In message <uld5to$2dck$1@gal.iecc.com>, at 20:58:32 on Wed, 13 Dec
2023, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> remarked:
>According to Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>:
>>In message <ula5fq$3o5cc$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:32:42 on Tue, 12 Dec
>>2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>> Now you'll ask what the difference between light rail and
>>>> subway/metro/underground, and I will wave my hands like crazy and
>>>> say you know it when you see it. If it has street running it's
>>>> light rail, if not it's probably a subway.
>>>
>>>Until you come to things like Thameslink, London Overground or the
>>>Elizabeth line, that straddle the boundary between metro and
>>>conventional heavy rail.
>>
>>But all run, in places, on the same tracks as conventional heavy rail,
>>and use the same classes of EMU as heavy rail.
>
>To cross theads a little bit, what's the line between
>Harrow-on-the-Hill and Amersham? It has Metropolitan Line LU trains
>and Chiltern NR trains running on the same tracks and stopping at the
>same stations.

The METROpolitan Line trains could well be a Metro, but that doesn't
mean the Chiltern trains automatically are. The tracks are indisputably
heavy rail.
--
Roland Perry

In message <ZQE*TMOxz@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 21:48:39 on Wed,
13 Dec 2023, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>In uk.transport.london Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> The second one redirects to the same long url, which is why I get THE
>> EXACT SAME ERROR MESSAGE, not an error message regarding the shortened
>> url. It's a bit of a mystery.
>
>Worked for me. Looking at a checker site:
>https://www.site24x7.com/link-checker.html
>it says the page and links worked apart from one to the Android app.
>
>but, interestingly, another site like that:
>https://httpstatus.io/
>
>got told 403 Forbidden, and indicates it's on Cloudflare. Maybe there's
>something about your system that doesn't like Cloudflare? Do you have any
>IP blocks or anything?
>
>If the redirect worked,

It did, because I quoted the full url it redirected to, earlier.

>it suggests the site replied to it successfully, so the web server is
>working but something interfered with the page fetch. Do you have any
>kind of virus checker or proxy on your machine that might intercept
>page fetches?

Not as far as I'm aware. And this is the only page I've tried to view,
ever, which exhibits these symptoms.
--
Roland Perry

On 13/12/2023 22:37, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 15:45:52 -0000 (UTC), John Levine
>> <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>>
>>> According to Bob <bob@domain.com>:
>>>> You are of course free to have your own personal idea of where the
>>>> distinction ought to lie between the two, but that doesn't account for
>>>> how other people chose to use the respective terms. There are examples
>>>> of systems that describe themselves as light rail that very much do not
>>>> conform to this distinction, indeed there are systems in the US and
>>>> Canada that describe themselves as "light rail" that use standard UIC
>>>> rolling stock such as Stadler FLIRT, GTW and Coradia LINT units.
>>>
>> Gareth Dennis has discussed 'what's a metro' frequently.
>>
>> https://medium.com/swlh/is-cambridgeshires-new-metro-all-it-s-cracked-up-to-be-cfbc6d9d0a22
>>
>
> Including a very convenient flowchart:
>
> <https://x.com/railnatter/status/1647864495354662912>
>
> Key definitions include whether the line carries below 10,000 people per
> hour per direction, between 10k and 20k pphpd or over 20k; steel or rubber
> tyres; dedicated tracks or not, street running or not.
>
> The available outputs from the flowchart are car, bus, dangleway,
> gadgetbahn, tram, heavy tram, light metro, metro, light suburban rail,
> suburban rail, heavy suburban rail.
>
>

I love the expression gadgetbahn, that's the one that beguiles
simple-minded politicians to the exclusion of reality.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 13/12/2023 22:37, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 15:45:52 -0000 (UTC), John Levine
>>> <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> According to Bob <bob@domain.com>:
>>>>> You are of course free to have your own personal idea of where the
>>>>> distinction ought to lie between the two, but that doesn't account for
>>>>> how other people chose to use the respective terms. There are examples
>>>>> of systems that describe themselves as light rail that very much do not
>>>>> conform to this distinction, indeed there are systems in the US and
>>>>> Canada that describe themselves as "light rail" that use standard UIC
>>>>> rolling stock such as Stadler FLIRT, GTW and Coradia LINT units.
>>>>
>>> Gareth Dennis has discussed 'what's a metro' frequently.
>>>
>>> https://medium.com/swlh/is-cambridgeshires-new-metro-all-it-s-cracked-up-to-be-cfbc6d9d0a22
>>>
>>
>> Including a very convenient flowchart:
>>
>> <https://x.com/railnatter/status/1647864495354662912>
>>
>> Key definitions include whether the line carries below 10,000 people per
>> hour per direction, between 10k and 20k pphpd or over 20k; steel or rubber
>> tyres; dedicated tracks or not, street running or not.
>>
>> The available outputs from the flowchart are car, bus, dangleway,
>> gadgetbahn, tram, heavy tram, light metro, metro, light suburban rail,
>> suburban rail, heavy suburban rail.
>>
>>
>
> I love the expression gadgetbahn, that's the one that beguiles
> simple-minded politicians to the exclusion of reality.

Monorail! Monorail! Monorail!

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 15:45:52 -0000 (UTC), John Levine
>> <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>>
>>> According to Bob <bob@domain.com>:
>>>> You are of course free to have your own personal idea of where the
>>>> distinction ought to lie between the two, but that doesn't account for
>>>> how other people chose to use the respective terms. There are examples
>>>> of systems that describe themselves as light rail that very much do not
>>>> conform to this distinction, indeed there are systems in the US and
>>>> Canada that describe themselves as "light rail" that use standard UIC
>>>> rolling stock such as Stadler FLIRT, GTW and Coradia LINT units.
>>>
>> Gareth Dennis has discussed 'what's a metro' frequently.
>>
>> https://medium.com/swlh/is-cambridgeshires-new-metro-all-it-s-cracked-up-to-be-cfbc6d9d0a22
>>
>
> Including a very convenient flowchart:
>
> <https://x.com/railnatter/status/1647864495354662912>
>
> Key definitions include whether the line carries below 10,000 people per
> hour per direction, between 10k and 20k pphpd or over 20k; steel or rubber
> tyres; dedicated tracks or not, street running or not.
>
> The available outputs from the flowchart are car, bus, dangleway,
> gadgetbahn, tram, heavy tram, light metro, metro, light suburban rail,
> suburban rail, heavy suburban rail.

The necessary characteristic of a metro in that chart seems to be dedicated
tracks.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 18:41:06 +0000
Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:
>On 12/12/2023 09:25, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 18:15:17 +0100
>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>On 11.12.2023 12:53, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>>> My understanding was that the min distinction between 'Underground' and
>>>> 'Metro' is that 'Metro' is heavy Rail while 'Underground' is light rail.
>>>
>>>The problem is there isn't a consistent distinction between heavy and
>>>light rail. The term has been used for a variety of purposes over the
>>>years, often inconsistently, for an inconsistent collection of railway
>>>schemes, both proposed and realised. In the London context, the DLR was
>>>proposed as "light rail" specifically in contrast with the earlier Fleet
>>>line proposal to extend what became the Jubilee line east to serve the
>>>Docklands area, with the implication that the Tube is not "light rail".
>>
>> My interpretation of light rail is somewhat flimsily built vehicles with a
>> shorter lifespan than normal trains that can negotiate tight curves and
>> carry more passengers than a bus but less than a heavy rail train.
>
>The vehicles on the Glasgow Subway and the Tyne and Wear Metro are both
>about 43 years old and commonly described as "light rail". Is that a shorter
>lifespan?

Its a set of things, they don't all need to be true. As for the glasgow
subway/underground/whatever its called this week, the train cars are about
the size of a transit van so its more like a fairground ride than light rail.

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 19:10:11 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:
>> On 12/12/2023 09:25, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 18:15:17 +0100
>>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11.12.2023 12:53, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>>>> My understanding was that the min distinction between 'Underground' and
>>>>> 'Metro' is that 'Metro' is heavy Rail while 'Underground' is light rail.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is there isn't a consistent distinction between heavy and
>>>> light rail. The term has been used for a variety of purposes over the
>>>> years, often inconsistently, for an inconsistent collection of railway
>>>> schemes, both proposed and realised. In the London context, the DLR was
>>>> proposed as "light rail" specifically in contrast with the earlier Fleet
>>>> line proposal to extend what became the Jubilee line east to serve the
>>>> Docklands area, with the implication that the Tube is not "light rail".
>>>
>>> My interpretation of light rail is somewhat flimsily built vehicles with a
>>> shorter lifespan than normal trains that can negotiate tight curves and
>>> carry more passengers than a bus but less than a heavy rail train.
>>
>> The vehicles on the Glasgow Subway and the Tyne and Wear Metro are both
>> about 43 years old and commonly described as "light rail". Is that a shorter
>> lifespan?
>>
>The Glasgow Subway trains aren’t much different to London tube trains other
>than the track gauge,

And the considerably smaller loading gauge.

On 14.12.2023 08:07, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <uld0k1$vjeg$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:28:00 on Wed, 13 Dec
> 2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>
>>>> But what does a "metro like service" mean, if there isn't a clear
>>>> definition of what a metro is. Does NET operate a "metro like service"
>
>>>  Not it's a fucking TRAM.
>>
>> So a system like West Midlands Metro, that has "metro" in its name is
>> a "fucking TRAM", not a metro. Got it.
>
> I think you are in danger of completely losing the plot (unless you are
> deliberately trying to wind us up).
>
> NET is 100% a tram, in Nottingham. Not the West Midlands.
>
>> Being called a "metro" doesn't make a service a metro. Being named
>> after a river does make a service a metro.
>
> Again, what I said was: "metro" (or a synonym) in its name.
>
> $geographic+$descriptor is a candidate for such a synonym.
>
> $geographic need not be a river; $descripter could be "rail".

Almost every railway line that has ever been built has a name that is
some indication of its geographical location and a synonym for railway.
In pretty well every modern branding exercise to make railways appear
modern and forward looking, brands have been created with this sort of
naming concept, and many of these are very much not metro services in
the conventionally understood sense of the word.

Considering a bunch of UK based railway services, which of these are
metros and which are not? Does the choice of name help in making that
determination?

Translink
Solent Link
Thameslink
Marshlink

District line
Fen line
Wherry line
Island line

Mersey Rail
Scotrail
Northern Rail
TfL Rail
TfW Rail

> Thus tfl-rail might qualify as a metro.
>
> "tfl" is not a river.
>
> Apply that logic to 'Mersey' 'Rail'.

Or, where this thread originated, Thameslink, which is the only service
that actually uses the "first all-new mainline station in London in a
decade". If $geographic+$decriptor=metro, then Brent Cross West is a
metro station.

Robin

Wasn't there a legal definition of 'light rail' in the 19th Century?

Presumably it is now just a vague generic term?

On 14/12/2023 09:24, Bob wrote:
> On 14.12.2023 08:07, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <uld0k1$vjeg$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:28:00 on Wed, 13 Dec
>> 2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>
>>>>> But what does a "metro like service" mean, if there isn't a clear
>>>>> definition of what a metro is. Does NET operate a "metro like service"
>>
>>>>  Not it's a fucking TRAM.
>>>
>>> So a system like West Midlands Metro, that has "metro" in its name is
>>> a "fucking TRAM", not a metro. Got it.
>>
>> I think you are in danger of completely losing the plot (unless you
>> are deliberately trying to wind us up).
>>
>> NET is 100% a tram, in Nottingham. Not the West Midlands.
>>
>>> Being called a "metro" doesn't make a service a metro. Being named
>>> after a river does make a service a metro.
>>
>> Again, what I said was: "metro" (or a synonym) in its name.
>>
>> $geographic+$descriptor is a candidate for such a synonym.
>>
>> $geographic need not be a river; $descripter could be "rail".
>
> Almost every railway line that has ever been built has a name that is
> some indication of its geographical location and a synonym for railway.
> In pretty well every modern branding exercise to make railways appear
> modern and forward looking, brands have been created with this sort of
> naming concept, and many of these are very much not metro services in
> the conventionally understood sense of the word.
>
> Considering a bunch of UK based railway services, which of these are
> metros and which are not? Does the choice of name help in making that
> determination?
>
> Translink
> Solent Link
> Thameslink
> Marshlink
>
> District line
> Fen line
> Wherry line
> Island line
>
> Mersey Rail
> Scotrail
> Northern Rail
> TfL Rail
> TfW Rail
>
>> Thus tfl-rail might qualify as a metro.
>>
>> "tfl" is not a river.
>>
>> Apply that logic to 'Mersey' 'Rail'.
>
> Or, where this thread originated, Thameslink, which is the only service
> that actually uses the "first all-new mainline station in London in a
> decade". If $geographic+$decriptor=metro, then Brent Cross West is a
> metro station.
>

If Cambridge North is not a mainline station then what is it?

On 14/12/2023 09:23, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 18:41:06 +0000
> Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:
>> On 12/12/2023 09:25, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 18:15:17 +0100
>>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11.12.2023 12:53, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>>>> My understanding was that the min distinction between 'Underground' and
>>>>> 'Metro' is that 'Metro' is heavy Rail while 'Underground' is light rail.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is there isn't a consistent distinction between heavy and
>>>> light rail. The term has been used for a variety of purposes over the
>>>> years, often inconsistently, for an inconsistent collection of railway
>>>> schemes, both proposed and realised. In the London context, the DLR was
>>>> proposed as "light rail" specifically in contrast with the earlier Fleet
>>>> line proposal to extend what became the Jubilee line east to serve the
>>>> Docklands area, with the implication that the Tube is not "light rail".
>>>
>>> My interpretation of light rail is somewhat flimsily built vehicles with a
>>> shorter lifespan than normal trains that can negotiate tight curves and
>>> carry more passengers than a bus but less than a heavy rail train.
>>
>> The vehicles on the Glasgow Subway and the Tyne and Wear Metro are both
>> about 43 years old and commonly described as "light rail". Is that a shorter
>> lifespan?
>
> Its a set of things, they don't all need to be true. As for the glasgow
> subway/underground/whatever its called this week, the train cars are about
> the size of a transit van so its more like a fairground ride than light rail.

I think we have a new category there: does it have a vertical loop,
a water splash or ghostly sounds?

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 07:09:22 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <uld5to$2dck$1@gal.iecc.com>, at 20:58:32 on Wed, 13 Dec
>2023, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> remarked:
>>According to Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>:
>>>In message <ula5fq$3o5cc$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:32:42 on Tue, 12 Dec
>>>2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>> Now you'll ask what the difference between light rail and
>>>>> subway/metro/underground, and I will wave my hands like crazy and
>>>>> say you know it when you see it. If it has street running it's
>>>>> light rail, if not it's probably a subway.
>>>>
>>>>Until you come to things like Thameslink, London Overground or the
>>>>Elizabeth line, that straddle the boundary between metro and
>>>>conventional heavy rail.
>>>
>>>But all run, in places, on the same tracks as conventional heavy rail,
>>>and use the same classes of EMU as heavy rail.
>>
>>To cross theads a little bit, what's the line between
>>Harrow-on-the-Hill and Amersham? It has Metropolitan Line LU trains
>>and Chiltern NR trains running on the same tracks and stopping at the
>>same stations.
>
>The METROpolitan Line trains could well be a Metro, but that doesn't
>mean the Chiltern trains automatically are. The tracks are indisputably
>heavy rail.

The service frequency is a bit low for a metro, although the joint
frequency south of Harrow probably should count.

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 22:37:18 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
<anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:

>Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 15:45:52 -0000 (UTC), John Levine
>> <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>>
>>> According to Bob <bob@domain.com>:
>>>> You are of course free to have your own personal idea of where the
>>>> distinction ought to lie between the two, but that doesn't account for
>>>> how other people chose to use the respective terms. There are examples
>>>> of systems that describe themselves as light rail that very much do not
>>>> conform to this distinction, indeed there are systems in the US and
>>>> Canada that describe themselves as "light rail" that use standard UIC
>>>> rolling stock such as Stadler FLIRT, GTW and Coradia LINT units.
>>>
>> Gareth Dennis has discussed 'what's a metro' frequently.
>>
>> https://medium.com/swlh/is-cambridgeshires-new-metro-all-it-s-cracked-up-to-be-cfbc6d9d0a22
>>
>
>Including a very convenient flowchart:
>
><https://x.com/railnatter/status/1647864495354662912>
>
>Key definitions include whether the line carries below 10,000 people per
>hour per direction, between 10k and 20k pphpd or over 20k; steel or rubber
>tyres; dedicated tracks or not, street running or not.
>
>The available outputs from the flowchart are car, bus, dangleway,
>gadgetbahn, tram, heavy tram, light metro, metro, light suburban rail,
>suburban rail, heavy suburban rail.
>
This is, I hope, the canonical list.
>
>Anna Noyd-Dryver

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 19:10:11 -0000 (UTC)
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:
>>> On 12/12/2023 09:25, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 18:15:17 +0100
>>>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11.12.2023 12:53, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>>>>> My understanding was that the min distinction between 'Underground' and
>>>>>> 'Metro' is that 'Metro' is heavy Rail while 'Underground' is light rail.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is there isn't a consistent distinction between heavy and
>>>>> light rail. The term has been used for a variety of purposes over the
>>>>> years, often inconsistently, for an inconsistent collection of railway
>>>>> schemes, both proposed and realised. In the London context, the DLR was
>>>>> proposed as "light rail" specifically in contrast with the earlier Fleet
>>>>> line proposal to extend what became the Jubilee line east to serve the
>>>>> Docklands area, with the implication that the Tube is not "light rail".
>>>>
>>>> My interpretation of light rail is somewhat flimsily built vehicles with a
>>>> shorter lifespan than normal trains that can negotiate tight curves and
>>>> carry more passengers than a bus but less than a heavy rail train.
>>>
>>> The vehicles on the Glasgow Subway and the Tyne and Wear Metro are both
>>> about 43 years old and commonly described as "light rail". Is that a shorter
>>> lifespan?
>>>
>> The Glasgow Subway trains aren’t much different to London tube trains other
>> than the track gauge,
>
> And the considerably smaller loading gauge.

I wonder how the Subway loading gauge compares with the original C&SLR?
It can't be much smaller.

JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
> Wasn't there a legal definition of 'light rail' in the 19th Century?

Yes, it allowed lower cost rural railways to be built, notably by Colonel
Stephens (who was trained by the Met at Neasden). Today's preserved lines
perpetuate the tradition.

>
> Presumably it is now just a vague generic term?

Yes, it seems so. Many people think they know what it means, but the
definitions seem to vary a lot. For example, I'd not realised that the
entire UK passenger railway network would be regarded as a light railway by
the US definition.

Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> On 14/12/2023 09:24, Bob wrote:
>> On 14.12.2023 08:07, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <uld0k1$vjeg$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:28:00 on Wed, 13 Dec
>>> 2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>>>> But what does a "metro like service" mean, if there isn't a clear
>>>>>> definition of what a metro is. Does NET operate a "metro like service"
>>>
>>>>>  Not it's a fucking TRAM.
>>>>
>>>> So a system like West Midlands Metro, that has "metro" in its name is
>>>> a "fucking TRAM", not a metro. Got it.
>>>
>>> I think you are in danger of completely losing the plot (unless you
>>> are deliberately trying to wind us up).
>>>
>>> NET is 100% a tram, in Nottingham. Not the West Midlands.
>>>
>>>> Being called a "metro" doesn't make a service a metro. Being named
>>>> after a river does make a service a metro.
>>>
>>> Again, what I said was: "metro" (or a synonym) in its name.
>>>
>>> $geographic+$descriptor is a candidate for such a synonym.
>>>
>>> $geographic need not be a river; $descripter could be "rail".
>>
>> Almost every railway line that has ever been built has a name that is
>> some indication of its geographical location and a synonym for railway.
>> In pretty well every modern branding exercise to make railways appear
>> modern and forward looking, brands have been created with this sort of
>> naming concept, and many of these are very much not metro services in
>> the conventionally understood sense of the word.
>>
>> Considering a bunch of UK based railway services, which of these are
>> metros and which are not? Does the choice of name help in making that
>> determination?
>>
>> Translink
>> Solent Link
>> Thameslink
>> Marshlink
>>
>> District line
>> Fen line
>> Wherry line
>> Island line
>>
>> Mersey Rail
>> Scotrail
>> Northern Rail
>> TfL Rail
>> TfW Rail
>>
>>> Thus tfl-rail might qualify as a metro.
>>>
>>> "tfl" is not a river.
>>>
>>> Apply that logic to 'Mersey' 'Rail'.
>>
>> Or, where this thread originated, Thameslink, which is the only service
>> that actually uses the "first all-new mainline station in London in a
>> decade". If $geographic+$decriptor=metro, then Brent Cross West is a
>> metro station.
>>
>
> If Cambridge North is not a mainline station then what is it?

What it's not is a London station.

Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
> On 14.12.2023 08:07, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <uld0k1$vjeg$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:28:00 on Wed, 13 Dec
>> 2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>
>>>>> But what does a "metro like service" mean, if there isn't a clear
>>>>> definition of what a metro is. Does NET operate a "metro like service"
>>
>>>>  Not it's a fucking TRAM.
>>>
>>> So a system like West Midlands Metro, that has "metro" in its name is
>>> a "fucking TRAM", not a metro. Got it.
>>
>> I think you are in danger of completely losing the plot (unless you are
>> deliberately trying to wind us up).
>>
>> NET is 100% a tram, in Nottingham. Not the West Midlands.
>>
>>> Being called a "metro" doesn't make a service a metro. Being named
>>> after a river does make a service a metro.
>>
>> Again, what I said was: "metro" (or a synonym) in its name.
>>
>> $geographic+$descriptor is a candidate for such a synonym.
>>
>> $geographic need not be a river; $descripter could be "rail".
>
> Almost every railway line that has ever been built has a name that is
> some indication of its geographical location and a synonym for railway.
> In pretty well every modern branding exercise to make railways appear
> modern and forward looking, brands have been created with this sort of
> naming concept, and many of these are very much not metro services in
> the conventionally understood sense of the word.
>
> Considering a bunch of UK based railway services, which of these are
> metros and which are not? Does the choice of name help in making that
> determination?
>
> Translink
> Solent Link
> Thameslink
> Marshlink
>
> District line
> Fen line
> Wherry line
> Island line
>
> Mersey Rail
> Scotrail
> Northern Rail
> TfL Rail
> TfW Rail
>
>> Thus tfl-rail might qualify as a metro.
>>
>> "tfl" is not a river.
>>
>> Apply that logic to 'Mersey' 'Rail'.
>
> Or, where this thread originated, Thameslink, which is the only service
> that actually uses the "first all-new mainline station in London in a
> decade". If $geographic+$decriptor=metro, then Brent Cross West is a
> metro station.

It also has long platforms on the MML fast lines. It would be perfectly
possible for some EMR trains to serve it (or, more likely, TL trains
diverted to the fast lines).

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 11:26:47 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
wrote:

><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 19:10:11 -0000 (UTC)
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 12/12/2023 09:25, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 18:15:17 +0100
>>>>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11.12.2023 12:53, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>>>>>> My understanding was that the min distinction between 'Underground' and
>>>>>>> 'Metro' is that 'Metro' is heavy Rail while 'Underground' is light rail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is there isn't a consistent distinction between heavy and
>>>>>> light rail. The term has been used for a variety of purposes over the
>>>>>> years, often inconsistently, for an inconsistent collection of railway
>>>>>> schemes, both proposed and realised. In the London context, the DLR was
>>>>>> proposed as "light rail" specifically in contrast with the earlier Fleet
>>>>>> line proposal to extend what became the Jubilee line east to serve the
>>>>>> Docklands area, with the implication that the Tube is not "light rail".
>>>>>
>>>>> My interpretation of light rail is somewhat flimsily built vehicles with a
>>>>> shorter lifespan than normal trains that can negotiate tight curves and
>>>>> carry more passengers than a bus but less than a heavy rail train.
>>>>
>>>> The vehicles on the Glasgow Subway and the Tyne and Wear Metro are both
>>>> about 43 years old and commonly described as "light rail". Is that a shorter
>>>> lifespan?
>>>>
>>> The Glasgow Subway trains aren’t much different to London tube trains other
>>> than the track gauge,
>>
>> And the considerably smaller loading gauge.
>
>I wonder how the Subway loading gauge compares with the original C&SLR?
>It can't be much smaller.
>
According to Wonkypaedia :-
CSLR 10' 2" diameter
GDS 11' 0"

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 10:37:01 +0000, Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:

>On 14/12/2023 09:23, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 18:41:06 +0000
>> Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:
>>> On 12/12/2023 09:25, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 18:15:17 +0100
>>>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11.12.2023 12:53, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>>>>> My understanding was that the min distinction between 'Underground' and
>>>>>> 'Metro' is that 'Metro' is heavy Rail while 'Underground' is light rail.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is there isn't a consistent distinction between heavy and
>>>>> light rail. The term has been used for a variety of purposes over the
>>>>> years, often inconsistently, for an inconsistent collection of railway
>>>>> schemes, both proposed and realised. In the London context, the DLR was
>>>>> proposed as "light rail" specifically in contrast with the earlier Fleet
>>>>> line proposal to extend what became the Jubilee line east to serve the
>>>>> Docklands area, with the implication that the Tube is not "light rail".
>>>>
>>>> My interpretation of light rail is somewhat flimsily built vehicles with a
>>>> shorter lifespan than normal trains that can negotiate tight curves and
>>>> carry more passengers than a bus but less than a heavy rail train.
>>>
>>> The vehicles on the Glasgow Subway and the Tyne and Wear Metro are both
>>> about 43 years old and commonly described as "light rail". Is that a shorter
>>> lifespan?
>>
>> Its a set of things, they don't all need to be true. As for the glasgow
>> subway/underground/whatever its called this week, the train cars are about
>> the size of a transit van so its more like a fairground ride than light rail.
>
>I think we have a new category there: does it have a vertical loop,
>a water splash or ghostly sounds?
>
It has a ghost station :-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkland_Street_subway_station
and allegedly ghosts :-
https://www.spookyisles.com/glasgow-subway-hauntings/

In message <uleh0v$1ap0g$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:14:07 on Thu, 14 Dec
2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 15:45:52 -0000 (UTC), John Levine
>>> <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> According to Bob <bob@domain.com>:
>>>>> You are of course free to have your own personal idea of where the
>>>>> distinction ought to lie between the two, but that doesn't account for
>>>>> how other people chose to use the respective terms. There are examples
>>>>> of systems that describe themselves as light rail that very much do not
>>>>> conform to this distinction, indeed there are systems in the US and
>>>>> Canada that describe themselves as "light rail" that use standard UIC
>>>>> rolling stock such as Stadler FLIRT, GTW and Coradia LINT units.
>>>>
>>> Gareth Dennis has discussed 'what's a metro' frequently.
>>>
>>>
>>>https://medium.com/swlh/is-cambridgeshires-new-metro-all-it-s-cracked-
>>>up-to-be-cfbc6d9d0a22
>>>
>>
>> Including a very convenient flowchart:
>>
>> <https://x.com/railnatter/status/1647864495354662912>
>>
>> Key definitions include whether the line carries below 10,000 people per
>> hour per direction, between 10k and 20k pphpd or over 20k; steel or rubber
>> tyres; dedicated tracks or not, street running or not.
>>
>> The available outputs from the flowchart are car, bus, dangleway,
>> gadgetbahn, tram, heavy tram, light metro, metro, light suburban rail,
>> suburban rail, heavy suburban rail.
>
>The necessary characteristic of a metro in that chart seems to be dedicated
>tracks.

Which is one rather quirky definition I suppose. Why shouldn't it be
possible to run a metro service and a non-metro (semi-fast outer
suburban or even InterCity) on the same tracks, with interleaved
stopping patterns.

I've rather lost touch with the current state of play, but what about
the tram-trains between Sheffield and Rotherham.
--
Roland Perry

In message <ulehl5$1ascp$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:24:52 on Thu, 14 Dec
2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>On 14.12.2023 08:07, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <uld0k1$vjeg$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:28:00 on Wed, 13 Dec
>>2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>
>>>>> But what does a "metro like service" mean, if there isn't a clear
>>>>>definition of what a metro is. Does NET operate a "metro like service"
>>
>>>>  Not it's a fucking TRAM.
>>>
>>> So a system like West Midlands Metro, that has "metro" in its name
>>>is a "fucking TRAM", not a metro. Got it.
>> I think you are in danger of completely losing the plot (unless you
>>are deliberately trying to wind us up).
>> NET is 100% a tram, in Nottingham. Not the West Midlands.
>>
>>> Being called a "metro" doesn't make a service a metro. Being named
>>>after a river does make a service a metro.

>> Again, what I said was: "metro" (or a synonym) in its name.
>> $geographic+$descriptor is a candidate for such a synonym.
>> $geographic need not be a river; $descripter could be "rail".
>
>Almost every railway line that has ever been built has a name that is
>some indication of its geographical location and a synonym for railway.
>In pretty well every modern branding exercise to make railways appear
>modern and forward looking, brands have been created with this sort of
>naming concept, and many of these are very much not metro services in
>the conventionally understood sense of the word.
>
>Considering a bunch of UK based railway services, which of these are
>metros and which are not? Does the choice of name help in making that
>determination?
>
>Translink
>Solent Link
>Thameslink
>Marshlink
>
>District line
>Fen line
>Wherry line
>Island line
>
>Mersey Rail
>Scotrail
>Northern Rail
>TfL Rail
>TfW Rail
>
>> Thus tfl-rail might qualify as a metro.
>> "tfl" is not a river.
>> Apply that logic to 'Mersey' 'Rail'.
>
>Or, where this thread originated, Thameslink, which is the only service
>that actually uses the "first all-new mainline station in London in a
>decade". If $geographic+$decriptor=metro, then Brent Cross West is a
>metro station.

Now we know you *are* just trying to wind us up (because no-one could be
daft enough to believe what they were posting), no need to spend hours
debunking that laundry list one at a time.
--
Roland Perry

In message <ulelpi$1betr$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:35:30 on Thu, 14 Dec
2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:

>If Cambridge North is not a mainline station then what is it?

A station on the Fen line.

Trains from Liverpool St will have briefly travelled on the GEML, and
trains from KGX will have travelled on the ECML as far as Hitchin.
--
Roland Perry

In message <XKBeN.3439$ogWb.28@fx14.ams1>, at 11:34:15 on Thu, 14 Dec
2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>>If $geographic+$decriptor=metro,

That wasn't actually the precise original proposition.

>>then Brent Cross West is a metro station.
>
>It also has long platforms on the MML fast lines. It would be perfectly
>possible for some EMR trains to serve it (or, more likely, TL trains
>diverted to the fast lines).

Some stations will be exclusively metro stations, others will have a
mixture of trains available, including for example Metro, Outer Suburban
services, and InterCity services. A few, like Stratford, will also have
light rail (the DLR), as indeed a few will have E* services.
--
Roland Perry

In message <14nlnith0jvoj0hvnk74v56gt0bjjquutu@4ax.com>, at 10:44:39 on
Thu, 14 Dec 2023, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
>>> Gareth Dennis has discussed 'what's a metro' frequently.
>>>
>>> https://medium.com/swlh/is-cambridgeshires-new-metro-all-it-s-cracked-up-to-be-cfbc6d9d0a22
>>>
>>
>>Including a very convenient flowchart:
>>
>><https://x.com/railnatter/status/1647864495354662912>
>>
>>Key definitions include whether the line carries below 10,000 people per
>>hour per direction, between 10k and 20k pphpd or over 20k; steel or rubber
>>tyres; dedicated tracks or not, street running or not.
>>
>>The available outputs from the flowchart are car, bus, dangleway,
>>gadgetbahn, tram, heavy tram, light metro, metro, light suburban rail,
>>suburban rail, heavy suburban rail.
>>
>This is, I hope, the canonical list.

Who is the authority that has drawn up the list?

And what answer does the algorithm give for:

<https://www.travelsouthyorkshire.com/en-GB/LandingPage/tram-train>
--
Roland Perry

On 14/12/2023 11:34, Recliner wrote:
> JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>> Wasn't there a legal definition of 'light rail' in the 19th Century?
>
> Yes, it allowed lower cost rural railways to be built, notably by Colonel
> Stephens (who was trained by the Met at Neasden). Today's preserved lines
> perpetuate the tradition.
>
>>
>> Presumably it is now just a vague generic term?
>
> Yes, it seems so. Many people think they know what it means, but the
> definitions seem to vary a lot. For example, I'd not realised that the
> entire UK passenger railway network would be regarded as a light railway by
> the US definition.

Traditionally UK, "Light Railways" built according to the legal
definition were normally limited to 25 mph maximum speed.