Talk:EuroCity

Passport control

"During the pre-Schengen era, passport checks were conducted on EC trains while in motion, rather than while parked at a station or requiring the passengers to disembark, as was sometimes the case for non EC trains."

Isn't this still the case? With the Schengen treaty there's no passport control at most borders, but some trains still pass through borders where there has to be a passport control, such as the borders to Switzerland and Poland. Or has the passport control policy changed, so that passports now are checked at stations? (212.247.11.153 00:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC))

Poland is in Schengen area, all EC trains going to Eastern borders of Poland change category usually to D before crossing border 109.81.231.10 (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Referring to Slovenia - hasn't it recently joined Schengen so surely passport checks no longer take place here.--129.67.118.19 (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Switzerland is (now) part of Schengen. Previously there were passport (and probably there still are customs) checks aboard the train. I recall a late-night examination of my national ID card pre-Schengen, followed by a Customs inspection, including a drug-sniffing dog. Andygx (talk) 10:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

London

Subject: London with ICE-trains Your message of: 15.07.2010

Our reference: 1-4165556822

Dear Mr. Xxxxxxxx,

Thank you for your e-Mail. Unfortunately we can not give you any information about this. The whole project is still in processing. You will receive information about this by media.

We hope that we have been of assistance and look forward to welcome you in our trains.

Best regards

Fred Xxxx

Customer Care Center

DB Mobility

Long-Distance-Transport

--Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Routes

Are there two trains numbered EC 37? This week we are taking the EC 37 train that goes from Geneva Airport to Venice. There seems also an EC 37 (listed here) that goes from Hamburg to Copenhagen. Both trains show up in a Google search. Andygx (talk) 10:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Added link to Amtrak routes since it seems to me this is the closest comparison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.125.254 (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

List of trains

The list of EuroCity trains has been moved to a separate article. This means that a reader doesn't has an overview any more without leaving the article. Moreover the new list seems to serve trainspotters at border crossings. The list that was included in this article mentioned every name once, what makes sense for readers not knowing which EuroCitys exist(ed) and are looking for their routes and period of operation. The new listing wrongly assumes that the reader already knows the route of a specific train. In case you already know the specific route you can find the train at one or more routes, this is not very helpful for someone who is looking for info about EuroCity services. Many times the links in the new table don't provide info regarding the specific train but are linked to the subject the train's name was derived from. I would like to propose restoring the list of names and keep the new table as EuroCities per routes. It is a good list for those wanting to study specific routes, but despite the effort to make it, it isn't an overview of EuroCity services.--JB63 (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with JB63. In most ways, the old format was better than the format used by the new, separate article, List of EuroCity services. There needs to be at least one list with names in alphabetical order. Having two separate lists, in two formats, might be good, except that I worry that they will not be maintained (kept accurate, for changes). Many of these lists of named trains are already very out-of-date, because the person/people who created them left, and no one else started watching them to keep them updated. (These are all-time EC lists, not just lists of current trains, so "updating" does not involve removing trains, but only noting the date when one name's use for an EC is discontinued, etc.) Also, the links to train names should all go to the articles about the trains, or else they should be a red link if no article exists for a specific train, which is the way the old format handled them. Otherwise, there is no way for someone reading the list to know if a train-name link goes to an article about that train or, instead only about the person or place the train was named for, without having to click the link. SJ Morg (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I was a little surprised to discover that the original list had been restored to this article. May I suggest an alternative arrangement? My suggestion is that both lists be put in the list article. That would reduce the length of the main article, which I think would be better without any list to dominate it. Under my suggested arrangement, the list article would have two lists, the first one sorted by name of train in alphabetical order, and the second one sorted by region of operation. Although I can understand and appreciate the sentiments expressed above, I note that many, if not most, of the EuroCity trains running today do not have names, and that that means that there is no longer as much obvious logic as there would have been in 1987 in sorting a list of them by name, as in the list now restored to this article. In my view, there is also a great deal of sense in sorting such a list by region - someone interested in, eg, the international trains of northern Europe may not be interested at all in the trains between, eg, France and Spain. I also note that an obvious reason why most of the links in the new list are not (yet) links to an article about the relevant train is that no such article yet exists, and that several editors are currently working on addressing that issue. Bahnfrend (talk) 08:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This may be a good compromise. I, too, sort of feel that the list here excessively dominates the article (which really is very thin on prose, for its subject), but[JB63 has greatly expanded the prose text since I wrote the preceding.] I think both list formats are useful — although if I had to pick one, the old format currently here is better. I was surprised by one point you made. I was not aware that many current ECs are unnamed. I thought they were still all named. You (Bahnfrend) probably know more about the current situation than I do, but are you sure it's not a case of them having names, but the names simply are not indicated in whatever source(s) you are using? I was under the impression that being named was one of the (several) characteristics distinguishing EC trains from other, (usually) "lesser" types of day express trains, such as ICs and TGVs (which can be named but usually are not, nowadays). Going back to the main question under discussion: Both lists, but especially the new-format one, are already very long, so if the consensus is to retain both, they should probably be two separate list-type articles, with titles like "List of EuroCity services by route" and "List of EuroCity services by name" (or maybe using "trains" instead of services). If it's true that there are unnamed ECs now, I see no problem in simply omitting them from the "by name" list, as they would still be included in the other list, and naturally the two lists would prominently cross-reference one another. SJ Morg (talk) 08:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Names are no longer used in Germany, at least. About a week after the Eschede train disaster in 1998, the DB adopted the aviation industry practice of "retiring" the number (and name) of the accident train. (This had not previously been the DB's practice after accidents (eg, involving the Bavaria and the Helvetia), but it seems that attitudes had changed by 1998.) The "retirement" turned out to be very expensive (because timetables, station signs, etc, had already been published) and confusing. Influenced by these difficulties, and by its later decision to name individual ICE train sets after various cities in Germany (similar to Lufthansa's practice of naming individual aircraft after German cities), the DB eventually decided to drop most train names altogether from 2002 (IC as well as EC names, amongst others). Named overnight trains still operate in Germany, but most other trains now just have numbers. Bahnfrend (talk) 09:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the main reason why I decided to structure the new list page in the way that I did: listing by train name may be the best approach for a list of 1987 services, but now, as mos train services are not named, that leaves nowhere for the article link to go - it seemed to me that the number was the best place for that, and it also makes sense for this to be the primary column (although train numbers obviously do change). I linked the train name to its subject because this seems like relevant information - who or what the train is named after. The problem is that a link attached to a train number doesn't particularly stand out, so I'm open to the idea of changing this.

I take people's feedback on the list article. The intention was to be as thorough as possible, and covering 26 years of changing timetables makes for a complex article. Rather than one, large, unwieldy table, it seemed appropriate to break it up into more recognisable regions - each should have an introduction to explain this further, as should there be a better intro at the top of the page - it's still a work in progress. Any help with this, and in making the list more thorough and accurate (and tidier!) is much appreciated.

I don't think that the original table should be restored - there's nothing there that isn't in the new page, and it's somewhat out of date. Better would be a short paragraph describing countries served, major cities, and a few famous services/routes, along with the link to the list. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The two list formats serve very different purposes, and both are useful. One is better for people looking for information from a geographical perspective, while the other is better for those looking for information from a chronological perspective or customer information perspective (e.g. train names). It's important to note that the original list is sortable, which among other things allows the user to instantly put all trains in order by date of introduction, date of discontinuation, name, train number, etc. (The sorting function had not been functioning lately due to a markup error in one cell, but I spotted that and fixed it.) For this reason, I disagree with the statement that the old list has nothing there that isn't in the new page. It's not just about content, but about how the content is presented.
Also, while I concede that many EC trains are no longer named, it still appears to me that most are named, even some in Germany if they are international. I welcome Bahnfrend's info. above on names, and found it enlightening, but even in recent issues of the Thomas Cook Timetable, I find that names are still given for most ECs, even some or most of the few international (& daytime) ones still running through Germany to points east or southeast. In the countries where service by high-speed equipment and lines has been greatly expanded in the last 20 years, this has led to the elimination of almost all EuroCity trains, replaced by unnamed TGV, ICE, Thalys and Eurostar trains, etc., but where EC trains still run, the majority still appear to carry names, particularly in Eastern Europe. It would be nice if the EuroCity brand had an official website, but it does not. SJ Morg (talk) 11:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The Italo-Swiss names have disappeared too, and these make up a fair proportion of current EC services. I take your point about sorting - we could merge the list into one table, but I think the setup with varying row heights is useful, for common routes or names, so that might compromise the sorting. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm re-doing the list, to give precedence to the train name, and make it sortable: [1]. Some corrections I needed to make to the list made be realise that this was the best approach. It should be finished fairly soon. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 11:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I still think there should be two list articles. The present list article should be renamed List of EuroCity services by region. The list Art is developing at User:ArtVandelay13/EC2 should then be put on the List of EuroCity services page, and the list in the EuroCity article deleted. Bahnfrend (talk) 11:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, that would be hard to maintain. With the new list, sorting by country or route gives a reasonable approximation of the sections on the current list - beyond that, maybe what we need is more articles along the lines of EuroCity in Germany. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I've re-written the list - it's always a work-in-progress, but the content is ready I think. Can we lose the list from this page now, do you think? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Help!

The article Mozart (train) has been nominated for deletion due to lack of sources. I don't think it deserves to be, but I don't have any railway books to hand that mention it. Can anyone find a book that features it? Those of you who have been working on the other recent Category:EuroCity articles may particularly be able to help. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

EuroCity-express

I'm not sure that it does stand for that, certainly not in common usage. I've never heard it used. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I've never heard that name, either, and I am tempted to remove it from the text. (For the benefit of other editors reading this discussion, these comments refer to a change that was made – in the first sentence of the article – in this recent edit.) It may have been a variation of the name that was used in German, if the (German) source Bahnfrend gave for that sentence also applied to that detail (which is unclear), but I cannot recall having ever seen "Eurocity-express" (or "EuroCity-express") in English. SJ Morg (talk) 09:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

A quick Googling of "Eurocity-express" produces no supporting evidence, only mentions on enthusiast pages and (mainly) eBay, Flickr and model-hobby pages and such (many of which probably copied, but in English, listings on German pages without realizing that a particular term is not in common usage in English, or is not correct). That certainly does not prove that it's wrong (was never official), but in my opinion it raises more than enough doubt that I am going to remove that phrase from the article. If Bahnfrend or another editor wants to make a case for reinstating it, they are welcome to do so, of course. SJ Morg (talk) 09:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The source (which appears to be a reliable 12 volume standard dictionary published in Germany) says simply that the expression EuroCity is an abbreviation of "Eurocity-Express". The source doesn't suggest that the latter expression has ever been in common usage, in either German or English, and I agree that it hasn't been in common usage. However, I think the source implicitly makes the valid point that "EuroCity" is a bit like the expression APEC, or "Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation", which was once described by the then Australian foreign minister as being "four adjectives in search of a noun" (except that "EuroCity" is a compound of two adjectives in search of both a third adjective ("Express") and a noun ("train")). Or, if you want to make the point more baldly, you might just ask "EuroCity what?" Bahnfrend (talk) 10:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I do agree the "EuroCity" is an adjective, and in my opinion it should almost always be followed by a noun, within prose text (occasionally, the noun is sufficiently implied by a preceding phrase). On that basis, when I've found another editor referring to "EuroCitys" (or EuroCities) or otherwise treating the word as a noun, in article text, I've tried to change those to (e.g.) "EuroCity trains" or "EuroCity services" – as my time permits (I've not yet gotten around to doing that clean-up in parts of this article that were edited during the last few weeks) – as that is how I always see it written in professional-quality writing. However, in this case, the lead sentence states that "EuroCity .... is a .... category ....", and from a grammatical standpoint, that seems fine. And there are several Wikipedia articles whose titles are adjectives, although it's not common. Personally, I'd have no objection to renaming this article "EuroCity network" (or "EuroCity brand" or something else), but I am not proposing that, because I don't have any strong feelings about it, whereas I suspect there probably are several other editors who do. SJ Morg (talk) 10:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I think EuroCity is used as a noun, as many brands are - DB announcements will say you connect to "the EuroCity to Basel" (or wherever), the same applies for "Intercity". I still think it's more elegant to write "EuroCity service" or "... train" in article text, but I don't think this article's title needs any extra disambiguation. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, I think "Intercity" is key - this isn't really short for anything, and EuroCity is considered a direct equivalent of it, in Germany at least. The name "EuroCity-express", indicates what it's at the level of the ICE, which isn't the case. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)