nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
→Tyne and Wear Metro?: An argument on thin ice
::Edit conflict. I was about to say the same - although it is largely above ground, it ''does'' have underground sections also. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 08:09, 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. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 08:09, 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)
:::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
:::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)