This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
The {{Citations missing|date=February 2007}} tag at the top of the history section is interfereing with system map, I will try and find some references to remove it but if I cant then maybe someone could rejigg it. Gingerblokey18:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that the subway in Glasgow has picked up the nickname 'Clockwork Orange', but only people outside the city ever use that nickname. Nobody in Glasgow ever actually calls it that.
Well, I would say that it sometimes gets called the Clockwork Orange as a "joke", personally I call it the Underground, but Strathclyde PTE have changed it's name to the Subway, they say that most people called it that anyway.
The Orange Colour was officially known as Strathclyde red, this is now being changed to carmine and cream.
"It is because of Glasgow's geology that the subway was cut with great difficulty through solid rock; this accounts for both the small size of the tunnels and the failure to expand the system"
-In light of the many miles of mainline railway tunnels, active and disused, bore and cut and cover, that criss-cross Glasgow, this sounds highly unlikely and should probably be removed unless it can be verified.
"However, in the nearer future SPT will be looking at replacing the rolling stock to bring their fleet of trains up to date."
-I've removed this section as its point has already been made in the preceeding paragraph.
The phrase ‘tube-type underground railway’ may be confusing the issue, but isn’t Merseyrail considered a regular railway — despite its unusual franchising structure — rather than a metro like those of London, Glasgow, and Newcastle? David Arthur22:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Glasgow City and District Railway had an underground station served by underground tunnels - 1886. This is classed an an underground urban transit. Liverpool's Merseyrail is a similar but a smaller version to London Underground with underground and overground track. Its core is the original underground Mersey railway. 152.37.85.43 (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The Glasgow Subway is a metro system in Glasgow, Scotland; and one of the 3 largest underground (subway) systems in the United Kingdom."
The latter section of this sentence is redundant: there are only 2-3 underground systems in the UK. I've replaced it with 'one of only two underground (subway) systems in the United Kingdom. If anyone wants this changed in light of Newcastle, I won't object, but bear in mind that only around 20% of the Newcastle system is underground, and would be more properly described as a light rail system. FrFintonStack01:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is arguable that the Merseyrail system is a metro, it is probably more properly described as a suburban rail system. However, the system has marginally more underground mileage than the Glasgow Subway and five underground stations and is very similar to the London tube in many respects, so to ignore it completely in this article is, I believe, misleading. I'm not going to make any edits though.
The addition of the Mersey Railway is confusing. The earliest underground services in Glasgow were between High Street and Stobcross on what is now the North Clyde line, but we don't consider those to be metro services. The modern Merseyrail page compares the current Merseyrail system to other S-Bahn systems, which is totally what the North Clyde and the Argyle lines also are: urban lines with heavy suburban reach.
The reference to the subcrawl seems very dismissive and brief. Suggest a fuller entry, based around info from the website at subcrawl.co.uk? The subcrawl is a well-established pub crawl route: at one stage it had its own wikipedia page, that has now been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.237.212 (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correction. I've created most articles on the underground stations. I have used subway as that is what they are called by SPT. I have moved Kelvinhall to its correct page. And also moved Partick as it is an interchange. I have also found a railbox (from the Partick station). However the station articles on most still need to be expanded significantly. I hope they end up similar to LU.
Wondering if anyone understands what is meant by the section I've put into italics below:
Trains used to be hoisted on to and off of the tracks prior to the installing of electric systems and consequently points between Govan and Ibrox where trains can exit the underground tunnel system to terminate for engineering, cleaning or storing.
Is there a bit missing at the end of the sentence, to go with the use of "consequently"? Or is it trying to say that the points between Govan and Ibrox came after the electrification (i.e. perhaps "consequently" was used where "subsequently" was intended)? In any case, it's totally unclear. – Kieran T(talk | contribs)00:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think what ought to be said in the italic section is:
"...and consequently points were installed between Govan and Ibrox after the 1977 modernisation that allowed trains to exit the system to gain access to Broomloan Depot for engineering, maintenance and cleaning requirements."
I think it might be from Espedair Street, like the Subcrawl thing. I'll have alook and see if I'm right. Remind me if I forget! --Guinnog20:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware, it has always been the Subway GGPTE tried to call it the Underground after the 1979 refurbishment. The Worthies of Glasgow still called it the Subway. It is just possible that SPT have have realised the enevitable and are recognising the appelation given to the system. As someone who travelled on the Glasgow Subway todayStewart20:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - mis-understood. The as far as I was aware - and have used - the term Clockwork Orange has been common usage amongst Glaswegians since refurbishment, even recently as the overall orange dis-appears from the trains. Stewart20:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Banks refers to it as the Clockwork Orange in Espedair Street; he has Weird saying he'd intended to do the Clockwork Orange pub crawl but had never got around to it. Mr Larrington (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In Feburary 2005 a group of students[1] created the "Subway Challenge". Participants had to leave the train at Buchanan Street station and attempt to re-board the same train at St Enoch station. Challengers were free to travel between stations by any means necessary, however due to the fact that Buchanan Street is pedestrianised, motorised travel was not used.
