The difference is in the mode of service. “Trains”/“railways” run less-frequent service over longer distances, with stations often spaced further apart and certain runs that may skip stations. You typically schedule your trip based on the train’s schedule. “Subway”/“metro” service is typically frequent enough that you can just show up and ride. Outside of Tokyo, the seating arrangements are usually different, with “trains” employing transverse seating and “subways” using longitudinal seating.
> > What's kinda interesting is does that train classify as metro transit that goes slightly beyond city to airport and such (making many stops all the way) or distance intercity train that happens to stop both at airport and city? Or does it change this classification? That would be actually unusual
Also, about this part:
> You typically schedule your trip based on the train’s schedule.
Many counterexamples to that around East Asia (and probably Europe?). Trains are frequent enough that you just come most of the day. Apart from late hours when it is the same for both metro and distance trains, you have to know when they depart because both become rare and you can be late for the last one.
I’m speaking specifically about my lived experience using through-running services in Tokyo. Since your questions in this thread reveal that you lack familiarity with this service plan, I encourage you to visit Japan sometime and experience it yourself.
Turns out, I am intimately familiar with this service plan. There are metro trains with more frequent stops and service and there are distance trains with rarer stops (and yes, rarer service, the degree of which varies by country). What is new that I am missing?
Do you defend the subway vs. train terminology? Sometimes distance trains run underground, sometimes metro trains run overground, so it seems pretty pointless to me.
