Jump to content

Talk:Stockholm Metro

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Stockholm metro)

Metro?

[edit]

'Metro' is the short form of the name of the Paris subway. It is not a generic name for subways. Strangely enough - hold on here - the generic name for subways is SUBWAY. The title of this article is full blown ludicrously moronic.

As far as i can tell metro seems to be a general name for this type of suburban rail network. I'm not sure what rules define the use of the name. It is originally French but now widely used across many different country's. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/metro. Wonx2150 (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On charts, the Stockholm tunnelbana is also called 'Metro' and 'U-Bahn'. The term metro is French but can be used in English too. However, the term metro is wider than just meaning an underground railway or subway since it, as far as I know, also can mean an elevated railway. Metro is in English used as an other term for a rapid transit. The Swedish term used in Stockholm is however tunnelbana which translates literaly to 'tunnel line' and technically to underground railway or subway. Tunnelbana can't mean elevated railway, in Swedish an elevated railway is a högbana. Thus, metro is acctually not the right technical term to use for the Stockholm metro system even if it is used in Stockholm. Paved with good intentions (talk) 09:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Subway, metro, rapid transit, underground, heavy rail, or whatever. All these words are valid translations of the Swedish word tunnelbana. And the official english name of Tunnelbanan in Stockholm is Metro. Metro is an internationally recognized word for this type of public transportation (see the UITP website). And why do we need to know the literal translation of the word tunnelbana? This is not a Swedish-English dictionary.... --Kildor (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A subway/underground railway is always a metro but a metro does not have to be a subway. The owners of the Stockholm tunnelbana uses the word with the wider meaning but this does not mean it is the most correct term from a technical point of view. The literal translation can be interesting to know for people really interested in these kinds of transport systems; it wouldn't be used in a dictionary, a dictionary would probably just list the most correct technical term as a translation for tunnelbana, i.e. subway or underground railway. Paved with good intentions (talk) 08:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me also add, that neither tunnelbanan nor Stockholm metro are names or trademarks in the real meaning of the word. The Stockholm metro is an underground railway in Stockholm and is just called that, "the underground railway", it has no real name (unlike, e.g., Tvärbanan or Nockebybanan). Therefore, it is wrong to say that "the official english name of Tunnelbanan in Stockholm is Metro". More correct is to say, the English term officially used for the underground railway in Stockholm is metro. Paved with good intentions (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Metro is an name or a descriptive word can of course be discussed. But Stockholm Transport consequently writes Metro with a capital M at their website. And I can really not understand the purpose of writing "technically Stockholm underground railway" in the very first sentence of this article. Who says it is "technically Stockholm underground railway"? You? Or someone else? Do you have any references that support this way of explaining the nature of Stockholm Metro? Stockholm Metro is a metro. And a subway. And an underground railway. And rapid transit... We can choose any of these. But there is really no reason to choose anything else than the most common english word associated with this system. --Kildor (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If metro was the technical term, then it could just as well be called högbana in Swedish. That is what you are saying. But the Stockholm metro is not an elevated rail, it is an underground. A tunnelbana is one possible form of rapid transit system or metro, a tunnelbana is not any metro. I can't understand why you are having a problem with this. Paved with good intentions (talk) 06:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that would be an issue here, the Stockholm Metro *does* have elevated parts (as well as underground parts). Stockholms tunnelbana is known as Stockholm Metro in english, which also is a perfectly good translation of the swedish name. There is no need for a "literal" or "technical" translation. Take a look at Berlin U-Bahn or any other system, and you won't find a similar introduction as you propose here. Don't make it too complicated. --Kildor (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think my solution makes things clearer, not more complicated. I think people want to know what things are called in different languages. It is still a fact, that while a tunnelbana is a metro, not all metros are tunnelbanor, or do you disagree? The fact that other articles may have less information of the same kind is no reason to do away with the information here, or should all articles of the same kind always just have the same amount of information as the least developed of the article? And yes, the Stockholm system does have elevated parts, but that's beside the point. We are discussing the term and its translation, and the term used in Swedish is tunnelbana. Paved with good intentions (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"I think people want to know what things are called in different languages." Yes, the Swedish name is given in the very first sentence. The Swedish term is tunnelbana, which may be translated into many different English words. Metro is the most common English term in this case. If you think there is another technical term that better describes the Stockholm system, we may change the lead sentence to something like "The Stockholm Metro (Swedish: Stockholms tunnelbana) is an underground railway in Stockholm, Sweden." Although I cannot see why "underground railway" would be a better term to use than "metro". Underground railway doesn't clearly reflect the fact that some 50 % of the Stockholm Metro is above ground. And while metro may be used as a term for a system that is completely overground, almost every metro system has at least one part that is underground. --Kildor (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The system is referred to by the owner and my most English-language sources as 'Metro' or 'Stockholm Metro', so there is no point in discussing what we call it. Wikipedia articles (and I have written a lot of articles on foreign topics) do not dwell on literal translations, what we care about of official translations of proper nouns. The literal translation of a term is usually meaningless; 'metro' is a good translation for 'tunnelbana', and the same term for instance is officially and colloquially used for the Oslo Metro (Oslo tunnelbane). If you are interested in translating the term 'tunnellbana', it becomes 'tunnel rail' or possibly 'tunnel line' (as bana has no direct translation to English; for instance it is järnväg is the word for railway). Thus any attempt at a literal translation becomes vague and ultimately point of view, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Also, in this case, bears no understanding among English-speakers and would be just confusing. If your concern is to emphasize that half the network is underground, this is stated elegantly in the second sentence: "of which 47 [stations] are underground and 53 above ground." Describing a network which is half above ground as "underground" is directly misleading and POV. Arsenikk (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, my point is of course that it is an underground network, inspite of the fact that a majority of the stations are above ground. Tunnelbana means underground railway, nothing more, nothing less. An underground railway is a sort of metro, but a metro does not have to be an underground railway. To explain my point: a square is always a rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares. If there was a house called "the Rectangle" which acctually was square, I think it would be deemed encyclopedic to point this fact out in Wikipedia. (The literal translation is not that important, I can drop that.) Paved with good intentions (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few substantive edits

[edit]
I have made a few edits to this page, including the one giving a higher nominal voltage for the Blue line (made before I had a Wikipedia account), and a few today providing some additional details about the C20 rolling stock and about the lower maximum speed on the Green line (70 km/h instead of 80). These edits are based on knowledge I acquired about the system while I was living in Stockholm and was qualified as a train operator on the Green and Blue lines. --Tkynerd 17:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

16

[edit]

What does the lack of a 16 in the line numbers mean?? Georgia guy 14:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't mean anything in particular. The line numbers have historical origins, mostly. For example, 13 and 14 are used on the Red line because tram lines with those numbers used to serve the southwest suburbs, where the Red line goes now, and in fact portions of those tram lines were rebuilt for subway service. There's also no 15 because the route formerly served by tram line 15 is not served by a subway line (it's now served by bus line 515). And so on. The former tram line 16 also went to the southwestern suburbs, as did line 17, but when they were selecting line numbers for the subway system, they apparently just went with 13 and 14 for the Red line. --Tkynerd 13:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There used to be a line 15 as part of the red line, but this number is also not used at present. The numbers have no numerical meaning. Pepparkaksgubbe (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per Johansson

[edit]

Since Per Johansson is known as a unionist and organizer on the Stockholm metro (and not for anything else), and since the page about him has additional information on the Stockholm metro of a more political nature that is not appropriate here, I have restored the link to Per Johansson on this page (under "See also"). Objections should be discussed here before the link is removed again, so that consensus can be reached. --Tkynerd 13:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is not very well known in Sweden, possibly not even in Stockholm. Neng5 15:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The appropriate course of action, in that case, is to tag Per Johansson for removal, presumably for not meeting WP:Notability. (FYI, I will fight that with citations from Swedish media.) If the article is then removed, the link can be removed from Stockholm Metro. Until then, it should stay, because what you've just argued is not a reason for removing the link from here. --Tkynerd 04:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

100 stations?

[edit]

It seems Stockholm has many more stations than many cities wich are bigger than Stockholm, how come? Is it something to do with defining an metro station? Drogo 11:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There really are 100 stations; you can count them. And that only includes counting transfer stations like T-Centralen, Fridhemsplan, etc. one time. The reason Stockholm has an unusually extensive metro system for its size is that in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, when the bulk of the system was built and opened, Swedish urban planning emphasized the construction of dense mixed-use suburban centers around rapid-rail stations. This is also the reason why Stockholm's transit system is unusually heavily used (e.g., Stockholm is about one-tenth the size of New York, but its metro carries about one-fifth as many people as New York's). --Tkynerd 15:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Number of stations is a function of station spacing. Yes Stockholm seems unusually for its size but station spacing is shorter than most other cities allowing one to "fit" more stations into the same space. Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_systems_by_number_of_stations 147.200.199.37 02:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The average interstation distance in Stockholm is 1.1 km, which is not out of line with other older systems. More recent systems generally have longer interstation distances in order to achieve higher average speeds, but many older systems have closely spaced stations (e.g., New York, London). --Tkynerd 04:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They probably wanted people to have reasonable walking distances to a station whereever they lived, if they lived near a metro line. Its predecessor, the tram lines, probably had denser stations. -- BIL 22:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's always the tradeoff: the more stations you have, the more people they're close to, but the fewer stations you have, the faster people's journeys will be. :-) --Tkynerd 01:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opening dates

[edit]

I have removed the column "Opened" from the Lines table. It is quite ambigous and difficult to decide when a line was opened - is it when the first part of the line was opened, or is it when the whole line was completed? The dates in this version of the article were not the same as in the Swedish version of the article, and there are no sources or references on this subject. Kildor 12:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Art in the metro

[edit]

I feel there should be a sub category about the art in the metro. It seems to be quite well organised and set out as the official website suggests. And some of their art work is already included in the article. I think there should be some more information about it included. The official site about it in English: http://www.sl.se/templates/Page.aspx?id=4665. They also have a PDF file talking about the history of art in the Stockholm metro. Wonx2150 (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stockholm Metro → Stockholm metro – "Stockholm metro" is not a name, it is just the English term which is used by the owners for the Stockholm underground railway system. Paved with good intentions (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Anachronistic use of the modern term "premetro"

[edit]

The article currently says:

The decision to build a metro was made in 1941. The following years, some routes were built with [[premetro|near metro standard]] but operated with trams. The first part of the metro was opened in 1950, when an underground tram line from 1933 called Södertunneln was converted to metro standard.

I have several problems with this passage:

  1. I suggest the term "premetro" is a modern term, and only lines which transit experts characterized as "premetro" systems should be characterized as premetro systems. I couldn't find any references that characterized any line in Stockholm as being a premetro system.
  2. Our current article on the "premetro concept" is very weak -- it does not contain an actual definition. I suggest that merely building tunnels wide enough to accommodate heavy rail vehicles should be insufficient to characterize a system as a "premetro" system. Bridges, sleepers should be robust enough to carry full-length heavy rail trainsets. Station platforms should be long enough to accommodate full-length heavy rail trainsets. The station's other passages, entrance turnstiles, busbays waiting areas should all be designed to carry the volume of passengers that can be carried by full-length heavy rail trainsets.

I will wait a reasonable period of time, and if no one provides a reference that RS applied the term "premetro" to these Stockholm lines, or if no one provides some other defence of this term, then I will remove this dubious claim. Geo Swan (talk) 07:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would any premetros meet such a requirement to be suitable for heavy rail services? I'd be rather surprised if SNCB services could ever use the Brussels, Antwerp or Charleroi lines, which are perhaps the definitive examples of premetros? Wheeltapper (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this system a "premetro"?

[edit]

The premetro article contained a great deal of original research, and characterized a large number of light-rail or streetcar routes as "premetro" systems for questionable reasons -- like that the light-rail or streetcar system had a short tunneled section. More recently the premetro article has been scaled back, to only include systems that verifiable authoritative sources have called "premetro" systems.

Unfortunately dozens of questionable incoming links were made to the premetro article, from articles like this one, that didn't supply any references that verified systems like this one had ever been called premetro systems.

I am going to place a {{dubious}} tag next to all questionable claims that provide questionable incoming links to premetro.

If no authoritative references ever called this a "premetro" system that phrase should be removed from this article, link and all.

In this particular case we have [[premetro|near metro standards]] -- while, while not as bad as some of the other questionable incoming links to premetro, is ahistorical. The paragraph in question refers to routes built in the 1930, when the term "premetro" wasn't coined until the 1970s. Geo Swan (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the system was called premetro since the term is newer. I now understand you wanted to challenge the link to the premetro article. I don't doubt that it was built "near metro standards", because it was built free from road interference, just having tram platforms on the outside, which I thought you challenged. If you want to remove the link you can do it, but a link is just a blue text to the eye and doesn't need a {{dubious}} tag.--BIL (talk) 07:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stockholm Metro art stations

[edit]

I have inserted mention at the bottom of this article's introduction of the remarkable and permanent art installations that are all over the Metro system. I am actually surprised that no mention was inserted here previously - I recognise that the article is primarily about the technicalities of the system, however as it is titled 'Stockholm Metro' system I think it should at least mention the significant artistic aspect that makes this system so special. I inserted what seems to be a suitable reference in English, though perhaps another would be even better. Perhaps a dedicated section with a nice picture or two could be inserted in the body of the article, but I leave that to others if they like the idea and wish to do so. Wikifiveoh (talk) 12:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

M/m

[edit]

What determines that Stockholm metro will be uncapitalized while Oslo Metro capitalized? Just wondering. 5.102.233.147 (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The metro system in Stockholm is not named "Stockholm Metro", it is just a metro. I don't know about the system in Oslo, but if it should be spelled with a capital M I suppose it is named accordingly. Pepparkaksgubbe (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Stockholm metro. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Stockholm Underground"

[edit]

Back in 2019, someone decided to change "Stockholm metro" to "Stockholm Underground". "Metro" is the official name though (as discussed recently; see also [1], [2], and [3]), so unless anyone objects I'll change 'underground' back to 'metro'. Querii (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - let's stick with metro. TammbeckTalk 06:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Querii (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear about T17/T18/T19

[edit]

It is unclear whether terminus are used for these green lines (for instance T18 is possible from Hasselby strand, according to this timetable but Line_18_(Stockholm_metro) says it runs only from Alvik. I don't get it. --Bouzinac (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other examples of unclearity : Vällingby metro station , does it really go to Vallingby ? ;) Bouzinac (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 May 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stockholm metro → Stockholm Metro – "Stockholm Metro" is a proper noun and thus "Metro" should be capitalised, just like London Underground or New York City Subway. It is true that it is lower case (Stockholms tunnelbana) in Swedish but English capitalisation rules should apply to English Wikipedia. Elshad (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Free-access

[edit]

To the best of my knowledge, Stockholm Metro is the only such system in the world of which all operating stations are free-access, mostly by elevators. However, I am not sure that this information is true, but if it is, I think it would be worth mentioning. CERBERUS - ii iv iii (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stockholm_Metro&oldid=1194843574"