Initially this was intended as a harmless prank and a bit of fun between friends, however an online video[1] of the stunt has become cult viewing resulting in the challenge making the newspapers[2][3] and the stunt being re-recorded for Channel 4. [citation needed]
Passing by with some comments... For starters the teamteacake.com source you've used isn't a reliable source, given it's the organisation itself. I actually saw the re-recording on TV yesterday... Can't remember if it was C4, ITV or one of those two's digital dross channels; one thing's for sure the re-recording certainly doesn't make it notable since the show is just a TV version of youtube. But the press coverage probably does. Ta/wangi00:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is another "Subway Challenge" probably created by students too. It involves getting off at every station and going to the nearest pub to have one drink. This goes on until you start back at the original pub at the first stop. Maybe let's leave that out too... :) Panthro18:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's called a Subcrawl and has been around for years, it's not really a variant on a Subway Challenge sort of thing. It's actually really good fun. I think it should be included because it's well known amongst the students in the Glasgow area. Renquist (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know why the Subway's ridership figures seem to be declining? (see articles for stations). This seems bizarre since the areas it serves are becoming more built-up and residential and the number of people living, working and socialising in Glasgow is now growing.FrFintonStack03:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ridership has been declining due to the increasing age and decreasing reliability of the Subway services. The system has had minimal renovation work since its last major overhaul in the 1970s. This coupled with improving rail and bus services is rendering the Subway increasingly uncompetitive. The SPT released a plan statement to modernise and possibly expand the system in the next decade to combat the falling ridership. GullibleKit20:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The map is great but according to the Railway line legend the symbol denotes "Interchange station (with suburban or light rail network)". As far as I know the Subway, this would only apply to Buchanan St and Partick. All the others should use the image shoudln't they? I think it's a bit misleading to suggest they all interchange with ScotRail, which clearly they don't!
When I originally drew the map for this article there were far less symbols to choose from than there are now. I've now amended it to make use of the correct blue symbols for a metro system. There isn't yet a blue version of the proper symbol that I need for the depot. Signalhead19:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another small note. I have just added Merkland Street to the diagram and used the closest symbol i could find. This is because there doesn't seem to be an icon which shows a closed metro station in tunnel generally. Maybe i should put this on WP:TRAIL. Simply south17:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just found a subway ticket in good condition from 1996 with the old Strathclyde Regional Council logo. I could scan it for inclusion in the article if anyone thinks this would be neat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.228.120 (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have to agree with the you on this point, now my calculus may not be up to scratch, but if Glasgow City and District Railway opened in March 1863 (which runs 5.3Km underground (i.e. like the subway)) and London's underground was opened on and Services began on 10 January 1863 on the Metropolitan Railway and Services, Doesn’t this make Glasgow City and District Railway the second oldest subway in the world opening in 1863? Also FYI to the questions before, the Subway has always been called the Subway to Glesga folk, trying to anglicising it to ‘underground’ never caught on, My father born in 1916 knew it as the Subway and I have always called it the same, as for the ‘Clockwork Orange’ it was sometimes ‘affectionately’ know by this, as for the colour, when I was in school and GGPTE was changing the livery on the buses we were told the colour of the buses and subway livery was ‘German Red’ and not ‘Strathclyde Red’ as previously mentioned, this followed the livery on the Subway after renovation in 1977. Kewlscot (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite common in building underground railways - there is a rising gradient on the approach to the station and a falling gradient on departing - intended to assist the braking and acceleration of the train by the use of gravity.Shrdlu junction (talk) 04:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The link to www.futureglasgow.co.uk/Rail.htm has been removed owing to the major error 404. The page no longer exist anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.106.21 (talk)
Does anyone know the by-laws regarding this? I heard that until recently drinking was legal on the London underground. Is it legal on the Glasgow subway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnealon (talk • contribs) 12:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I heard that, on the pre-modernisation Subway, because one side of the carriages was never seen by passengers, that side wasn't painted, to save money. Does anybody know if that was true?Shrdlu junction (talk) 04:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At that time the elaborate painting with the insignia etc was painted on the platform facing side, but the other side which always faced the wall was simply painted black. 213.106.85.133 (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article is incorrect. I corrected it adding Merseyrail, as it it the largest metro system outside of London, running underground in central Liverpool and central Birkenhead. Then someone takes it away saying it is not a metro, because of an ownership issue. What nonsense!! Either Merseyrail is or it is not a metro. IT IS A METRO!! From wiki: "A Metro is a rapid transit rail system, also known as a subway or underground". Merseyrail is a predominantly electric urban rapid transit rail system that is partially underground. The electric part is self contained with the system run by Seco/Nedrail. It is the largest metro system in the UK outside of London, with about 6 or 7 miles of tunnel under Liverpool and Birkenhead awaiting reuse complete with the odd underground station. A new line is being considered for re-use for LFC's new stadium. I put the article right again. DO NOT CHANGE, as the article is false as it stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.58.123 (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, Merseyrail is not a metro/rapid transit system, it is an electric suburban network that happens to run underground along part of its length, and is part of the National Rail system. In response to some specific parts of your comment:
What nonsense!! - Please ensure that your comments remain civil.
