all.

Propose:

Merge the relevant content from the Semi-metro article into the Light rail article. Perhaps by establishing a new section within Light rail, or by including the 'three levels of right of way' as mentioned above. Detail how some light rail systems incorporate features typically associated with the term “semi-metro,” such as tunnels and viaducts. This approach will provide readers with a more unified understanding of how these systems fit into the light rail category. The proposal to merge of light rail with public transport to create an 'even more comprehensive article' seems facetious.

Key Information: Any unique and valuable information from the 'semi-metro' page, such as significant historical details and notable examples should be preserved in the merged article. The reliable and independent sources from the semi-metro article should, of course, be retained in the merge to Light rail.

Terminology: The Light rail article could be updated to reflect that “semi-metro” is a term sometimes used to describe specific configurations within light rail systems. This update will clarify that the term denotes certain characteristics of light rail rather than a distinct type of transit.

Document the Merge: The rationale and details of the merge should be documented on the talk pages. KatVanHuis, with their expertise, could be well placed to ensure accurate integration of content.

Qpwoeizmxn (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Qpwoeizmxn for your extensive reply. Some remarks from my side.

• You're on spot; the idea to merge light rail with public transport to create an 'even more comprehensive article' was intended to be somewhat facetious.
• Indeed, some of the linked language pages discuss trams in tunnels but don’t mention the term “semi-metro”. But that's because the term simply doesn't exist in that language. Even in the USA, the term “subway-surface line” is still often used. Many former Soviet Union countries prefer the term “Metrotram”. >> Similarly the term “metro” isn't used in all countries: in the USA “Rapid Transit” is preferred, in London they say “Underground”, Germans almost always use “U-bahn”. But despite all those different names, the same definition applies to the term “metro”.
• I agree with your remark: “Semi-metro” describes a type of light rail system with both dedicated and shared tracks, making it a term within the light rail category rather than a distinct type. However, exactly the same could be said about Tram-train. In short: semi-metro is a type of light rail partly using metro-infrastructure and Tram-train is a type of light rail partly using train-infrastructure. Would you consider to merge "Tram-train" into "light rail" as well?
• About terminology: Wikipedia doesn't necessarily describes popular terms, but does decribe notable terms. Again: Wikipedia also describes many mathematical, biological or astronomical terms. Most of them are not popular in any way. Wikipedia is not a popularity contest.

KatVanHuis (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps if the article were to be merged, it should be merged with pre-metro instead? Seems at a glance like a closer fit. Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that Will Thorpe's suggestion makes sense. I support the idea of merging "semi-metro" with premetro. Qpwoeizmxnr (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your various viewpoints. Will Thorpe's suggestion to merge "Semi-metro" with "Premetro" seems to actually be the best of the three options suggested.

Replying to KatVanHuis

• While I understand the distinction mentioned regarding light rail and semi-metro systems, the overlap in infrastructure and operation supports a merger with Premetro to streamline information.
• I acknowledge that the semi-metro article may not be considered finished, but merging it with Premetro could encourage the expansion and completion of these sections within a more comprehensive context.
• The infrastructure differences pointed out are valid, yet these characteristics are also present in Premetro systems, further justifying the merger.
• Even if there's not much duplication now, merging the articles can help avoid potential future redundancies and confusion.

Will Thorpe's suggestion seems to best capture the specific characteristics and distinctions we're discussing. -Lea Lea 4545 (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that Will Thorpe's suggestion shows their familiarity with public transport. But I oppose this merge too as both subjects qualify Wikipedia's notable requirements.

Dear @Lea 4545, you're replies are really well written and formatted but the contents are very broad and generic. Let me replace lightrail with mammal, semi-metro with elephant and lastly premetro with Asian elephant.

• While I understand the distinction mentioned regarding mammals and elephants, the overlap in bone structure and use of a trunk supports a merger with Asian elephants to streamline information.
• I acknowledge that the elephant article may not be considered finished, but merging it with Asian elephant could encourage the expansion and completion of these sections within a more comprehensive context.
• The trunk shape differences pointed out are valid, yet these characteristics are also present in Asian elephants, further justifying the merger.
• Even if there's not much duplication now, merging the articles can help avoid potential future redundancies and confusion.

But I don't think this would suffice a merge in the biology section of Wikipedia as "mammal", "elephant" and "Asian elephant" are in different tiers. KatVanHuis (talk) 08:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Closing with no merge; no consensus has been reached, discussion stale. The articles all meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. KatVanHuis (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.