nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 5:
Line 5: − + +
→Tyne and Wear Metro?: How about this?
:::But don't let any Mancs in claiming that their Metrolink is a subway! ;-) [[User:Sawneybeane|Sawneybeane]] 08:10, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:::But don't let any Mancs in claiming that their Metrolink is a subway! ;-) [[User:Sawneybeane|Sawneybeane]] 08:10, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:::actually nine sub-surface stations if you include Sunderland and Park Lane {{unsigned|Sawneybeane}}
:::actually nine sub-surface stations if you include Sunderland and Park Lane {{unsigned|Sawneybeane}}
:::: 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? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:16, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:::: 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? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:Sawneybeane|Sawneybeane]] 08:23, 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. [[User:Sawneybeane|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? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:37, 16 February 2008 (EST)