IT IS A METRO!! - Would that be proof by assertion? Please provide a reliable citation. The Merseyrail website would be a good place to start.[1]
DO NOT CHANGE - Wikipedia is a collaboration, based on consensus. You can't just instruct other editors not to change something.
the article is false as it stands - since your last reversion, I agree.
Sorry, Merseyrail is a metro system - a rapid transit urban rail system. I have given the definition. You think ownership/management determines if a metro is a metro, which is plainly ridiculous. BTW, Merseyrail is run by a dedicated company Serco/Nedrail, not that that matters. Either it "physically" is a metro or it is not. There is no consensus, it is black and white. I know of the the Merseyrail web site and it states it is an urban railway. "You can't just instruct other editors not to change something." You can't revert an edit because you do not know the meaning of what a metro is. Chambers: metro noun (metros) an urban railway system, usually one that is mostly underground, especially and originally the Métro, the system in Paris. That is Merseyrail, but most is overground like the London Tube, which is a metro, the second largest in the UK. It doesn't need a citation, as this is so obvious. If it does all the others need one as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.58.123 (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Merseyrail is a Metro, so it The North Clyde Line in Glasgow; so is London Overground; so is the services around Leeds; so is the ex-Southern railway services south of London.
Merseyrail clearly is a metro system, and an old one too. The definition of a metro is not what rail stock is used or who owns it. In fact the definition is quite vague as this wiki states List of metro systems: A metro system is defined as an urban, electric passenger transportation system with high capacity and high frequency of service, which is totally independent from other traffic, road or pedestrians. Merseyrail conforms to that. The dividing line between metro and other modes of public transport, such as light rail and commuter rail, is not always clear. A common way to distinguish metro from light rail is by their separation from other traffic. Merseyrail conforms to that. It runs underground in Liverpool and Birkenhead centres. There again I do not agree with the above, as the means of propulsion is irrelevant. In my view it has to be an urban rapid transit system centred on a town or city, with a separate identity and ticketing system separated from other traffic. London Underground runs to South Bucks and Essex so maybe that is not a metro in your eyes. Tyne & Wear metro goes to Sunderland. Oh that is in Tyne and Wear, like Southport is in Merseyside. Southport is in Merseyside, Chester is just outside. The London Underground is heavy rail, as is Merseyrail, so maybe that is not a metro either.
I see that this has previously (just over a year ago) been discussed at Talk:List of metro systems#Merseyrail, UK and now also at Talk:List of metro systems#The Liverpool Merseyrail System. I assume that you are the same IP editor who has been arguing throughout that Merseyrail is a Metro system. It certainly appears so. In none of these discussions has anyone else agreed with your point of view, but five other editors have disagreed with you. Still you insist on changing the articles. I would suggest that you should either provide citations in support of your viewpoint, or else stop your disruptive edits.–Signalhead< T >18:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the same one trying to get sense into s bunch of well... You prove Merseyrail is not a metro!! It meets all the criteria on the list of metros wiki. It shift more passengers than any other metro outside of London.
The intepretation of the anon IP of a Metro system, would then include:
Anyway having spent quite a bit of time on the Northern Line recently, Merseyrail is not anywhere near as high capacity or high frequency. Also associating it with systems like the Hong Kong MTR, it is positively low frequency and capacity. --Stewart(talk | edits)07:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Associating the Tyne & Wear Metro with Hong Kong metro is inappropriate too. If those railways you list fit the loose criteria then they are metros. Merseyrail shift more passengers than another non-London Metro. There is chronic overcrowding. Usage is up by 14% recently. Urgent measures to increase passenger throughput are being sorted right now - this may mean higher frequencies or more borrowed cars until rolling stock is replaced in 3 to 4 years time. Central station maybe enlarged or another adjacent station built to cope. Merseyrail is a Rapid transit metro system. What world are you guys in? One think ownership matters or the type of rolling stock. No one has given a concrete reason why Merseyrail is not a metro. Citation? Well how about citations for Tyne & Wear, or Glasgow or London? I see none. I am not convinced Tyne & Wear is rapid Transit. Having the word Metro does not mean it is one.
Merseyrail network is creaking, says transport chief.
Oct 24 2008 by Ben Schofield, Liverpool Daily Post. Trains network is creaking, says transport chief. MERSEYRAIL trains are running so close to capacity the network is “creaking”, the region’s transport chief said. 79.65.119.190 (talk) 13:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"You prove Merseyrail is not a metro!!" - No sir, the onus is on you to prove that it is a metro. Information sources generally tell you what something is, rather than what it isn't. I am no more likely to find a source that states "Merseyrail is not a metro" than I am to find one saying "Merseyrail is not a Turkish brothel". You must provide a reliable source for your assertions or they will continue to be reverted in accordance with Wikipedia policy. –Signalhead< T >23:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am a Liverpudlian and therefore reasonably familiar with the Merseyrail system and I have done several edits to the Merseyrail thread and have always deleted the word 'metro' when I have come across it. I am not really bothered whether our rail system is called a metro or not and I am certainly not going to make any edits to this article one way or the other - having only ever ridden on the Glasgow Subway once.
However, the word 'metro' is not precisely defined and so it is rather pedantic to state that the Glasgow subway is definitely a metro, the Tyne and Wear Metro may be and the Merseyrail system definitely isn't. The word 'metro' is understood to come from the Paris Metropolitain and so could just be interpreted as 'the railway of a metropolitan area'. In fact, you could argue that as Merseyrail covers a large part of the Merseyside metropolitan area whereas the Glasgow Subway only covers the city centre, Merseyrail has more right to call itself a metro.
But, if you use the more conventional definitions, then I would agree that in the case of, say, the branch from Ellesmere Port to Hooton, which has two trains an hour at present, is totally above ground and runs through a semi-rural area it would be hard to argue that this was a metro. On the other hand, the line from Liverpool Lime Street to Birkenhead Hamilton Square, which is used by thousands of people every day, ticks all the boxes of the metro definition, being fully underground having a frequent service (fourteen trains per hour each way) and using electric traction.
The main point is surely that a large proportion of the people reading the Glasgow Subway article will not be versed in the finer points of what is and what isn't a metro and, if your article states or implies that only London, Newcastle and Glasgow have underground systems and they know that Liverpool also has one, that is going to reflect badly on the accuracy of the article and the knowledge of the people writing it.
My understanding of a metro system has always been one where trains do not run to a published timetable but on a 'first train, last train' basis with trains running every few minutes throughout the day between those times or some other lesser frequency off-peak. This is the basis on which the London Underground and Docklands Light Railway and the Glasgow Subway run. Merseyrail trains, however, operate to a timetable. The list of Metro systems article does not make reference to any such untimetabled criteria, but its list for the UK only includes systems which meet that criteria. Tyne & Wear isn't listed though, perhaps it should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krankie (talk • contribs) 17:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. A metro does not have a timetable, neither does Merseyrail. A frequency at 15 mins or less is regarded as a metro service as you just turn up and the wait is not that long. Merseyrail is a smaller version of London's Underground; a dedicated network which is a mixture of metro and commuter rail. London's outers have very low frequencies at certain times of the week and no one would say it is not a metro. Merseyrail carries more people in the UK after London Underground. It would carry more if the network was finished as about a third was cancelled when Thatcher came to power. The tunnels and trackbeds are still waiting for rails. An abandoned semi-underground station may be brought back to use. There are strong suggestions to expand the network further, such as to Skelmersdale extending the Kirkby line and continuing on to Wigan - this section "may" carry some freight at night as the port is expanding greatly as a container terminal depot is branched off the line Liverpool_to_Manchester_Lines#Other_routes. Battery trains are being suggested, from official sources, to extend Merseyrail from Liverpool to Wrexham Borderlands Line to eliminate the cost of full line electrification. The Lime St to Wigan and Manchester lines have just been electrified (the City Line, run by Northern Rail but branded Merseyrail running through Merseyside). There are suggestions to bring the Liverpool to Wigan Line fully into Merseyrail, run by Merseyrail, which makes sense. The best is yet to come on Merseyrail. I know there is regional bias in all this sort of thing which at times ends up being teenage saying "mine is bigger than yours", but some people have to grow up and see the trees. Merseyrail is clearly a metro .... and more. 94.192.60.122 (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
London Underground would like you peruse their time table at your leisure. Here is the Jubilee line. Timetables are there for all lines. [[2]]. Also here is the Glasgow Subway timetable. [[3]]
Not sure if referring to me or the person above, but my point is quite simple: the presence of timetables (or absence) is not a marker for whether or not a line is a Metro. To use that as an argument, when timetables exist across almost all metro's if only to establish the start and end of services, is obviously false. Koncorde (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was clear you were implying that Merseyrail is not a metro because they issued a timetable. They all do for your info. What makes a metro is frequencies of 15 mints or less then timetables are not needed. Even London Underground has train at half hour intervals in some sections at weekends and off peak times. So maybe London Underground should not not be referred to as a metro. Merseyrail is a rapid-transit metro for sure. That is beyond dispute. I cannot believe anyone knowing the network would ever think otherwise. I advise you to study the expanding network - a new station last year with a brand new metro train fleet complete with bi-modal electric/battery trains next year. British Rail Class 777 METRO trains are being introduced. They are based on the Stadler "Metro" platform. Notice the word "metro". Reading this section was quite pathetic reading with comments stretching over many years. There is clearly a hatred towards the city of Liverpool and its people in these articles. You cannot wish the city away. It is there, get used to it. Get your minds right. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:AD93:A27E:7881:BB6F (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I work in Liverpool, I love the city and its people who I have worked alongside for over 20 years. It is my home 'city' because I share far more in common with it than Manchester. Now get off your ridiculous sanctimonious high horse and read the discussions without assuming the absolute worst of people. Liverpool isn't a Metro because it shares the same lines as the main branch lines, it is thus not "grade segregated". That alone rules it out, regardless of what type of carriages it may or may not use, and what name they may use or what they are based on. Or else does the existence of the Mini Metro mean that since the 80's all roads in the UK have been metro's too? Or does the Ford Transit make it all mass transit?No, it's a silly argument isn't it. Koncorde (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The only track it shares is at Chester station when occasionally a diesel train is sent onto the 3rd rail dedicated Merseyrail platform - usually because of an abnormal situation. You just do not know about the Merseyrail Electrics network. The City Line is run by Northern Rail using Northern trains with Northern livery, just sponsored by Merseytravel, not Merseyrail Electrics. The only thing the City Line shares is ticketing, which incidentally London Underground do with others. And LU share tracks with others as well, which Merseyrail does not. Merseyrail is a metro. Commuter Rail is one line from suburbs/small town into a city centre. The Wigan line via St.Helens into Liverpool is a Commuter Rail line. The City Line is a Commuter rail. Merseyrail is a network, not one line into a centre. I cannot believe the ignorance here, but they know all the answers. You are from St.Helens which is served to Liverpool by Northern with Northern colours on the trains - NOT Merseyrail. Only the ticketing is compatible with Merseyrail, that's all. Did you look at the colours of the train? They look like this. Note it is not Merseyrail yellow:
Ormskirk. 1 contiguous platform, a single line, segregated by a buffer. Kirby, just a single branch line (if I remember it correctly). Hunts Cross, merging / crossing rails, with access to the depot facility at Allerton and joining onto the branch line. Bidston laps onto the Borderlands line. Ellesmere Port is joined to the Bank Quay line. A Metro is defined as being grade segregated. A third rail and different livery isn't any better an argument than the name of the coaches. Koncorde (talk) 07:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my God. How old are you? I will pull short of questioning your mental ability. At Ormskirk the 3rd rail Merseyrail electrics trains and Northern diesel trains do not share the same tracks. There is a large buffer between the the 3rd rail and diesel only tracks. The tracks are separated. Merseyrail Electrics is a segregated network. No other trains of any other operator run services on their tracks - none! You display clear vitriol towards Liverpool as many of the comments above have shown. If you cannot figure it out, Merseyrail is a metro, as the comments over the years above have proven beyond any doubt. Just accept it and get used to it. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:48E5:50F2:DD72:285 (talk) 13:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm 38. How old are you? Now that pleasantry is out of the way, the fact that other trains may or may not use the 3rd rail lines is irrelevant. The absence of grade segregation is one of the defining factors of a Metro. This is not about Liverpool. This is about the meaning of words. Liverpool Merseyside network is a fine thing, but it is part of the wider rail network of the UK. It may be considered "Metro-like" (as I have seen one source use) but without reliable sources to advance your position you are dealing with Original Research and Synthesis. Please go to the Admin noticeboard and make your case there, or go to the main rail wikigroup and ask for help there. Koncorde (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merseyrail Electrics is a 100% segregated 3rd rail network. Unlike London Underground, no other organisation runs services over its tracks - none. If you cannot understand that, there is not much else I, and others, can do for you. You are very confused, even thinking Northern Rail trains were yellow Merseyrail trains. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:48E5:50F2:DD72:285 (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except, it isn't at all the locations indicated? Also the presence of, or absence of, multiple organisations, or the colour of rail carriages (that I have never mentioned), or the naming of them, or the absence of or presence of timetables isn't an argument. Please provide reliable sources. Koncorde (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single source has been presented. You have been unable to refute the basics of segregated traffic. You have pointedly lied about "the only place is Chester" (which in and of itself is problematic) when it is demonstrable just at Allerton that this is clearly not the case, nevermind Kirkby and Ormskirk or Bidston. You have invented arguments that haven't been made by other people at all. You have interpreted all arguments through your lens of Liverpool somehow being persecuted by people on Wikipedia for god knows what reason you think. But all you need to do is present reliable sources to back up your arguments? Koncorde (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All this is confusion about what a metro is - shortened from Metropolitan Railway. Like calling a vacuum cleaner a Hoover. There are better descriptions. Urban transit, mass transit. By reading the above it is clear London Underground is not a metro by some of the misguided comments. London Underground is a larger version of Merseyrail.
The focus is urban transit which has an underground station element and the who was the 1st, 2nd, etc in the world to have such a system. 1st was London, then Liverpool, then Glasgow, then Budapest and then Glasgow again. 152.37.85.43 (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to say the same thing. I see the status of the Mersey Railway/Merseyrail is discussed about, but Budapest is still claiming "third place" after it and the London underground. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Er, two circular tracks with one being inside the other. The inside track is known as the 'inner circle'. I shall leave it as an exercise for the reader to work out why the other track is called the 'outer circle'. 109.153.242.10 (talk) 14:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone willing to start a rail vehicle page or at least create a decent section on this page for the rolling stock? I would myself like ive done for most of the UK light rail vehicles but have no knowledge or experience of the Glasgow stock and find that theirs far less written about them online with which to found an article. WatcherZero (talk) 01:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glasgow Underground 1979 Automatic Fare Collection System
When the Subway was refurbished in 1977, the Automatic Fare Collection system was provided by Revenue Control Systems (RCS) of Watford, who designed, built and installed all the equipment except the ticket machines which were provided by Westinghouse of Chipenham, based on LU style Westomat machines.
The system went operational in 1979 and the tickets used were yellow paper single mag stripe Edmondson size tickets.
The gates used the first microprocessors (Intel 4004).
The RCS systwm was replaced by Cubic equipment in the late 80's
I have decided that the misleading omission of Merseyrail from the introduction to this article needs to be addressed. There are four cities with underground rapid transit systems in Britain - they are London, Newcastle, Glasgow and Liverpool. The Merseyrail system is the oldest of the three systems outside of the capital and predates the City and South London in having deep level stations with lift access. Though there are fewer stations compared to the Glasgow Subway, the route length (6.5 miles) is slightly larger and the passenger volume through the five underground stations on the route is greater than all fifteen on the Glasgow system.
Much is made of the fact that Merseyrail is not a metro, which I accept, but what is the essential difference between Merseyrail and the Tyne and Wear Metro apart from the fact that the latter calls itself a metro? The systems are very similar in terms of system length, underground system length, train frequency, areas served etc. Certainly the two systems have far more in common with each other than either does with the Glasgow Subway.
Don't forget that this is not a technical forum but an encyclopedia with a general readership. In that light, the omission of the Merseyrail system is incomprehensible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mann Island (talk • contribs) 19:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The latest revision of the introduction (25.02) is fine with me. I am not bothered that Merseyrail is not mentioned, just that if we are going to list underground systems outside of London, then it is very misleading not to include it. Mann Island — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mann Island (talk • contribs) 20:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi just wondered if anyone knew the reason why pushchairs(prams) have to be folded before going through the gates at glasgow tube station. the reason I asked is we have twins and my wife was unable to take them on the tube on her own as it was impossible for her to carry two kids and a folded chair as well as a baby bag through the gates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.148.94 (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added archive links to one external link on Glasgow Subway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Why do we define Glasgow Subway as "heavy rail" in the lead - and as the "only heavy rail underground metro"? I can't find any citations and it seems like a very odd claim, since Wikipedia defines heavy rail as "conventional railways forming part of the national network, including commuter, intercity, high-speed rail, rural and freight services, as distinct from metro, light rail and tram lines, people movers and similar." Glasgow Subway is narrow gauge, has no connection to the mainline network, and is not part of Network Rail or National Rail. Both Tyne and Wear Metro and Merseyrail have a stronger claim to being heavy rail. Smurrayinchester09:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be part of the North American definition of heavy rail. Under the UK definition, the Subway fits more with a metro definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.101.35 (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
London Underground is heavy rail as is Merseyrail. LU is regarded as a metro.
In the UK, the difference is solely one of legal definition. Historically: the construction of any railway required an Act of Parliament. In 1896, Parliament passed the Light Railway Act. This allowed the building of a railway without first obtaining said Act, though only a handful of schemes took advantage. Instead of obtaining an Act, it was only necessary to obtain a 'Light Railway Order'. Following this enactment, there is actually no difference between a normal railway in terms of permitted gauge, vehicle weights, loading gauge etc. etc. The sole difference is that a railway designated as a light railway is not permitted to exceed 25 m.p.h. Preserved railways invariably operate as light railways as the cost of obtaining an Act of Parliament for such ventures is prohibitive whereas a light railway order is a relatively simple administrative exercise. Thus small metro sized railways such as this and the London Underground are not legally light railways, and can exceed 25 m.p.h. even though the vehicles are lighter in weight relative to the national 'main line' railways.
I have just modified 3 external links on Glasgow Subway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on Glasgow Subway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I remember the pre-refurbishment service as being called "the Shuggle" - by virtue of the vigorous rocking motion that passengers were subjected to. Am I alone in this recollection and, more importantly, do any published accounts record this?ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is historical fact. When the word "Liverpool" comes up, those filled with jealousy and hate towards the city and its people develop selective amnesia. Look at the talk sections on Liverpool and Merseyrail. Unbelievable. You couldn't make it up.
2A01:4B00:881D:3700:48E5:50F2:DD72:285 (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not very bright "or"? Undeliverable? Look, it's clear you are very passionate about this, but you are not bringing any reliable sources to the article either here, or on Merseyrail to make your case. This is not a "selective history", this is a basic requirement of wikipedia to present reliable sources. Please use the Administrators noticeboard, or the links at the top to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains to discuss further. Koncorde (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Total drivel. This one has a hate complex towards Liverpool. Look at his talk page where people are getting at him for changing Liverpool related articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Koncorde#Liverpool From his talk page by another editor to him: "If you continue your edits to the Liverpool intro I will have no choice but to report you for vandalism."
RichieWright1980 is unfortunately as confused as you. Richie was conflating Urban Areas, Metropolitan populations, Liverpool City Region borough organisations, and includes the population of Chester in the "Metropolitan" region. Born and raised in St Helens (barring a few years in Liverpool), West Ham fan by unfortunate accident. None of which is any evidence to advance your cause? Koncorde (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It puts it in the "Liverpool-Birkenhead Metropolitan area", which is different to the Liverpool Metropolitan, which is different to Merseyside, which is different to the Liverpool City Region, which is different to the Liverpool Council etc which Richie was / is conflating. Asking for accuracy is no signifier of "hate". It's the basic building blocks of wikipedia to ask for reliable sources. Koncorde (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The European Union's ESPON know better than you. Wiki is full of you meddling with Liverpool related articles in an attempt to disparage the city, as you are doing in attempting to erase its historic metro. Get your mind right! Erase the hate. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:B992:FE0:E14B:41B6 (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree, ESPON are indeed correct that Liverpool is part of "Liverpool-Birkenhead" metropolitan area (that was my argument all along). But this is not the same as being only the metropolitan area of Liverpool (which is generally given to mean the Liverpool Urban Area, or making Liverpool defacto "at the centre". Deleting any reference to Birkenhead, conflating different measurements to in accurately bump something up statistically, using regional local government partnerships as political establishments etc are all inaccurate however (and, I guess, hate towards Birkenhead?). If you can bring reliable sources to back up your arguments then please bring them. Your personal attacks are hardly evidence of a lack of hate, and indeed seem quite vitriolic. Koncorde (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The city and district line operated 10 years earlier than the subway. The four core stations on the inner-city section from west to east were Finnieston (now closed), Charing Cross, Queen Street (now Low Level; four platforms initially, now two), and College (now High Street). It was operating by March 1886.
The central railway ran later; it was fully operating east-west by August 1896, just ahead of the Subway. Stations were: Stobcross (now Exhibition Centre), Central (now low-level; four platforms initially, now two), Glasgow Cross (closed), Glasgow Green (closed), and Bridgeton Cross (where the tunnel surfaces). 151.202.25.123 (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Romeksz has edited the page this morning and referenced an old SPT page which suggests that the GS is the 3rd oldest underground railway, after the London Underground and a line in Budapest. However, it makes no mention of the Mersey Railway, which opened 10 years before the Glasgow Subway. Is this likely to be an oversight? Comments welcome. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back at this page's history, this seems to be a recurring and controversial topic! The page User:Romeksz added is, I think, no longer live - we should update the link to use that archive copy (if we keep the link) or a more current SPT page.
That said, wouldn't a reference from someone other than SPT be better?
I had a quick look at third-party refs including Wikipedia's list of subway systems and found Glasgow listed variously as 3rd and 4th. It seems to me that the real answer is "it depends" - on how underground railway is defined. My preference would be for this page to say something like The Glasgow Subway is described as being the 3rd or 4th oldest underground railway by sources using differing definitions of underground railway. Easy enough to back up with good quality references.
1. 1863 - Metropolitan Railway (now a part of London Underground). Had stations underground and open to atmosphere.
2. 1886 - Mersey Railway (now a part of Merseyrail). Had stations underground and open to atmosphere. Incorporated the first deep level stations and an extensive under-river tunnel.
3. 1886 - Glasgow City and District Railway now part of the North Clyde and the Argyle. One underground station accessed by extensive tunnel under the city centre.
4. 1890 - City & South London Railway.
5. 1896 - Budapest Line 1 (now a part of Budapest Metro). Had stations and track underground and open to the atmosphere.
6. 1896 - Glasgow Subway - All stations underground.
7. 1896 - Liverpool Overhead Railway (Underground Dingle extension)
They are the first urban railways in the world using underground stations and tunnels.
I've been able to actually look at the article in more detail - the claim "third oldest" is sourced, unlike the claim of "fifth oldest". So a change would need a new source. Danners430 (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@152.37.85.43 this is the most recent discussion on this topic. As it stands, the statement of "third oldest" is sourced in the lead, so my thought is it should stay unless a different source is found. Danners430 (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source is in the links to the particular metros. It clearly describes them, with some external sources and dates. Reading these comments on this Talk page it is clear common sense has gone out of the window being replaced by city partisanship. There is clearly a shameful anti Liverpool streak.
If there are sources in "links to particular metros", then bring them over and the matter would be resolved. It's not up to the reader to go hunting for references. Danners430 (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes a reference is not needed as it self evident. Going by your way we would have a reference after every sentence. Those who take your stance, not saying you are one, tend to have this give a reference when they have been proven wrong but do not like to admit it.
If an underground urban railway is having tunnels and an underground station, then you want links to articles pointing that out when hitting the wikipedia link gives the same info to the reader. 152.37.85.43 (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make this quite crystal clear:
There is currently a referenced statement in the article. Changing this statement to contradict the reference goes directly against WP:VERIFIABILITY. Personally I have nothing against the information being changed - but because it's sourced in its current form, it should only be changed with an updated source. Danners430 (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reference is from a Gasgow transport authority. It should be dismissed out of hand as it is infactual. It states..
The Subway is generally recognised as the world’s third underground railway, after London and Budapest.
It does not say it is, it says "generally recognized" which is not enough. The list was given above:
1. 1863 - Metropolitan Railway
2. 1886 - Mersey Railway
3. 1886 - Glasgow City and District Railway
4. 1890 - City & Soth London Railway
5. 1896 - Budapest Line 1
6. 1896 - Glasgow Subway.
7. 1896 - Liverpool Overhead underground extension.
All have articles with links supporting the above list. It needs changing to make the article factual and stop this perennial talking of which was first, second, etc. The facts are firmly there. Wikipedia is based on fact, facts override something that is "generally recognized". 2A01:4B00:BB18:A600:E738:4C0D:38F4:6829 (talk) 11:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mersey Railway is railway with tunnel or full underground subway? That's the question in my opinion.
Metro (meaning as rapid transport) don't need to be a underground subway as London, Budapest and Glasgow subways. romeksz (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that that should be the question, though - that seems to be moving into original research, and we should only be repeating verifiable claims. If a good quality article describes the Glasgow Subway as "3rd oldest underground railway" we can say "this article describes the Glasgow Subway as 3rd oldest underground railway". If different sources make opposing claims, we should report that too, link to the sources, and let readers draw their own conclusions. (Incidentally, none of the sources I checked mentioned Mersey Railway at all - a few placed Chicago "L" at 2nd place, opening in 1892, and others placed it at 4th, opening in 1897). 2.220.175.253 (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The existing future developments section primarily touches on former proposals for expansion. The section has collected things that weren't in the last round of modernisation.
In general, the expansion plans discussed have not been serious plans with funding and rigour (which is partly why we have a link to glasgowlive). The reference in the introductory remarks to expansion plans from 2007 is probably also not necessary; they add nothing to the context of what the subway system is today or will be in the future.
Any dormant proposals, including crossrail, are probably not relevant in light of the publication of the final recommendations of the STPR2, which retains the subway in the Clyde Metro proposals.
symbol denotes "Interchange station (with suburban or light rail network)". As far as I know the Subway, this would only apply to Buchanan St and Partick. All the others should use the 
image shoudln't they? I think it's a bit misleading to suggest they all interchange with ScotRail, which clearly they don't!
Done: Added to info box. 31.48.73.38 (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
