Talk:Réseau Express Régional

message: Most metro/subway systems have a set fare paid to enter the system, without tickets being taken or anything like that. Most regional rail systems have tickets, and are based on zones and distances. What is the fare system for the RER? Is it one of these, neither, or a mixture of the two? I'm sure someone familliar with it could easily answer it, but I am not at all, and was curious, but it isn't mentioned in the article. Doregasm 19:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fare on the RER are calculated using fare zones centered around Paris (zone 1). Tickets are purple and can be bought from RATP and SNCF outlets (that's RER, Transilien, the whole lot) at stations, in underground stations and SNCF boutiques. Captain scarlet 19:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fares 

message: Are all over the place. I am going to sort them out soon. Rollo 01:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorted out. The format for links is Station Name (Paris RER). By my calculations there are only 8 stations (not including gares) containing both RER and Métro platforms with the same station name. For these I propose to redirect both the Métro and RER pages to a new single page with the name format Station Name (Paris Metro and RER). Rollo 01:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Rollo 20:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Station links 

message: Suggested usage. Perhaps it would be a good idea to reserve "Paris RER" categorisation for proper, substantial articles only - ie, not all those empty stubs about suburban stations. These can easily go in the List of stations of the Paris RER. This way there will be a means of sifting thru the mountains of station pages to the ones with useful information. Rollo 01:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Paris RER" category set up

message: I have reverted Captain scarlet's edit which removed Maximilian Dörrbecker's "Vision for the RER network in 2025". This interesting speculative map seems to me entirely relevant to its section title, and there is no copyright infringement. Better to augment others' contributions than to destroy them. The opinion of others on this matter would of course be appreciated. Rollo 08:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed that particular section of content as it is not verifiable. Captain scarlet 08:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The hypothetical nature of Maximilian Dörrbecker's illustration has now been clarified in the article. --Rollo 17:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future developments hypotheses 

message: Need to check: The central portion of line A has the highest capacity of any section of rail in the world. --Anon
:Checked. This assertion balanced with more information. Rollo 21:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't the Pont d'Asnières the railway line with highest frequency of service? It's int Guinness. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 14:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't verify this. If it can be sourced, stick it in. From the information I remember reading, most of the world's busiest railway lines are in Japan. --Rollo 23:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscellaneous 

message: Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. LuciferMorgan 00:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one answered this, apparently. Could someone investigate inline citations? If not, I will sometime soon. --Rollo 22:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The two Gerondeau citations are now converted using the "ref" markup; unsourced facts are tagged with the "source?" tag - I will try to find the page refs of the Gerondeau ones, but the others need to be sorted out too. --Rollo 11:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gerondeau citations completed. Rollo 23:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Re-Review and In-line citations 

message: Negative cultural associations of the RER should perhaps be covered in the Usage section: dirtiness, the perceived association with petty crime (especially around Les Halles). A lot of Parisians don't like the RER. --Rollo 23:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideas for article improvements 

message: Might have got wrong end of stick here but how come "Construction was ceremonially inaugurated by Robert Buron, Minister for Public Works, at the Pont de Neuilly on 6 July 1961"  when "The embryonic (and as yet unnamed) RER was conceived in the 1965 Schéma directeur d'aménagement et d'urbanisme"??? How would Mr Buron have known what he was inaugrating and how would the builders have known what they were constructing if the idea hadn't been born until 4 years afterwards?  Did they just start some provisional digging in 1961 in the hope that some definite plan might be finally adopted in '65? Sorry but it seems a little contradictory? Thanks to anyone who can enlighten us or change the article so that the dates match up or add any missing pieces of the jigsaw! :-)  Mark —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mapmark (talk • contribs) 22:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the helpful comment. Clarification added. The priority was an east-west route, as a first step to a full network. This plan was only properly defined in 1965, but it can be assumed that Buron and the builders saw the significance of the occasion. Rollo 23:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start Date of RER Construction appears contradictory 

message: "This also explains why train frequencies on the RER central network is even lower than on the Paris metro network (as low as one train every 90 seconds on RER A during ruh hour)."
I can't be certain, but I think that a well intending contributor has accidently written this upside down.  Personally, I would consider "high frequency" to mean "trains come more often" - and hence, less often for lower frequency.  Yet the statement above implies that it is a wonderful achievement for trains to be of lower frequency than the metro.  Compare the metro to the London Tube or NYC Subway.  Trains come every 3 minutes at least.  Hardly difficult to be less frequent - vast majority of trains, actually, if you go by my definition of "lower frequency".
Surely this should read "even higher [frequency]"?martianlostinspace 19:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Martian for having noticed that. It's been corrected. Metropolitan 00:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frequency 

message: Some RER trains, like the RER B line to Charles DeGaulle Airport have doors that are not level with the platform. You have to step up to get to the train. This is rather odd. Does any one know the reason for this design?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.26.22 (talk) 07:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, but I've seen some videos on YouTube of trains on the London Underground that seem to have the same issue. Even though the step up is small, I would imagine that it would make boarding difficult for people in wheelchairs and the like, and be illegal in the U.S. due to laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act. I don't know whether there is international legislation in Europe that governs accessibility (I would think that the EU would have some say in the matter, given the number of trains that travel between countries, as well as Europe's propensity for passing progressive legislation at the same as time as or even before the United States does), or whether the French government has any particular regulations regarding it. 66.234.222.96 (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RER trains not level with platform 

message: The will, and even idealism, of a handful of people, notably Pierre Giraudet, Director-General of the RATP, proved decisive in persuading ministers to grant credits. So too did the united front presented by the RATP and SNCF and their success at keeping within their budgets. Given the subsequent success of the RER, the investment can be considered money well spent.
I've put a "Citation needed" tag on this, but it probably should be deleted, since it puts out a point of view that seems inappropriate within an encyclopedia article. At the very least, it should be re-worked into something more factual (i.e., how much was budgeted, and how much was actually spent?). 66.234.222.96 (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Final POV statement removed. The "united front" and "budget success" bits came from the same source as the figures cited just before, so they're legitimate. But ideally figures or another source are needed, so will leave the tag. Rollo (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem is even more endemic than just one section. Reading through the article, I see many spots where the language contains overly-flowery peacock terms, and it makes the article read like a promotional puff piece. At least that's the impression that I get.oknazevad (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV violation? 

message: I think it's — , and not — , according to this — Wikipedia:IPA, and this — Wikipedia:IPA for French, and this — Voiced uvular fricative, and this — Uvular trill, and this — Schwa, and this — Mid central vowel, and this — French phonology ^__^. It's a mistake? Can i fix it? --Grenadine (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're French, fix it! Classical geographer (talk) 08:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, i'm not French, and it's for this i begin with talk... :) But, i can fix it! :) I don't see any contra. I will wait a  little before fixing. For others opinions... Who knows... --Grenadine (talk) 08:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA 

message: This should be a disambiguation page now, as Bruxelles and Lyon got their own RER projets, and this article moved to a more specific name.
Gonioul (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: Greetings, I noticed there is nothing about the real origins of the RER, the Ligne de Scaux (marked S and with different markage on old RATP plans, prior to 1945 I think, unlike the Ligne d'Auteuil); this line was serving the southern branches of what is now RER B, and I see no mention of it on the page. Should it be included in an "origins" section? I believe it is noteworthy enough.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.253.48.107 (talk) 10:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is mentioned in the history section. --Rollo (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ligne de Sceaux? 

message: "This feature allows a high frequency, which on some lines exceeds that of the Paris Métro — a situation which in Europe is unique to Paris.[citation needed]"
Both Berlin and Munch have frequencies of 2/3 minutes on their trunk lines, barely matched by their respective subway lines.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.66.165 (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to have been removed. Rollo (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect claim 

message: not moved. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Note that this may not be the primary topic on French or other language wikipedias but the case that it is so on the english language one is persuasive. --rgpk (comment) 18:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Current arrangement does not match http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/RER (does not point to Paris RER) or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground (does not point to London Underground) Haskanik (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: I have removed the following sentence:
:On the sections of shared track, each company operates separately: the SNCF RER operates on RFF track and the RATP on its own.
I don't know what the original author was trying to say here, but what it has ended up saying can be precised as where the tracks are shared, they are not shared. This is clearly nonsensical; either they are shared or not shared, they cannot be both at the same time. -- Starbois (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: préciser est un faux ami, and does not translate as "precised", a word that does not even exist in English as a verb.  Depending on your intended meaning, you could try "specified", "indicated", "summarized", or "clarified".  Bonne continuation, Mathglot (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed internally challenged sentence 

message: The values presented in this article doesn't match the length presented in the RER articles. For instance, RER_D indicates 197.0 km and not 160.0 km as in this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.60.26.66 (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected to 190km, figure currently on RATP site. --Rollo (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lines Length 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: RER → Réseau Express Régional – RER is an abbreviation used by many things from video games to existing and proposed commuter rail services similar to this one. It is bad practice to give priority to this and not to the other pages listed in the RER (disambiguation) page. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

text: I fixed the malformed template. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  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.
*Jimbo H. Christ, that's a lot of incoming links. I can't move the dab in good conscience right now. As the closer, however, it's my official ruling that it should. --BDD (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move 14 May 2015

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Réseau Express Régional. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130308043233/http://data.ratp.fr/fr/les-donnees.html to http://data.ratp.fr/fr/les-donnees.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051208073801/http://www.metro-pole.net/ to http://www.metro-pole.net/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Réseau Express Régional. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425154900/http://acegi.fr/Doc_Paie/Versement_transport.pdf to http://acegi.fr/Doc_Paie/Versement_transport.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified