Talk:S-train (Copenhagen)

	Denmark portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Trains Low‑importance

	Trains Portal
DYK	December 26 2005

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 and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Station links

As it is, the station links are links to the areas around the stations rather than the stations themselves. Is that what we really want?Ghent 15:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Separation of lines?

The current line overview is not easy to read, and other metropolitan trains like the London Underground and the Copenhagen Metro have separate articles for lines. Therefore, I think that the lines deserve their own pages in order to clean the main page up. What do you think? Ghent 16:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the overview looks confusing, but I am unsure that the information is encyclopedically relevant at all. In London each underground line has its own infrastructure and a particular history; in contrast the Copenhagen S-train "lines" are just current service patterns, as they all share an integrated infrastructure and rolling-stock pool. Articles on each of the six radials would be more meaningful if somebody cared to write them. Henning Makholm 07:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they were to be written, I'd at least give them a good stub with history (because that is individual; start of service and such) and stuff like it. The Plus and x lines would of course go in the "mother line" article (F+ in F). Ghent 16:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, something like User:Henning Makholm/Frederikssundbanen? Henning Makholm 23:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very fine stub, I say. I like it all with a few exceptions:

I think that we should split the lines into the actual line names rather than their fancy names, for instance A (Copenhagen), B (Copenhagen), C (Copenhagen), E (Copenhagen), F (Copenhagen), and H (Copenhagen). That way you save a column for "services", and the articles will be more to the point. Also, with "previous/next station" templates on the stations it would be easier to have them split.
Station links should link to something like Frederikssund station rather Frederikssund.
"Opened" should have the year the station started to serve the S-Train rather than when it opened for any trains.

I made some line maps for the Metro, tracing from GPS data. I think that it would be more trouble than it's worth to make geographically precise maps for the lines for now. I was imagining that I could make some maps like the ones in the London Underground trains [1]. What do you think? Ghent 15:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the service letters in themself are not encyclopedic topics. They have no individual historic continuity and are basically just an index mechanism for whatever timetable is currently in effect. If we structured the article around service letters, and the next timetable change suddenly found service A as the name of a Farum service instead of a Hillerød one[2], we would have to do a lot of needless partial moving, losing easy access to contribution histories at best and inviting mistakes at worst. I can't see how that would benefit anyone. The service letters are ephemeral; the actual pieces of railway out there are what matters. In London it so happens that each service name is so tied to individual bits of physical tracks and tunnel that the service name can usefully serve as the name of an article about those bits, but this is not the case in Copenhagen. Henning Makholm 20:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't see how the date where a station first opened is necessarily less important than the date S-trains began servicing the station, but I would not be deeply opposed to listing both. Henning Makholm 20:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that we can agree that the changes in services in that are minimal. H is shortened, and A+, which originally went half the way to Farum, will now take over the service from Kbh H to Farum in the form of A. Since the time interval is lowered, there is no need for the many trains to go to the same stations, and therefore the + lines disappear. Those are the only changes. I see your point, but the current "A" isn't going to be replaced by "H" with "A" replacing "B" and so on, and in that way the line "letters" are constant with a minimum of changes (the magnitude of the 2007 changes are quite rare). Besides, the lines are actually called H and C rather than Frederikssund-banen, Farum-banen, and Klampenborg-banen. Same rolling stock is used because it's more flexible and easy if the timetable should change, and because the lines share the same tracks and have the same loading gauge. This is not possible in London, mainly because the network is built by private companies, and wasn't thought of as an actual network until the 1930s, 70 years after the first lines were opened. Therefore I think we should call the articles by line names/letters.

I think that the date for the opening of a station should go in the station's article, and the date the line started (and stopped) serving the station should go in the line article; it would confuse to say that a line was opened in 1934, but that some of the stations opened in 1889, e.g. I'm not opposed to having both dates either, though. Instead of a table, we might consider a list since it seems to be the standard in most railway articles. Ghent 11:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely wrong. The lines are called Frederikssundbanen etc. The things that are named by letters are not lines but services. Services are ephemeral patterns that hold no or very little encyclopedic interest by themeselves. Trying to make articles about the service letters would be silly and useless - there is not anything interesting to say about them on their own. The sentence starting with "therefore" would have made more sense if it had actually been preceded by arguments why you think the services are interesting, but it is not. The sentences that actually do precede your "therefore" explain why the services in Copenhagen are uninteresting compared to those in London, but the fact that they have a reason to be uninteresting does not stop them from being uninteresting. The line to Frederikssund did open in 1879; and the fact that S-trains started running on it later does not change this. Henning Makholm 12:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just ask directly: Which possible benefit would it bring us to have articles about the service letters rather than about the actual lines? Henning Makholm 12:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points. In the H article you would include what you would write in Frederikssund-banen and in C what would go in Frederikssund-banen and Klampenborg-banen. The only real benefit I see by doing it that way is line templates on the stations (e.g. "line H, previous station: example, next station: example" and "line C, previous station ..." etc.), and avoiding the confusion arising from the lines being called H and C on the service map, but Frederikssund-banen etc. in the articles. Ghent 13:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure from the above whether I have convinced you, but if not, it doesn't seem likely that the two of us can reach consensus by continuing this. How about we each create the kind of articles we'd like to have and then see what works best? I'm going to be bold and start writing some stubs on the physical lines. If somebody then creates articles about individual stations (which I think would be overkill for most of them), I can't see why one couldn't have service-based succession boxes on them even so. Henning Makholm 13:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And then the service lines can link to the more "specific" articles. Sounds fine to me. Individual stations are kind of overkill, but look at all the articles about UK railway stations, and there's the justification you need for creating articles about all the stations on the S-Train lines. ;) Ghent 14:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please call them Frederikssund-banen, Klampenborg-banen, etc. Putting them together does my spelling head in and is like writing danmarkskort with an upper-case D. The article you linked to above supports my claim. Let's create the articles independantly, and we'll integrate them with each other afterwards. Okay? Ghent 14:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created. Didn't see your comments about naming until afterwards -- be bold and move things around if you feel like it. I have used the names that I think are most common in railfan literature, but they may not be widely used by laypersons. In particular Vestbanen is probably not well known outside railfan (and professional) circles, but on the other hand I don't think there is any common name apart from constructions like "the S-train towards Tåstrup". Henning Makholm 00:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I looked around bane.dk, and found that they are actually called e.g. "Frederikssundbanen" without a hyphen. It twists my stickler mind to look at it; I must endure the suffering alone. Good work on the articles; I'll get around to doing services. Ghent 08:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

missing services.

Isn't there a H+ train running from Farum to Frederikssund? its mentioned on all the maps and i took it every other day for 2 months while staying in Copenhagen.

train map

I suggest you re-read the services section, it indirectly explains what happened to the + services. This map is currently valid http://m.dk/s-kort_m_metro.pdf 87.49.204.98 21:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid Transit

As most of the German S-Bahn are listed as Rapid Transit(although theres additionel underground in most of the cities), I thought this might be in that category as well. As for the criteria mentioned at the Rapid Transit-article, theres no problem. Many of the stations are in densely populated areas. --Kaare Dybvad (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming Category:S-trains in Copenhagen

The discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 14#Category:S-trains in Copenhagen could use input from watchers of this article. –Henning Makholm (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion seems also to discuss the name of this article. --194.17.253.121 (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

top image without graffiti

I was thinking that the top image should show the current generation of trains that is good, but perhaps an image of a train without graffiti would be more suitable? AadaamS (talk) 08:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are something like 150 photos in Commons:Category:S-trains (4th generation) (and subcategories), so just pick one and change it :) --Heb (talk) 10:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for pointing me in the direction of the image collection. AadaamS (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elevated stations

Is the list of elevated stations meant to be complete? If so, at least 2½ are missing: Hvidovre, Virum and the westbound track and its platform at Rødovre station. --Klausok (talk) 07:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better article name

I think "S-train" only deals with Copenhagen S-train (S-tog). So I think this page name should be merged with a very updated S-Bahn article. It should go through the general concepts of S-tog/S-Bahn. Urban rapid transport, very metro-like in Copenhagen, Berlin and Hamburg. While Vienna S-Bahn seems to be more of a suburban to city transport only (though with constant departures between each train departure, unlike commuter trains). Also most other S-trains in Germany uses common tracks (partly or entirely). Please try to understand that this isn't any kind of fight between Denmark and Germany. S-train is English for both S-tog & S-Bahn. And of course the entire content of this article should only be moved to the new article Copenhagen S-Train (which no longer should point to this page). It's only a "short castling" in chess terminology. A future S-train article will just deal with the general concepts which S-trains have in common. It's not a threat on this article. I'll be waiting for inputs. Thanks. Boeing720 (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

no trains skip stops inside the ring line

That is what the text says. The diagram shows line H skipping Langgade and Peter Bangsvej.--Klausok (talk) 13:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on S-train (Copenhagen). 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) 22:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updated 26 July 2021

Like many above, I found this page to be of low quality, confusing, hard to read and full of out dated and contradictory information. For example, the number of stations quoted differed four times across the page. This does not provide any sense of confidence. I embarked on improving the material. I have taken into account some of the (now dated) commentary here. The aim was to be more accurate whilst improving clarity. This involved removing duplicated materials and moving material into the correct section. I moved more detailed information into the "List of Copenhagen S-Train Lines" Wikpedia page, as that seemed more appropriate. The edit then led me into the List of Copenhagen S-Train Stations Wikipedia page!

A few issues: 1. I cannot find any source material for the number of stations. I used the 86 figure which is used on the Danish language S-tog page. 2. There is little original source material. Many of the line changes and additions may be in Danish language newspapers. There is just one authoritative book on the subject. Some of the information was contained in DSB updates or bulletins which may be archived in Denmark. 3. The Danish and English language pages are quite different in layout and emphasis. I have removed, corrected or updated the material on the English page that was incorrect (and contradicted) the Danish version! Emjaikey (talk) 07:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]