In message <uleguc$1aoku$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:12:44 on Thu, 14 Dec
2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <ulda6g$11a0i$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:11:28 on Wed, 13 Dec
>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>>>>> The Eeely Eeffect is at work... again.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, the first time I tried I was in Central London.
>>>
>>> You’re not related to Rob McKenna, are you?
>>
>> Who is he?
>
>Douglas Adams’ rain god - he was a long distance lorry driver who never saw
>sunshine because the clouds loved and worshipped him and followed him
>everywhere he went.

I do sometimes get the feeling that the rain follows me around, although
yesterday it was just drizzle in London and steady increasing to a
downpour as I drove north up the M11.

However, in this case there's nothing "following me", because I've never
seen that particular error before, in thousands of links I've followed
in the past.
--
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.

<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.
>
>
Do you have stretch Transit vans round your way? Glasgow subway cars are
12.6 metres long, compared to approx 17.7m for tube stock (give or take
depending on variant). Subway tunnel 11ft diameter compared to 11ft 8
inches for London *tubes*.

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 15:29:19 +0000, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:

>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.

Yes, that was the old Victorian legislation, much used by Col Stephens, and still used by the heritage railways (which
actually were mainly built to heavy rail standards, and run heavy rail trains). But none of the modern UK light railways
follow that rule. Typically, the maximum speed is 40-50 mph.

Am 14.12.2023 um 11:56 schrieb Roland Perry:
> 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.

Because with 10+ tph on the line, non-metro services on the same line
destroy the reliability.

Maybe the definition should be clarified to "existence of a central
section with dedicated tracks", which would allow track sharing on the
outskirts.

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

Tram-train is not a metro because it's a tram ;-)

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?

Given its Glasgow I'm sure there are plenty of wierd sounds and people
inhabiting the system.

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 15:50:25 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
><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.
>
>>
>>
>Do you have stretch Transit vans round your way? Glasgow subway cars are
>12.6 metres long, compared to approx 17.7m for tube stock (give or take
>depending on variant). Subway tunnel 11ft diameter compared to 11ft 8
>inches for London *tubes*.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

HTH

On 14/12/2023 09:10, Sam Wilson wrote:
> 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!
>

Now wash your mouth out with soap!

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 14.12.2023 17:05, Recliner wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 15:29:19 +0000, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Yes, that was the old Victorian legislation, much used by Col Stephens, and still used by the heritage railways (which
> actually were mainly built to heavy rail standards, and run heavy rail trains). But none of the modern UK light railways
> follow that rule. Typically, the maximum speed is 40-50 mph.

I believe the process introduced for getting railways permitted using
the Transport and Works Act is somewhat more straightforward, and since
its adoption, the process allowed for by the Light Railways Act has
largely stopped being used.

Robin

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 16:14:05 +0000, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 13/12/2023 15:44, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <kttfahFj6esU1@mid.individual.net>, at 10:28:32 on Wed, 13
>> Dec 2023, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ken remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://medium.com/swlh/is-cambridgeshires-new-metro-all-it-s-cracked-" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://medium.com/swlh/is-cambridgeshires-new-metro-all-it-s-cracked-
>>>>> up  -to-be-cfbc6d9d0a22
>>
>>>>  "The webpage at  https://medium.com/swlh/is-cambridgeshires-new-
>> >>metro-all-it-s-cracked-up-to-be-cfbc6d9d0a22 might be temporarily
>>>> down or it may have moved  permanently to a new web address."
>>>
>>> Works for me, maybe you copied some stray characters at the point
>>> where it wrapped?
>>
>> No, I just clicked the link
>>
>>> Anyway, it can be shortened without needing a 3rd party redirector ...
>>>
>>> <https://medium.com/swlh/cam-metro-cfbc6d9d0a22>
>>
>> That gives the same error message.
>
>Works here.

AOL.

Mark

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 18:27:13 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <ulcno0$u5nd$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:56:32 on Wed, 13 Dec
>2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <kttfahFj6esU1@mid.individual.net>, at 10:28:32 on Wed, 13
>>> Dec 2023, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> remarked:

>>>> <https://medium.com/swlh/cam-metro-cfbc6d9d0a22>
>>>
>>> That gives the same error message.
>>
>>The first one worked fine for me until it started getting wrapping and
>>extra spaces included in it (currently “>>>> “ and
>>“…up[2spaces]-to-be…”.
>
>>The second one works fine.
>
>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.

Have you tried with a different browser, and maybe on a different device?

Mark

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> 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>

Why don’t you try the flowchart on it and see what it says?

Sam

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

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> 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.
>
>

I should perhaps point out for others in the thread that Gareth made this
flowchart as a bit of fun, not as a canonical definition of what is or
isn't a Metro; for one thing thing there will always be edge-cases and
exceptions.

The inclusion of 'car' as an output, for example, was specifically for
Musk's Vegas Loop.

Much of Paris Metro becomes either bus or gadgetbahn in this chart, IIRC,
because of the rubber tyres.

It also fails to define whether the listed capacity is on a central core or
outer branches; and whether a line can change characteristics along the way
(Kyoto Metro has a street-running section on the outer end of one branch,
for example!).

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> 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?
>

https://x.com/garethdennis

The #NotAMetro Sorter was created for fun, but can be useful.

> And what answer does the algorithm give for:
>
> <https://www.travelsouthyorkshire.com/en-GB/LandingPage/tram-train>
>

Tram. If it had higher capacity it would be a Heavy Tram.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 14.12.2023 23:09, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> I should perhaps point out for others in the thread that Gareth made this
> flowchart as a bit of fun, not as a canonical definition of what is or
> isn't a Metro; for one thing thing there will always be edge-cases and
> exceptions.
>
> The inclusion of 'car' as an output, for example, was specifically for
> Musk's Vegas Loop.
>
> Much of Paris Metro becomes either bus or gadgetbahn in this chart, IIRC,
> because of the rubber tyres.

I think there is a good case to be made that the rubber tyre sysem in
Paris (and a few other places) is a gadgetbahn. It just happens to be
one of the more successful examples of the sort. Just because something
is a gadgetbahn doesn't mean it can't provide a useful public transport
service, and if a city goes all in on its gadgetbahn system, they can be
built out to be quite successful large systems. I'd give the Schwebebahn
as an example of a gadgetbahn that has been very successful in its niche
for well over a centruy, and fits its specific niche well due to the
specific characteristics of its route.

> It also fails to define whether the listed capacity is on a central core or
> outer branches; and whether a line can change characteristics along the way
> (Kyoto Metro has a street-running section on the outer end of one branch,
> for example!).

Or, indeed whether the capacity is nominal or actual. You can take a
lower order technology and crank it to have very high ridership levels
by going all in on frequency (Vancouver Skytrain is a good example of
this, what is essentially a light metro technology that shifts very
large numbers of people), or in the oposite direction something like
Charlesleroi where they built a decent light metro but run it at rural
branch line frequencies.

Robin

On 14.12.2023 17:23, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 15:50:25 -0000 (UTC)
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <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.
>>
>>>
>>>
>> Do you have stretch Transit vans round your way? Glasgow subway cars are
>> 12.6 metres long, compared to approx 17.7m for tube stock (give or take
>> depending on variant). Subway tunnel 11ft diameter compared to 11ft 8
>> inches for London *tubes*.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

A US-only sporting competition that's even bigger than the Superbowl.

Robin

In message <ulf9hm$1eoki$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:12:39 on Thu, 14 Dec
2023, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> remarked:
>Am 14.12.2023 um 11:56 schrieb Roland Perry:
>> 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
>>>>>>> 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.
>
>Because with 10+ tph on the line,

I dispute the necessity for 10tph+ for a line to be regarded as "Metro".

For example, I used to catch the METROpolitan Line into London from a
station with originally 3tph, and when it was upgraded to 4tph it felt
like "turn up and go", rather than aiming for a specific service.

>non-metro services on the same line destroy the reliability.
>
>Maybe the definition should be clarified to "existence of a central
>section with dedicated tracks", which would allow track sharing on the
>outskirts.

It could just as easily be the other way round, with the track sharing
in the centre, but later a metro-only service on a branch line in the
outskirts.

>> I've rather lost touch with the current state of play, but what about
>>the tram-trains between Sheffield and Rotherham.
>
>Tram-train is not a metro because it's a tram ;-)

But the bit from to Meadowhall to Rotherham is very likely a Metro.

And you've not answered the question about why tram-train is missing
from the rather simplistic flow diagram posted earlier.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 11:34:13 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
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.
>
Yes, but it was enacted a bit too late. I think you're right that most
heritage railways operate under the act.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Railways_Act_1896

>>
>> 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.

On 15.12.2023 09:04, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <ulf9hm$1eoki$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:12:39 on Thu, 14 Dec
> 2023, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> remarked:
>> Am 14.12.2023 um 11:56 schrieb Roland Perry:
>>> 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
>>>>>>>>  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.
>>
>> Because with 10+ tph on the line,
>
> I dispute the necessity for 10tph+ for a line to be regarded as "Metro".
>
> For example, I used to catch the METROpolitan Line into London from a
> station with originally 3tph, and when it was upgraded to 4tph it felt
> like "turn up and go", rather than aiming for a specific service.

It's probably worth distinguishing between "core" frequency and
frequency on outlying branches. The top end of the met has always been a
bit of an odditiy compared with the rest of LU, or for metro systems
more generally.

>> non-metro services on the same line destroy the reliability.
>>
>> Maybe the definition should be clarified to "existence of a central
>> section with dedicated tracks", which would allow track sharing on the
>> outskirts.
>
> It could just as easily be the other way round, with the track sharing
> in the centre, but later a metro-only service on a branch line in the
> outskirts.
>
>>> I've rather lost touch with the current state of play, but what about
>>> the tram-trains between Sheffield and Rotherham.
>>
>> Tram-train is not a metro because it's a tram ;-)
>
> But the bit from to Meadowhall to Rotherham is very likely a Metro.
>
> And you've not answered the question about why tram-train is missing
> from the rather simplistic flow diagram posted earlier.

The diffiulty is all of these distinctions sort of merge one into
another, with all manner of edge cases to be found as systems have
evolved over time, or have been cobbled together out of bits of
pre-existing infrastructure. I wouldn't take, for example, the Coast
Starlight rolling down the centre of a street in Oakland as a reason to
suggest Amtrak long distance services ought to be regarded as trams.

Robin

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 17:12:39 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:

>Am 14.12.2023 um 11:56 schrieb Roland Perry:

>
>Because with 10+ tph on the line, non-metro services on the same line
>destroy the reliability.
>
There's an line heading north from Kowloon with a very frequent metro
service interlaced with the odd cross-border non-metro train and even
some good traffic. Or there was when SimSig modeled it.

>Maybe the definition should be clarified to "existence of a central
>section with dedicated tracks", which would allow track sharing on the
>outskirts.
>
>> I've rather lost touch with the current state of play, but what about
>> the tram-trains between Sheffield and Rotherham.
>
>Tram-train is not a metro because it's a tram ;-)

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 14:02:25 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>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?

The court of public opinion. m'lud.
>
>And what answer does the algorithm give for:
>
> <https://www.travelsouthyorkshire.com/en-GB/LandingPage/tram-train>