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)