daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Subways and Urban Transport

Subways and Urban Transport Metros, subways, light rail, trams, buses and other local transport systems



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old January 20th, 2006, 10:41 AM   #121
Capzilla
robkaper.nl
 
Capzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 5,895

The history of documents does persist in Wikipedia. The editing process can introduce errors, but it can also fix them. Changes might go unnoticed, but not for topics put on watchlists by registered users, I've got a few entries that I watch like that myself.
__________________
Rob Kaper
Capzilla no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old January 20th, 2006, 11:00 AM   #122
pricemazda
Titter ye not.
 
pricemazda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: EU
Posts: 17,642
Likes (Received): 1384

Also there was research conducted into the reliability of wikipedia. They compared entries in the Encylcopedia Brittanica and Wikipedia and they found Wikipedia was sometimes better and was at least as good as the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Nick is right when he says the name Metropolitan Railway lent its name to other underground railways with the word Metro.

Its like other brand names that become generic, like Biro or Hoover or Coke.
__________________
In Brussels no one hears you scream
pricemazda no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 20th, 2006, 05:42 PM   #123
Metropolitan
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,360
Likes (Received): 11

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricemazda
Nick is right when he says the name Metropolitan Railway lent its name to other underground railways with the word Metro.

Its like other brand names that become generic, like Biro or Hoover or Coke.
Not really as metropolitan and railway where already generic names, which weren't Hoover or Coke. Metropolitan railway is actually a very basic description of what metro/subway is. Hence the term has certainly been taken from that London line, but more because it was a fine description of what it was than because it was any kind of brand name.
Metropolitan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 20th, 2006, 05:45 PM   #124
asohn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: N/A
Posts: 946
Likes (Received): 24

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricemazda
Nick is right when he says the name Metropolitan Railway lent its name to other underground railways with the word Metro.

Its like other brand names that become generic, like Biro or Hoover or Coke.
Except that those brand names are entirely unique. There is nothing unique about "metropolitan railway." It is simply a description of the system. Other cities who use that term are just describing the system.
asohn no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2006, 01:47 AM   #125
Isek
Registered User
 
Isek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,337
Likes (Received): 1226

Quote:
Originally Posted by Falubaz
lrt sign from Munich/Muenchen

it's very effective U stand for underground and S for lrt/suburban rail
lrt?



i like this one:




__________________
Computer sagt „nein“.
Isek no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2006, 10:04 AM   #126
DonQui
BANNED
 
DonQui's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Free City-State of New York
Posts: 6,035
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricemazda
Also there was research conducted into the reliability of wikipedia. They compared entries in the Encylcopedia Brittanica and Wikipedia and they found Wikipedia was sometimes better and was at least as good as the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Nick is right when he says the name Metropolitan Railway lent its name to other underground railways with the word Metro.

Its like other brand names that become generic, like Biro or Hoover or Coke.
I think it is very much debatable whether or not "Metropolitan" in London is the root of the word metro, and it may even just be an anglo-centric bias. In most cases it has to related with transport over a metropolitan area, with rail being the largest, most important, and most heavily used part of any public transport system.

Examples:

1) WMATA (Washington METRPOLITAN AREA Transit Authority) for DC, and the word METRO is used for all services. Rail service is called MetroRail, and bus service is called MetroBus.

2) METROPOLITAN Transit Authority for the New York metropolitan Area.

3) Transports Metropolitans de Barcelona (METROPOLITAN Transports of Barcelona)
DonQui no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2006, 12:11 PM   #127
Metropolitan
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,360
Likes (Received): 11

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQui
I think it is very much debatable whether or not "Metropolitan" in London is the root of the word metro, and it may even just be an anglo-centric bias. In most cases it has to related with transport over a metropolitan area, with rail being the largest, most important, and most heavily used part of any public transport system.
Well, except that in the case of Paris the busiest rail lines aren't metro lines but RER lines.
Metropolitan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2006, 01:34 PM   #128
nick_taylor
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Portsmouth (term time); Bishop's Stortford (out of term time)
Posts: 1,818
Likes (Received): 9

Falubaz - You have problems and this was not the thread to bring them up, especially when no one was attacking any other system. Take your venom elsewhere.




Quote:
Originally Posted by micro
I was talking about the general problem of line names as I experienced it on my journeys. Also in London it would have been easier for me if they would use line numbers. It took many days to get used to the names.
If it took you many days to understand the names of the London Undergound, then I wouldn't be suprised if you don't get confused over meto line numbers as they don't put anything physical towards their name making them less unique and thus harder to remember.


Quote:
Originally Posted by micro
Neither 'metropolitan' nor 'railway' are unique names but fairly obvious words for describing the things under discussion. So the combination of both isn't very creative either.
I've told you already - I wasn't talking about 'metropolitan' or 'railway' as not being individual unique names invented as soon as the Metropolitan Railway came into existence! I was though talking about the Metropolitan Railway which WAS the first occurance of such a name. There was no 'Metropolitan Railway' before 1863, so it doesn't matter if you don't think it isn't creative or not - because there was nothing like it before! Unless you are suggesting that before the 1863 Metropolitan Railway, that there was another Metropolitan Railway that ran underground with stations before 1863 then I don't quite see the relevance in pointing out that it might only be placing two words together. This has happened and continues to happen for many things such as road names, buildings, etc and is not un-common.


Quote:
Originally Posted by micro
Yes, by Wikipedia's creator Jimmy Wales. The articles in Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, so errors can be introduced easily, and it can take minutes to months before someone else notices and corrects the error. If someone adds vague assumptions or rumors it may never get noticed. Wikipedia is a great thing and I oftzen use it as a starting point but it cannot be used as a reference source for something like a diploma thesis. I wouldn't bet on anything found in Wikipedia because nothing persists.
No you are incorrect, the journal Nature conducted a study into Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica - both were found to be roughly as accurate as each other. Also, as has already been noted: it can take only a short time for errors to be corrected. Many books regarding the history of the Paris Metro would though back this up and I'm not the only forumer to note this.

That said I don't use Wikipedia as a source for my degree studies, I do use it to find background on some areas for further studies. I suggest you take the stance of being open-minded rather than assuming I or anyone else is wrong on this matter.




DonQui - It is not the word metropolitan but the words 'METROPOLITAN RAILWAY' that the idea originates from.
nick_taylor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2006, 06:48 PM   #129
samsonyuen
SSLL
 
samsonyuen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Canary Wharf > CityPlace
Posts: 8,350
Likes (Received): 314

I also like the logo of Montreal's Metro

Last edited by samsonyuen; January 22nd, 2006 at 06:56 PM.
samsonyuen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2006, 06:55 PM   #130
samsonyuen
SSLL
 
samsonyuen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Canary Wharf > CityPlace
Posts: 8,350
Likes (Received): 314

double post
samsonyuen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2006, 07:16 AM   #131
micro
Registered User
 
micro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamburg, .de Home: everywhere
Posts: 1,260
Likes (Received): 107

Quote:
Originally Posted by nick-taylor
If it took you many days to understand the names of the London Undergound, then I wouldn't be suprised if you don't get confused over meto line numbers as they don't put anything physical towards their name making them less unique and thus harder to remember.
It didn't take time to understand the names but to remember and not to confuse them. I didn't put much effort in it at that time, though. But as you put it, numbers other than names are recognisable from the first moment you see them.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nick-taylor
I've told you already - I wasn't talking about 'metropolitan' or 'railway' as not being individual unique names invented as soon as the Metropolitan Railway came into existence! I was though talking about the Metropolitan Railway which WAS the first occurance of such a name. There was no 'Metropolitan Railway' before 1863, so it doesn't matter if you don't think it isn't creative or not - because there was nothing like it before! Unless you are suggesting that before the 1863 Metropolitan Railway, that there was another Metropolitan Railway that ran underground with stations before 1863 then I don't quite see the relevance in pointing out that it might only be placing two words together. This has happened and continues to happen for many things such as road names, buildings, etc and is not un-common.
The Paris metro would perhaps have been called 'chemin de fer metropolitain' even if there hadn't been the London line prior because there weren't many choices. Like it doesn't make sense to call red apples other than 'red apples'.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nick-taylor
I suggest you take the stance of being open-minded rather than assuming I or anyone else is wrong on this matter.
I'm rather neutral in the point, it's you who is making a fight out of this. I'm just questioning this a little bit because it is a thing which I believe can be easily misinterpreted -- by you, by people who write in Wikipedia, by book authors or anyone else.

To put it straight: There's a name analogy between "Chemin de Fer Metropolitain" and London's "Metropolitan Railway". But if there was intention, dedication, or just coincidence involved -- who can really know? I would only believe trustworthy French sources from around the year 1900.
micro no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2006, 01:10 PM   #132
nick_taylor
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Portsmouth (term time); Bishop's Stortford (out of term time)
Posts: 1,818
Likes (Received): 9

Quote:
Originally Posted by micro
It didn't take time to understand the names but to remember and not to confuse them. I didn't put much effort in it at that time, though. But as you put it, numbers other than names are recognisable from the first moment you see them.

The Paris metro would perhaps have been called 'chemin de fer metropolitain' even if there hadn't been the London line prior because there weren't many choices. Like it doesn't make sense to call red apples other than 'red apples'.

I'm rather neutral in the point, it's you who is making a fight out of this. I'm just questioning this a little bit because it is a thing which I believe can be easily misinterpreted -- by you, by people who write in Wikipedia, by book authors or anyone else.

To put it straight: There's a name analogy between "Chemin de Fer Metropolitain" and London's "Metropolitan Railway". But if there was intention, dedication, or just coincidence involved -- who can really know? I would only believe trustworthy French sources from around the year 1900.
It is easier to acknowledge numbers instantly than names, but it is easier to remember names than it is numbers. You don't use a phone directory by numbers, but by names - its a logical step as names can be used to associate with something or someone making these easier to distinguish and remember.

What exactly do you mean that there weren't many choices for railway names? Railways had been around for decades before underground lines and there were underground lines in a few cities before Paris' first line. London had by the first Parisian underground line already built numerous underground lines: Metropolitan Railway (Metropolitan Line + East London Line), Central London Railway (Central Line), Metropolitan & Metropolitan Districts Railway (Circle Line), Metropolitan District Railway (District Line), Hammersmith & City Railway (Hammersmith & City Line), City & South London Railways + Charing Cross, Euston & Hampstead Railways (Northern Line), London & South Western Railway (Waterloo & City Line).

Its not like Paris was confined by having only Metropolitan Railway to its name! Other cities around the world who opened networks before Paris such as Glasgow's weren't called Metropolitan Railway but the Glasgow District Subway Company. Why not call it the Paris Railway Company or something else? Other cities before and after Paris had managed this, but no Paris somehow goes for 'Metropolitan Railway' because it didn't have many choices - your theory here is flawed!

Also, why do you suggest that everyone else has misinterpreted....but not yourself? Remember this is not a view held only by myself, but by others on this board including someone who actually works on the London Underground and has published books on railways and Justme who could be viewed as the database for public transportation on these forums.
nick_taylor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2006, 02:11 PM   #133
Metropolitan
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,360
Likes (Received): 11

Well, Nick, please don't exagerate the whole stuff about the Metropolitan railway line. That line was originally more an urban rail line penetrating in the city than a real subway line. Even when it was under the ground level, in the city, it wasn't even built in tunnels but was actually open to the sky. Actually, John Fowler, who elaborated that line, made its maximum to build its line as less possible under tunnels.

The "real" metros as we conceive them today appeared only once electric-powered rolling stocks could be used. The Metropolitan line as it was in 1863 was only a transitional solution.


The ligne de Sceaux (inaugurated in 1846) has been extended inside Paris from Denfert-Rocherau to Luxembourg station in 1889. That line once extended to Luxembourg was a lot more similar to the Metropolitan line of 1863 than to the first line of Paris Metro (Maillot-Vincennes) from 1900.

Almost a century later, in 1977, that line has been extended once again (from Luxembourg to Châtelet) and became the RER B. Today the RER B crosses Paris from Northbound to Southbound, and it connects city to both of Paris international airports.
Metropolitan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2006, 03:17 PM   #134
micro
Registered User
 
micro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamburg, .de Home: everywhere
Posts: 1,260
Likes (Received): 107

Quote:
Originally Posted by nick-taylor
It is easier to acknowledge numbers instantly than names, but it is easier to remember names than it is numbers. You don't use a phone directory by numbers, but by names - its a logical step as names can be used to associate with something or someone making these easier to distinguish and remember.
There's absolutely no problem in remembering a handful of numbered subway lines. I have lived in two cities that use the number system and I've never heard of anyone confusing the line numbers. Maybe it's just your lack of experience that makes you believe there's a problem with numbers. How about bus lines? There must be hundreds of bus lines in the London area. Fortunately they are numbered. Imagine them having names instead of numbers: what a chaos would that be! Numbers are more orderly and as both of us are meanwhile agreeing, easier to recognize. The human mind can associate everything, also numbers with locations or metro lines.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nick-taylor
Also, why do you suggest that everyone else has misinterpreted....but not yourself? Remember this is not a view held only by myself, but by others on this board including someone who actually works on the London Underground and has published books on railways and Justme who could be viewed as the database for public transportation on these forums.
It's a common human error to think that analogous things are connected by cause and effect. But often there's no connection between them.

If you refer to tubeman, he didn't say a word about this subject, at least not in this thread, I just checked. Justme told about sources, maybe he could specify them (are you here, Justme?)
micro no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2006, 03:22 PM   #135
Justme
Gotta lite?
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester (Forecast: Rain)
Posts: 4,952
Likes (Received): 780

Ahh, metropolitan once again trying to discredit the London Underground.

Fact is, that the metropolitan line is still regarded as the first part of the first metro on the planet.
__________________
I'm doing my bit to save bandwidth by deleting my signature
Justme no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2006, 03:41 PM   #136
Metropolitan
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,360
Likes (Received): 11

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justme
Ahh, metropolitan once again trying to discredit the London Underground.
I certainly don't. Why are you saying so ?

Quote:
Fact is, that the metropolitan line is still regarded as the first part of the first metro on the planet.
Yes, of course !

However, the metropolitan line is the first metro line just like the Wright brothers have invented the first airplane. In both case, it's about one date chosen in a long period of elaboration. Nick has described yourself as "the database for public transportation in this forum". As I'm sure he's right and subjectivity is totally outside your way of thinking, you can't deny this.

Last edited by Metropolitan; January 24th, 2006 at 03:46 PM.
Metropolitan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2006, 04:09 PM   #137
nick_taylor
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Portsmouth (term time); Bishop's Stortford (out of term time)
Posts: 1,818
Likes (Received): 9

Metropolitan - No, the original Metropolitan Railway was shorter than it is now and actually ran on different tracks than the Metropolitan Railway does today. It ran only from Paddington to Farringdon in cut and cover tunnels, eg Baker Street:









I wouldn't exactly call that 'open-air' would you?








Quote:
Originally Posted by micro
There's absolutely no problem in remembering a handful of numbered subway lines. I have lived in two cities that use the number system and I've never heard of anyone confusing the line numbers. Maybe it's just your lack of experience that makes you believe there's a problem with numbers. How about bus lines? There must be hundreds of bus lines in the London area. Fortunately they are numbered. Imagine them having names instead of numbers: what a chaos would that be! Numbers are more orderly and as both of us are meanwhile agreeing, easier to recognize. The human mind can associate everything, also numbers with locations or metro lines.
We'll I've lived in many cities around the world (London and Singapore to name two) where they use a variety of ways to label their systems. I've visited and used far more systems, probably 30, 40 or more so no that doesn't mean I have a lack of experience.

I'm not saying there is a problem in remembering how many line numbers there are, but as to their general pattern of usage. Central Line is more unique to remember than line 1. District Line is more unique than line 2. Central and District are more distinguishable than line 1 or 2. 12 line names are easier to remember than 700. I also suspect most people would be at a loss to understand where each of those 700 bus lines go to.


Quote:
Originally Posted by micro
It's a common human error to think that analogous things are connected by cause and effect. But often there's no connection between them.

If you refer to tubeman, he didn't say a word about this subject, at least not in this thread, I just checked. Justme told about sources, maybe he could specify them (are you here, Justme?)
Yet you proposed that the majority were incorrect (including those who actually know something about railways) and assumed that it was a fluke that Metropolitan Railway popped up due to a lack of names...even though there are examples of other cities using different names! I bet you'd think that its a fluke that London, ON shares the same with London as well?

Not even Metropolitan who appears to be Paris Metro representative on SCC, seems to disagree on what I thought was actual common transport knowledge! I think though, that this has more to do with deep psychological issues with not being able to accept where there is clearly a connection! Perhaps you could provide some sources to disprove this 'idea' yourself as I've yet to see any sources that say otherwise!
nick_taylor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2006, 04:44 PM   #138
Metropolitan
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,360
Likes (Received): 11

Quote:
Originally Posted by nick-taylor
Metropolitan - No, the original Metropolitan Railway was shorter than it is now and actually ran on different tracks than the Metropolitan Railway does today. It ran only from Paddington to Farringdon in cut and cover tunnels, eg Baker Street:

I wouldn't exactly call that 'open-air' would you?
Yes I would... Most of the rails have been covered only later on the Metropolitan railway line.

Of course some stations were under tunnels, but as I've said in my post, John Fowler, made its maximum to build its line as less possible under tunnels. We can't talk about "today's metro" before the arrival of electric-powered rolling stocks, which were allowing full underground metro service.
Metropolitan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2006, 05:34 PM   #139
Justme
Gotta lite?
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester (Forecast: Rain)
Posts: 4,952
Likes (Received): 780

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metropolitan
We can't talk about "today's metro" before the arrival of electric-powered rolling stocks, which were allowing full underground metro service.
You should change that we to I, as other sources can and do claim the London underground was the first metro in the world.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tube/company/vision.asp
London was the first World City and first to boast a metro system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground
The Metropolitan Railway, the first section of the London Underground, ran between Paddington and Farringdon and was the world's first urban underground passenger-carrying railway

http://www.infowars.com/articles/Lon...derground_.htm
The London Underground is the world’s oldest subway

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/buildingbig/...derground.html
Parliament authorized construction of the first subway system in the world, the London Underground.

http://www.thetravelinsider.info/bri...undtickets.htm
The London underground train system is the world's oldest metro system

http://mic-ro.com/metro/metroart.html
London Underground ('Tube') was the world's first metro, and the first one to have a corporate design

http://de.geocities.com/u_london/london.htm
London is the mother of all the world's metro systems. The Metropolitan Line persists on the London Underground map (although part of the original line now is the Hammersmith & City Line) and has become a synonym all over the world for many different kinds of urban rail transport systems. This first line was so successful that very quickly a large network of underground and surface lines was built. In 1900, when Paris opened its first line, London already was proud of a very extensive metro system.

That's 7 references to the London Underground being the first metro in the world, and another reference to Metro systems being named after the metropolitan railway in London.

Now, your welcome to show 7 sites that claim the London metro was not a metro until electrification (which the first was in 1890 by the way)


As for the ligne de Sceaux (inaugurated in 1846), this seems much more closer to the history of the London and Greenwich railway, which was in fact, the first suburban commuter railway in the world opened in 1936. It is now incorporated into the inner suburban rail networks of London.

Oh, and I never claimed I was an authority on public transport. If Nick did, that's very nice of him. Afterall, he is a wonderful chap. I am nowhere near an authority, just have a wide interest in many systems around the world, particularly tram networks.
__________________
I'm doing my bit to save bandwidth by deleting my signature
Justme no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2006, 05:45 PM   #140
Metropolitan
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,360
Likes (Received): 11

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justme
You should change that we to I, as other sources can and do claim the London underground was the first metro in the world.

That's 7 references to the London Underground being the first metro in the world, and another reference to Metro systems being named after the metropolitan railway in London.

Now, your welcome to show 7 sites that claim the London metro was not a metro until electrification (which the first was in 1890 by the way)
Justme, don't behave like a troll and read my posts. Tell me where I deny that the metropolitan line is the first metro line in the world and come back.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO DISTORT MY WORDS AND MAKE ME SAY SOMETHING I HAVEN'T SAID.
Metropolitan no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 11:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium