Talk:Subway

Tyne and Wear Metro?

How does the Tyne and Wear Metro count as a subway? Isn't it basically a surface system? Philip J. Rayment 07:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

It has undergound sections (newly tunnelled in the 70s/80s) on two lines in the centres of Newcastle & Gateshead, with 7 stations underground in total. OK, most of the system is above ground (but then so is a majority of the London Underground mileage, if memory serves; I could be wrong - but there is a lot above ground). Don't take our subway status away from us! Sawneybeane 08:06, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Edit conflict. I was about to say the same - although it is largely above ground, it does have underground sections also. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 08:09, 16 February 2008 (EST)

But don't let any Mancs in claiming that their Metrolink is a subway! ;-) Sawneybeane 08:10, 16 February 2008 (EST)

actually nine sub-surface stations if you include Sunderland and Park Lane —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sawneybeane (talk)

Okay, I know I'm on thin ice here, as I don't really know all that much about the system. But surely simply having a bit of it underground is not sufficient to qualify? Melbourne and Sydney both have underground sections, but nobody calls them subways. Admittedly the number of stations is smaller and the systems are bigger (I'm all but certain). (Melbourne has three underground stations out of about 200 stations. Sydney has about five out of a total that would be much more than 200.) Is the Tyne and Wear actually referred to as a subway by locals? Philip J. Rayment 08:16, 16 February 2008 (EST)

It's referred to as the Metro. 'Subway' in the UK refers to a pedestrian passageway beneath a road or railway, rather than to a metro-type system. The underground stations are in the main city centres, so most travellers would use a sub-surface station for at least part of their journey. Sawneybeane 08:23, 16 February 2008 (EST)

'Subway' here in Oz means the same as in the UK. This article defines 'subway' as "...a Rapid Transit system that runs underground for much or all of its route". Even granting the non-underground mileage of the London Underground, it's fair to say that it runs underground for "much" of its route. (And Sydney would also fit your description of most travellers using an underground station, I would think.) But the article's definition doesn't seem to fit the Tyne and Wear. (Actually, I wonder about the Chicago El also, but I think much of that is no longer elevated, but underground?) Is the problem really the definition, or perhaps the title of the article? Perhaps this article should be a very brief description but referring to metro (although not that article) as the main article? Philip J. Rayment 08:37, 16 February 2008 (EST)

I didn't comment on the lack of use of the name. I understand why the Tyne and Wear doesn't use the term 'subway', and I should have realised that and not asked the question in that way. I guess what I was asking was what it is known by, and if that is equivalent to "subway". "The underground", "tube", etc. imply the same as "subway" does to Americans, but I'd consider "metro" to be a broader term than "subway", rather than a synonym for it. So in essence, what the Tyne and Wear is known as is not equivalent to "subway". Then add to that my comments above about it not fitting the (reasonable, in my opinion) description given in this article for "subway", and you will hopefully see my point. Philip J. Rayment 08:46, 16 February 2008 (EST)

(a) apologies if I sounded snippy about the 'subway' thing - this was careless rather than intentional. (b) Tricky because we are then straying into lengthy-title-territory with 'urban rail systems' and all that - and the sometimes hazy distinction between urban rail and 'national' rail, urban rail and 'subway/metro' and urban rail and systems like the Manchester one, which are part segregated rail, part on-street tramway. Ultimately, your piece, your call, I think. I won't bang on about Tyne and Wear if you do decide to remove it. Certyainly, no-one would use 'underground' as a synonym for the T&W Metro & you make a fair case Sawneybeane 08:50, 16 February 2008 (EST)

You didn't sound snippy (at least not unduly so), and no, this is not my article. My first edit of it was just over an hour ago. I agree, however, that it's difficult to categorise systems because of fuzzy definitions. "Light rail" is a classic example of something without a clear definition (in my opinion). Philip J. Rayment 08:55, 16 February 2008 (EST)

I'll remove T&W - it's fair to say it doesn't really meet the definition of subway that you cite, in terms of % of mileage. Sawneybeane 09:00, 16 February 2008 (EST)

It's nice when civil discussion achieves a result! Philip J. Rayment 09:02, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Especially when you're up against a simmering cauldron of local patriotism! Sawneybeane 09:06, 16 February 2008 (EST)