Talk:Paris Métro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Trains Portal
Sel week 2, 2007
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
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
High This article has been rated as high-importance within the Trains WikiProject.

The building of the metro was finally started for the Exposition Universelle (1900), IIRC -- need to look it up. -- Tarquin 23:58, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The second image Image:Paris.metro.abbesses.jpg is very dark, what do you think User:MykReeve to adjust the brightness ? if it still have dark i can redo the picture since i live just right this metro station. -- Chmouel Boudjnah 02:16, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Have increased brightness a touch. I have to say that the original image looked fine on my monitor, but Apple monitors have quite a low gamma setting. - MykReeve 23:27, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Here's something interesting I found:

"The PMP proposal was inspired by the Paris Metro system. Until about 15 years ago, when the rules were modified, the Paris Metro operated in a simple fashion, with 1st and 2nd class cars that were identical in number and quality of seats. The only difference was that 1st class tickets cost twice as much as 2nd class ones. (The Paris regional RER lines still operate on this basis.) The result was that 1st class cars were less congested, since only people who cared about being able to get a seat, etc., paid for 1st class. The system was self-regulating, in that whenever 1st class cars became too popular, some people decided they were not worth the extra cost, and traveled 2nd class, reducing congestion in 1st class and restoring the differential in quality of service between 1st and 2nd class cars."

http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/paris.metro.minimal.txt

This is a neat economics anecdote. But is it true? Perhaps someone who knows could say more about how it actually worked in practice, and why it was abandoned?

It is perfectly true. It was logically abandoned partly because of the evolution of the society but mostly because it was too expensive (too many checks necessary to ensure that people riding in first class actually have first class tickets). Especially since that checks are now fully automatic at the entrance of the stations, with a very limited number of people doing random checks, to reduce the costs.
Of related interest, a story about the same contact lenses being sold at different grades/prices [1], and something similar happening at Starbucks [2].

Contents

[edit] Pictures

The article is a mess: there are too many pictures and very poor editing to put them in the right place. I'd offer to do the job of tidying up the article myself but I don't have the expertise, so I'm putting a Wikify request up.

Bonjour! The tables are mixed with the fotos. I would try to fix the format, but I don't know how. Au revoir --Starionwolf 23:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
It seems to be alright in MSIE but awful in Mozilla. It needs the photos to be repositioned in the text to prevent them from being told to be in the same place as the table. An easy job in theory, but with the multitude of Screen resolutions people will be using, it is difficult to check it for everyone. - Superbfc 13:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming conventions

  • Okay, it seems that articles related to Paris public transportation are extremely messy. It probably may be interesting to create an article about Paris public transportations in general, which would explain how are organized the different networks between themselves (Metro, RER, Transilien, Tramway, RATP bus, Optile Bus, Noctilien, etc...).
  • On a side note, I think we should probably erase all the current articles to Paris Metro stations which redirect to the list of Paris Metro stations. Because of those redirects, we don't see which stations have actually an article and as such we can't reach them. This should really change.
  • However, what bothers me the most is the difference in the naming of the stations, they could have the same status and still be named in a lot of different ways. My opinion is that we should re-organize this in putting conventions which will have to be respected by all users. As it seems there's still a dominating way of naming those, here's what are the conventions which would seem the most natural to me :
    • Paris Metro stations : "###### (Paris Metro)"
    • Paris RER stations : "###### (Paris RER)"
    • Transilien stations : "###### (Transilien)"
    • Stations hosting both metro and RER : "###### (Paris Metro and RER)"
    • Stations hosting both metro and Transilien : "###### (Paris Metro and Transilien)"
    • Stations hosting both RER and Transilien : "###### (Paris RER and Transilien)"
    • Stations hosting all the three : "##### (Paris Metro, RER and Transilien)"

Of course, in case there are several different networks in the same station, we shouldn't forget redirections. For instance Invalides (Paris Metro) and Invalides (Paris RER) should both redirect to Invalides (Paris Metro and RER). It works already for that specific station but it should work the same way for all stations. This way, people could easily create a link to a station without having to worry about the exact name of its article. This rule should normally apply to all rail stations in Ile-de-France, outside of course the national rails stations which should keep their proper article as they don't relate to public transportation. As for the articles in themselves, I wonder if it's really necessary to create different article for stations which have different names but are connected to one another. For instance, I don't see any reason to have an article standing for Porte Maillot (Paris Metro) and another one standing for Neuilly - Porte Maillot (Paris RER). Probably a redirect of both of them to an article called Porte Maillot (Paris Metro and RER) would be clearer, even if we could of course create two different chapters for the line 1 station and the RER C station, mentioning their specific names and explaining the difference between both. In other words, I think the hub in itself is more important than the proper denomination of stations. Not only this would be clearer, but an article about a hub would certainly be also more interesting than two independent stubs. Metropolitan 12:35 6 April 2005 (UTC)

Concur. The above universal naming scheme suggested by Metropolitan is utterly logical. Rollo 17:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
For simplicity, why not adapt the example of the British station articles, and use ‘##### (Paris station)’ for any station served by more than one system? David Arthur 21:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. You have a point here. Otherwise, rationally we are going to end up with Station (Paris Metro, RER, Transilien and SNCF), which would clearly be silly. Yes, I'm converted to this plan. The implications? Most Metro and RER ones would remain unchanged in name, but a few central hubs and a good number of suburban stations (the RER-Transilien ones) would need to become Station (Paris station) (or Station (Paris rail station)?) If a given station contains interesting discrete parts (for example, the RER station at Nation (Paris Metro and RER)), a dedicated linked page can always be created. Opinions? --Rollo 18:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, the problem is that there are numerous people who would consider that metro or RER stations which would be located out of the city proper couldn't be considered as "Paris" station. Maybe the solution is to simply rename them "##### (station)", with for instance "Reuilly-Diderot (station)" or "La Défense - Grande Arche (station)". That would be even simpler. Metropolitan 19:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes, didn't think of that problem. But new difficulties then come up. I'm not sure it would be a good idea to rename all the Métro stations (like Reuilly-Diderot): the Métro identity is closely associated with these stations. Same for the dedicated RER stations. And if we specify "Paris" in those article names (necessary to distinguish them from other metros), geography should surely also feature in the suburban articles. If it can't be Paris, then I am going with Issy (French rail). Issy (French station) sounds strange (what sort of station?).--Rollo 09:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't you think we would lose in clarity if we name public transport stations in the same way as national rail stations ? Issy is an RER C station used daily by thousands of people to transit in the Paris area. In considering it as a national rail station, we lose the very identity of that station. But anyway, there are multiple editors which have as purpose to make the unity of the Paris area as invisible as possible both on French and English Wikipedia. They do so for reasons I fail to understand.
After all, let's continue with the hypocrisy and ignore completely the fact that the 5 lines of the Paris RER generate an annual trafic which is comparable to the one of the 12 lines of the London underground. Metropolitan 11:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Expansion request

It's a shame this article has no information on how you use the Metro etc. Davidbod 14:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update needed - La Defense station now open

Now that the La Défense (Paris Metro, RER, and Transilien) station is connected and in use, the article should be updated accordingly. --John Nagle 06:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image display on Explorer and on Firefox

Obviously, the page doesn't appear the same on both browsers. Superbfc obviously use Firefox when I use Explorer, and in continuing to reorganize each of our changes so that they could fit our own brower without considering other ones. Obviously with Firefox, we can't put images on the left because it gets superimposed with the text. Furthermore, we can't either put images beside a table because both also get superimposed. On the other side, the main issue on Explorer comes from the fact that we get blank space on the text so that the first line of an article wouldn't be above an image which is coded above. Okay, I'll try once again to harmonize the display so that it would appear properly on both browsers. Metropolitan 17:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I use both MSIE and Mozilla, so I've tried the best to get them good on both browsers. — Superbfc 18:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Singular system or double system?

Hi, I post my question here rather than at Paris Metro Line 14 because I am afraid there would be less visitor. Anyway here's my question, does the rubber-tyred train on Line 14 still keep running on both rubber tyres and steel wheels as line 1/4/6/11? Have they omitted the conventional steel wheel part? -- Sameboat - 同舟 23:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

They still use the rail as backup system, please see commons:Category:Paris Metro Ligne 14.
Same as any rubber tyred metro in Paris...
Gonioul 02:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thx a lot -- Sameboat - 同舟 06:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry the traffic doubled in 2003 with the extention at Saint Lazare Before december 2003 175,000 passengers per average workdays after december 2003 350,000 at 400,000 passengers per average workdays a new extention will open in the first six-month period of 2007 It is the station Olympiade located in Paris biggest chinatown near the business district "Paris Rive Gauche" Minato ku 00:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Minato Ku

[edit] Merging stops into this article, or create a list article

How do the maintainers of this article feel about merging the stop articles into this article? It would seem to me that articles such as Jules Joffrin (Paris Métro) do not contain much further information than could be listed in a table on this page. The other option may be created one article that is a list of all the stops on this subway system. Alan.ca 03:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this article is long enough as it is. If the stations were to be merged, it would make more sense to do so by line Arrondissement rather than for the whole system — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 08:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I concur, I changed the merge proposal for the station to the article on the line. Alan.ca 00:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
However, stations on connecting lines might prove problematic. As I've said in the AfD discussion, perhaps Arrondissement would be the best divisor — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 00:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, those stops (stations) article should be expanded with further informations like platform type, other transport connection and utility rate. -- Sameboat - 同舟 09:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree with Sameboat. Also, Alan.ca, there already is a list: List of Paris metro stations. -- hibou 08:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link Review

I've just finished converting an old university project and made it live. It's MétEX, my virtual tour to the Paris Métro. I created it for my final-year project at university, and it took about 9 months to take pictures and sounds, research information, and create the website. I think it would be a valuable link to list here because it contains photos of all stations on Lines 3, 3bis, 6, 7bis, 10, 12 and 14, along with info I haven't seen in the articles.

Of course, since this is my own website I feel it's better to see what the rest of the editors think about this. Also, in case you were wondering, RATP gave me a photo permit and full permission to publish the website, on condition it remains non-commercial.

MétEX's URL is: http://metex.sblorgh.org/ - please let me know what you think. --PkerUNO 13:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's great - just the kind of thing people like me want to find in Wikipedia.
— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 15:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments! However, nobody else seems to have voiced their opinions on this... I don't really want to add it until there's a clear concensus. --PkerUNO 02:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, you could argue that because nobody has come out to vociferously oppose it, then it can't be so odious as to not merit inclusion. I think it is a suitable link because it is not commercial and adds knowledge and content. What Wikipedia doesn't want is 1000s of links to sites which add little value to the overall understanding of the topic. On the basis that if nobody is opposed to it enough to voice there opinions here, then I shall add it. As a comparison, I work in Local Government, and we have to work on the assumption that if we propose to do something and tell the public about it and have heard nothing back from them, they can't be against it if they haven't bothered to make that representation. So, I will use that parallel logic here and include it until someone thinks otherwise.
— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 15:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
You are not an edited author and your offering linking to a personal, for those reasons it is unappropriate to link. If it cannot be used as reference or source for prose content then it should not be added. Although it is a very interesting website it cannot be used as reference and should not feature in the external links. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 18:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bis suffix

What is the English translation of "bis" in 3bis and 7bis?? Georgia guy 22:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Roughly "the second", indicating it's an offshoot of the main line 3 or 7. --PkerUNO 02:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
It's latin, bis = 2, ter = 3, etc...
You can also see this in « itinéraire bis », alternate travel path.
Gonioul (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RER

I think this article talk too much about RER. This mislead people into thinking RER and metro are the same, this is not the case, they are completely different networks, and different widths, sharing only 1 connection near Vincennes maintenance facility.

For example, RER figures and pictures have nothing to do here.

RER should be strictly limited to a small history/interaction section and provide a link to the dedicated article.

Gonioul (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Average Train Speed

Does the average train speed of 35 km/h include the time the trains are stopped on stations?

I think it is relevant to clarify this, because if this is not the case, the actual travel speed is much lower due to the frequent stops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.242.141 (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)