Merge[edit]

I am thinking of a merger of this template with Template:Britishmetros as both are exceedingly similar. However, this could be the other way round. Simply south (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support the idea to merge these, not sure which way round is most appropriate though. Whatever happens, I'd like to see a distinction between systems that are in operation and are only proposals. Adambro (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If they're merged, I don't think Light Rail is the way to go, given that the combined one will include systems like the London & Glasgow Undergrounds which are anything but. Is ((UKUrbanRail)) too messy a compromise? That way it could also include "not technically a unified system but still gets a page in Metro Maps of the World" networks like Liverpool as well. — iridescent 16:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They should be merged, but how about ((UKmassstransport))? Regan123 (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can see "mass transport" getting too messy with assorted bus routes, rural commuter lines, car ferries etc. At least having "rail" and "urban", or something similar, in the title sets a natural limit to the size of the box. — iridescent 16:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fear I may have got a bit of Americanisation in there... I agree with your suggestion. Regan123 (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with Iridescent - merge to ((UKUrbanRail))  — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 16:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Well this was put up for deletion before, and the result was keep. Both Britishmetros and UK Tram Systems were to be deleted and merged into this. A change of name may be appropiate though. Pafcool2 (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well it appears as if the merge has been completed but no-one has picked up on my suggestion that including both current, proposed, and previously proposed systems in the one template is confusing. Perhaps it might be worth considering splitting into three templates like Template:British TOCs which will make the distinction between the status of the systems clearer. Adambro (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The term "light rail" is misnomer in terms of London Underground, and even Glasgow Subway. ((UKUrbanRail)) would also encompass Merseyrail.  — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 21:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that the name is not appropriate and suggest that we should decide on a better name before any more changes are made to avoid unnecessary changes. However, I feel that it is important that any name should provide a clear limitation of the scope and I'm not sure UKUrbanRail provides this. Adambro (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think ((UKMetros)) is sufficient to limit scope but just about lets Merseyrail in by the skin of its teeth, as it rightly should though in my humble opinion.  — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 19:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Merseyrail is not a metro system, it is a commuter railway system. If we started including that we may as well include the Valley Lines and all other city commuter lines networks. Simply south (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know what you mean, but it does have underground stations. Enough of it is segregated wholly from the rest of the rail network to be overnight transferred to a Metro system by another name (London Overground, anyone?) to count. I think it is a special case, and the only National Rail network services which I would include in such a template.  — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 21:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
OK. It is not really a good inclusion reason just because it has underground stations. FCC has underground stations (both Thameslink and the Northern City Line) and so does the SPT rail network (in Glasgow city centre). Simply south (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd certainly not lose sleep either way, but I'd be inclined to include Merseyrail as a de facto self-contained metro system, in a way that FCC's "long line with branches" structure doesn't replicate (in the same way that in a theoretical "World Metro" template I'd include Melbourne, Dublin, Sydney etc. (Lest we forget, even the London Underground was never built as an integrated or segregated system.) — iridescent 00:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If nobody minds, i think i am going to overgaul this template, taking out Glasgow Subway and London Underground and restoring Britishmetros. Current lists will be kept as they are with a slight split in the Tramways section. Simply south (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've updated this with a new version and perhaps rather hastily restored Britishmetros. Simply south (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CITI etc[edit]

I think this template is getting a little crowded with proposed or given up systems. The three or four Belfast systems, only one of those is likely to happen, because no city builds that many tram systems simultaneously. So IMO, I don't really think they belong there. Likewise, Leeds is a gonner. Merseytram should stay, because there's still hope, it's still in the local transport plan. Also I wouldn't call Edinburgh proposed anymore, it's happening now, so I consider it fairly certain. Tom walker (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

VER[edit]

Ought Volk's Electric Railway to count as a preserved system? It's right on the borderline between a heritage tramway & a preserved railway (it parallels the road rather than running on it), but in terms of operation - and the type of car - it seems more of a tramway than a railway. — iridescent 15:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Preston trams[edit]

As I said here, Preston's up and coming metro should be added. I'm not sure about the light rail bit but the bet's are that either Preston should be added or there be a merge. Tez011 (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories