Talk:Thalys

Untitled

"Trains to these destinations run partly on dedicated high-speed tracks (some of which are yet to be built)" I am not sure this reads very well - I doubt trains run on tracks that are not there! 86.129.158.67 (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have changed this to "Trains to these destinations run partly on dedicated high-speed tracks, and partly on older tracks shared with normal-speed trains; further high-speed track is planned to allow a full high-speed service (see, e.g. HSL Zuid)." Please remember to sign your posts by typing ~~~~. Thanks! Dmccormac (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The article lists Thalys' partner companys as SNCF, NMBS/SNCB and Deutsche Bahn. However, I always thought the Dutch NS, or its daughter company NS HiSpeed, was part of Thalys as well. The NS Hispeed page even says so, as well as this article a bit later: 'bringing both Deutsche Bahn and Nederlandse Spoorwegen in as partners.'. I could simply add NS HiSpeed to the list, but then the percentages won't match. Can anyone say more about this? Hertog (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This page looks like an advertising for the company : there is no context, no perspective, no mention of any difficulty raised, only corporate information.62.235.216.32 (talk) 11:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation

How is 'Thalys' pronounced? The only reference on the corporate website was a vocal accompaniment to a video, with a whispered "tuh-LEE" Is this correct? LorenzoB (talk) 05:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It may depend on the language in which it's being spoken.

Among international people speaking English in Brussels, I most often hear it pronounced as "TAL-iss". --David Edgar (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Postscript: The New York Times agrees - see this page. --David Edgar (talk) 14:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

On board the Thalys recently, the announcement in French used a pronunciation like "tal-EES", the Dutch and German announcements used the pronunciations "TAHL-iss" and the English used "TAL-iss". --David Edgar (talk) 12:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Dutch-speaking Belgians tend to pronounce it in a very Dutch way, "TAH-liss." Dutch people (from the Netherlands) tend to mimic the French pronunciation of "tah-LEES." The lady who did the on-board recordings is Belgian, so that would make sense.

Dialogue with the customers

The source (the blog) refers to official meetings between the management of Thalys and a recognized, independant partner representing its customers at the European level. It links to reports that have been officially approved by both parts, with facts and names of all participants. The documents cited are authoritative, and they are apparently not published anywhere else. The blog is also supported by customers of the company, which is anyway a good complement to the information of the page, that comes mostly from the company itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.24.212.200 (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Travel and ticketing question

6 11 2017

Message à Thalys.

Bonjour Monsieur, Bonjour Madame.

Je suis handicapé. Je dois voyager à l'étranger. Ma maman doit voyager avec moi. Est-ce-que ma maman voyage gratuitement?

Merci Monsieur, Merci Madame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.160.127.149 (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Two things.... First this is a page on the English language Wikipedia. Please use English to communicate here. Second, this is a page on Wikipedia about the Thalys brand that is in no way associated with the company Thalys and does not represent the company in any way. Wikipedia editors do not have access to ticketing information and cannot answer your question. Please contact your travel agent for an answer to your ticketing question. Slambo (Speak) 15:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Economic aspects

European55100 (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC) I added the paragraph about Market and Concurrence, as otherway the articles was too technical, and did not mention and informa about issues that are essential from the market and commercial point of view.

Whilst interesting, unfortunately your edit looks very much like original research. DrFrench (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

European55100 (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC) This is not original research, but a compilation of existing information relevant to the issue, already published elsewhere. Reliable sources have been cited for all elements of information: several of them are secondary sources, the primary facts are mainly the information about prices. Sources are essentially the company itself and its competitors, proven articles (as a well-known blog from a mainstream newspaper about Brussels EU affairs), and other relevant external and peer-reviewed points of view.

I have checked the paragraph with the Wikipedia policy on Non-original research, and could not find precise discordances against it.

=> Can you list which specific information do you consider not belonging to these categories?

Moreover, the paragraph looks anyway neutral and verifiable.

I do not feel comfortable at all with just removing the paragraph for this cause. You can eventually add a flag that specifies which sentences should be adapted. I let you complete correction, else I will replace it trying to take further into account your remark.

Another point: the paragraph about Market and Competition is essential. Now, the whole article Thalys does not at all present perspective about why the company has been created, for which demand and offer, while this is indeed the very cause of its existence and all the service described in the rest of the article. This present now only technical aspects, secondary to the perspective of European rail passenger transport served by Thalys. Now that the Rail Directive is active, Thalys situation will evolve a lot, in my opinion more than national rail operators: this context should be presented into the article.

European55100 (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC) No answer for more than two weeks: I will put back the former text, accurately corrected corresponding to the last comments.

European55100 (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC) This has been corrected now. If specific aspects appear to anyone to be corrected, please mention it here or indicate it in the text. We ask you not to cancel this important paragraph, that contains relevant information and sources about the theme of the article.

European55100 (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC) To Schalkcity: You cancelled a whole paragraph without explaining why in this page. The information about the market of transport of Thalys is not at all irrelevant, as you wrote, but rather the first information necessary for a correct understanding of any transport offer. Until now, this page about Thalys was only technical, interesting mainly for train technique afficionados, but little else. This would have been maybe sufficient for a contribution to the dictionary of the Union International des Chemins de Fer, but not at all for a generalist encyclopedia as Wikipedia. As know everyone working in the field of public transport, the first approach when developing a transport offer is to understand who must been transported, on which routes, what are the various possible vector, and at which travel price. This information allowed that the relevant investments needed to build the high speed train line operated by Thalys could be raised, and successively that the Thalys company be set up to operate on it, developing a commercial offer, and then choose and operate the rolling stock. The first step is to determine the offer of transport, the second to build the technical and commercial offer. For all these reasons, the presentation of Thalys would be quite incomplete without this economic information.

Thus I ask you to revert your own cancellation of this paragraph, else I will have to do this myself.

As you might have noticed, nobody replied to your 'Economic aspects' discussion/query on this talk page. I think that, if people were interested in it, they would have responded. You and I are not the only ones who follow this page.

Secondly, if you want to present a part about the economic aspects of Thalys, realize that it should be understandable for the general public. And also, that only relevant information should be in it. A general overview of the travelling times with Thalys compared to non-high speed trains on a selected Thalys trajectory, may be useful, with normal fares for Thalys and non-Thalys included in that table. However, the whole thing that you inserted, is not how it should be. Read the rest of the Thalys article and I am sure that you'll understand in what manner a part of economic aspects should be included, if any at all. Schalkcity (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

European55100 (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC) I thank you for your comments: I'm confident that the last corrections do now reflect your input, and give more understandable information to the general public. If this was not the case, please suggest specific corrections, pinpoint the sentence or the fact that should be improved, here in the Talk page, of course before cancelling the whole paragraph previous to further discussion, and before reaching a consensus about it.

(Eleonora1985)Concerning the debate about these modifications: My opinion is that it is indeed important to explain the economic dimension of Thalys. This information is relevant. This is not a problem if there are many information about Thalys economic context, as long as they are true, neutral and well organized. The former paragraph should be published again, and in any case not cancelled: it should rather be developped. ~ ~ ~ ~

Hallo. So as to contribute to this discussion, I think too that all economic and organisational dimensions are very important when explaining a transport organisation. There should also be an aspect about how the contract between this operator and the relative transport authority has been established. Thanks for the interesting discussion, and please continue to contribute. Alexander. 195.158.176.122 (talk) 09:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Although there's some nice information there, there are problems:

1. I think the presentation could be improved a lot. Could some of the corporate details be tidied up into an infobox? Also there's a lot of empty grey space in those tables. Do they really need to be tables? Is there another way to present this information which doesn't disrupt the article?

2. There are few sources. Is this original research or could you put in some more references?

3. Some translation work is needed.

You don't want your addition as a whole to be deleted, but I will remove the "Attribution of the market, agreement model [to be completed]" - wikipedia really doesn't need articles that say "I'll fill in this bit later".

It might be better to work on this "offline" - if so, I would be happy to help you improve this content, then when it's better, it could be added back into the article...?

bobrayner (talk) 01:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll restrict my comment to the prose: The English is awful and the whole section reads, well, not like an encyclopedic article. I'd like to contribute, but I wouldn't know where to start! SergioGeorgini (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I find it a bit too harsh to delete a paragraph for alleged issues of style or grammar, which sincerely are not evident for a normal educated person. To Sergio: can you rather correct these things that you see in the paragraph, instead of deleting the whole paragraph?! Thanks for keeping a constructive and positive attitude to other people and their contribution. This article is interesting, and should be developed, not removed! 92.145.99.93 (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but these are not trifling issues; the whole paragraph needs a rewrite from beginning to end. It reads like an essay rather than an encyclopedic entry, it lacks sources and too much of it is simply irrelevant. For instance, current fares are not really relevant, nor are comparisons to other train connections barring those between Thalys and conventional trains. There are interesting points, though, that might be worked into the existing paragraphs. SergioGeorgini (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

To all:

Deletion in Wikipedia is a very radical measure, that applies to a few cases listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy. These do not include an allegedly poor English or style!

These critics on form and content are a point of view. I appreciate the commitments to keep this article as pure as you would like, without information you don't like. But there have been here enough more other users that repeatedly expressed their interest into this paragraph, so as to reasonably accept, now, their point of view.

The Wikipedia Deletion Policy says: “If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.“ (source: Deletion Policy). Please do it, if you really want to contribute to Wikipedia. I challenge pro-deleters to contribute in a more constructive way to this paragraph.

So strange: every time a correction is brought to this paragraph, then comes immediately out another contestation, repeatedly striving anyway that the only solution is immediate deletion! We have a disparate patchwork with “non relevant”, “not sourced” together with “too detailed”, now “poor English”! What next?

People here agree that the matter - the economy of a transport offer - is essential, and all its aspects contribute to its whole understanding (market volume, offer product and price analysis, company organisation, etc.), as much than technical aspects. Everything in this paragraph is sourced, with facts or reported opinions, neutral, and quite discretely written.

But even if neutral and respectful, the reported facts hurt huge economic interests. The context is indeed not in favor of Thalys. The people here that strongly oppose the disclosure on Wikipedia of market information about Thalys, they wouldn't act differently if they were working for Thalys communication. Should we raise a Conflict of interest?!

I hope this will not be needed: this information is essential to understand a strategic European issue. The insistence of a few to obscure it, just makes more important for the many to keep it published.

European55100 (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

To everybody who wants the economic aspects paragraph: If you really want that part about the economic aspects, then please make it a good paragraph, not the shit that has been deleted. It also has to be relevant. Of course there are other transportation opportunities on the routes served by Thalys, but at least list them systematically, use good references (such as websites of national rail companies), let it be an addition to the page, not a part that ruines the whole page. To European55100: the fact that the economic aspects paragraph is being deleted, means that many users do not agree that it should be included in the article, in the way that it is presented now. So unless someone makes a good start with the economic aspects, don't put rubbish on the page. Better a page with less information that is correct, usefull and referenced than a page with more information, but of less quality. Schalkcity (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I am an English person, I grew up in Lancashire! I would like to participate in this debate.

I find the tone used by the last wikinaute unacceptable. Insulting and disqualifying a contributor should not be allowed on Wikipedia. This also applies to all those that share the same "pro-deleting" opinion, as none of them voiced any disagreement with the words of Schalkcity. So as to show good will, I have used my native-tongue skills to review the wording of the debated paragraph. This is now the most correct part of the whole article. The other paragraphs deserve a review, now ;-).
From my point of view, the arguments used against this paragraph are not valid, nor do they contribute to the very content of it. The article about Thalys - and Eurostar, should I say! -, clearly needs a solid section which describes its economic approach. This was before a quite technical approach, which ignored most fundamental aspects of the subject.
Of course, Wikipedia is a place where this kind of information has to grow progressively, thanks to one contribution after another. This is the spirit of Wikipedia: respect it, or leave it!
I expect fellow wikinautes to respect my contribution and leave it in the article.

Hannah, 78.29.213.222 (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

My comments on the section added by 78.29.213.222:

The first two tables can easily be described in a few sentences, a suggestion:

Since more than half of the income of Thalys comes from the Paris-Brussels route, it is interesting to compare the realistic alternatives on this route, both by price and by time. Thalys covers the route in 1 hour 20 minutes for a peak fare of 86 euros. No other direct high speed trains operate on this route. However, with an interchange at Lille, using a TGV high speed train from Paris to Lille and another TGV or Eurostar high speed train to Brussels, the journey takes 1 hour 30 minutes and costs 64.90 euros upwards. However, Eurolines busses also ply this route. It takes 3 hours 45 minutes and costs 21 euros upwards. These public transport options can be compared by driving this route by car. As a car driver, the costs are 37 euros (including 12 euros highway toll), as a passenger (when car pooling), the costs are 12 euros upwards. No plane services are available on this route anymore, since the high speed trains cover the route in a shorter time than aeroplanes.

Besides the peak hour price for the Thalys tickets (86 euros), cheaper Thalys tickets are also available. For person until 25 years, the costs are 43 euros (limited availability), whereas senior persons (older than 60 years) pay 61 euros (limited availability). Schalkcity (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Slightly better, but... You can't use a phrase such as "it is interesting," that's subjective and a weasel word. If rates are to be included (which is highly unorthodox), they should be mentioned as rates at a specific time in history and styled "€1," not "1 euro." But all of that nitpicking is overshadowed by the fact that it is still original research, which is still a no-no. Frankly, I think that unless a major newspaper or something to that extent covers this issue, it shouldn't be in this article at all. SergioGeorgini (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yet another argument against the Market paragraph... To be mentioned in a major newspaper is not a prerequisite for being presented on Wikipedia. Anyway, Thalys market situation and particularly the price issue have been mentioned by a major newspaper, the French mainstream newspaper Libération (this is ok, as their major route covers an essentially French speaking area). This was in its blog about Europe, in 2008, then in an article on the 24 May 2010.

Moreover: a price structure is a fact (and alas not an opinion!): an economic fact, as factual as the composition of the rolling stock. It stays here not for travel information (!), but to allow understanding of a main aspect of the company offer: price structure. Other parts of the article are reported opinions. I do not see original research in this paragraph. Sergio: can you mention what precisely you point, when you make such destructive assertions, and avoid general comments that do not help us to improve the article. Grazie.

It is however true that presentation could be made more nice-looking. A discursive presentation, suggested by Schalkcity, is interesting but not as much of immediate reading, and factual, than a table that displays the useful facts only. I nevertheless included his/her suggestions to be more synthesis by reducing the table.

Thanks to your efforts, this paragraph is becoming of a quite good quality. The rest of the article should now be drastically improved. The paragraph on Accident is far less relevant to the understanding of Thalys than the part on economy. This is now more an extract of a chronicle. There should be also a paragraph on the delays that frequently affects this train, and a part about the company organisation, which is quite particular. Schalkcity and Sergio: do you want to give any information about this ? European55100 (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree that these subjects should be in the article, I disagree with the way they're put in. The majority of your paragraph consists of one hypothetical journey as an illustration of your points, and includes such bits of information as what it would cost in terms of petrol to drive to Paris. Fascinating and informative, but the manner in which you have gathered all of that information is original research, and besides, it's just not encyclopedic. Here's what I suggest:

________________

ROUTES

(The table with route percentages can be worked into this paragraph.)

CRITICISM

Paragraph 1: Allegations of monopoly

In 2009, 55.6 per cent of Thalys' activities consisted of the Paris-Brussels corridor. Since 1996, Thalys has been the sole provider of direct connections between these cities, and has been accused of being a monopoly. La Libération and De Standaard claimed that Thalys' position enabled them to charge more than comparable high-speed train services. La Libération further pointed to Thalys "Kid&Co" policy, which prohibits children under the age of 12 to travel alone. Thalys is the only railway operator in Europe with this policy. Etc.

Paragraph 2: Delayed trains on the Dutch-Belgian border

(This problem has gotten a LOT of bad press in the Benelux, and might be worth mentioning.)

________________

SergioGeorgini (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

European55100 (talk) 06:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC): Yet again another argument for deletion against the Market paragraph... It becomes everyday more difficult to assume a good faith in this debate. You can say as much as you want that this paragraph is not encyclopaedic, but it really looks that you are working to preserve Thalys from inconvenient information.

Dear Sergio: please do write this paragraph about Criticism, and explain there the points that you consider relevant. Please do it, as you already started to write it. However, some criticisms are not about economy (as delays), and some economic aspects are not criticized (as the relative position to competitors). The economic aspect should however include a presentation about the monopole situation. But this does not constitutes by itself a motivation for critics: rather some of its consequences are criticized (ticket price), probably because in association with financial governance. This is a quite complex issue, that would deserve a specific sub paragraph, with references to the huge debate about European regulation about services of general interests.

Nevertheless the current information of the Market paragraph is still relevant (besides being neutral and sourced) to contribute to this aim. Maybe, it could still be tidied of some secondary figures. I will do this.

However your new critic implicitly supposes a ground: should Wikipedia articles give a few details about their subject, or only 2-lines synthesis? This has not raised a debate for the technical tables about the rolling stock.

Delays are probably worth a paragraph on its own, if this is constructive, and brings references about possible identified causes: bad material? Poor governance of rail and stations regulators? A traffic too intense for the route capacity? Sergio: all the press that you mention has probably already tried to explain this. Please use these references to which you have access, and complete the article.

Moreover. the general tone of the whole article should be improved. It would be good that you, dear Opponents to the Market paragraph, address also other aspects of the article, rather than only focusing your attention against one single paragraph:
- How many trains really circulate, on the total set available? This figure is essential.
- Company organisation, governance and management, Thalys staff composition and relation with national staff
- Company current or former strategy, explanations about quite rapid development
- All the aspects about relation with transport authorities and service contracting in a multinational context
- the paragraph about History is quite heterogeneous, with elements about both company development and evolution of travel times, and could be further structured.

As you said that you want to improve this article, then there is enough work for you on a lot of these other aspects.

Another point I must confess: it is touching having people endlessly correcting and contesting details of what you write, but if these persons never write a single paragraph on their own, then this becomes annoying.

Good work, and please give your opinion also on these other aspects mentioned above.

I understand your frustration, but apparently some people believe the article was better without your paragraph than with it. That is very annoying for you as you have clearly put in a lot of effort, but we're supposed to be striving for the best possible article, not an article that rewards efforts indiscriminately. SO about this Economical Aspects paragraph that isn't the Criticism paragraph: at this point there isn't nearly enough information for one. When we remove the large table with the comparisons between modes of transportation from Brussels to Paris, and also the table containing Thalys rates, all we're left with is the table comparing Thalys routes. So we'd need more economical information that is appropriate. Furthermore, a company such as Thalys does not require a forty-foot article, and I doubt we need to go into all those points you raised or we will soon be describing the selection of food in the Thalys staff cafeteria. We have to decide what is and what is not relevant enough. So why don't we:

- Add a Criticism section;

- Restructure the History section and give it a new subparagraph that focuses on the evolution of travel times;

- Possibly try to find some bits and pieces of economical information that are relevant enough to be in the article and then entertain the option of adding a paragraph about it.

I will try to find some time to create the Criticism section, using your Libération article and others. SergioGeorgini (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the section again. It's just full of stuff that doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. It's not a place for you to write an essay on the subject ("In order to understand the service offered by Thalys, it is necessary to understand the passenger transport market in which it operates."). It's not the place to list ticket prices or the detail of the rules about children's fares. So (like I said originally) although it may be interesting, it doesn't belong here. DrFrench (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Can we please come to an agreement about the economic aspects, before another edit war starts??? Schalkcity (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

European55100 (talk) 09:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC): Due to the long and constructive debate that happened here during monthes, this cut from DrFrench looks indeed rather more an attempt of provocation, than a constructive wikipedia contribution. The rules on deletion are quite clear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy), and we saw that they do not apply to that case (no copyright infrangement, etc.).

Concerning the debate about original research: as said above, all these are information from Thalys website or other sites, including newspapers and blogs, both primary and secondary sources. I do not see any original attempts of explanations in this text: can you mention them precisely?

I think that the specificities of market prices, as well as the rare terms of travel set by Thalys (ie. the restrictions on children's travel, unique in all European train travel offer) are quite significant to illustrate what Thalys is. Moreover, the economic and institutional aspects should be developed and improved, and not chopped off!

If you only scissor out a paragraph, with such rapid assertion ("just full of stuff" you don't like), this is not an acceptable Wikipedia contribution. If you still identify specific elements of the text that you think are original research, please take your time to write a proposal of improvement, and let's discuss it here. We will all be happy to consider it.

Thus, in a very civil way, I ask you to restore that paragraph, and propose a more acceptable contribution.

Wikipedia simply isn't the place for a rambling analysis of "the service offered by Thalys and alternative competitors in this particular market". The first part about the market segments is OK, but the part where you compute the fare for a particular route is too detailed. If you wrote a brief paragraph on e.g. how Thalys ticket prices and travel times generally compare to going by airplane, I guess that would be acceptable, but it should be written in an encyclopedic style and not like an essay. --Morn (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this constructive comment. I or anybody else interested here may indeed propose a correction including such constructive comments. In the meanwhile, due to the interest of the topic, and that no deletion case is appropriate, rather eventually developed in some other way, the paragraph is restored. To all maniac choppers here: please read Wikipedia policies one more time, and propose more constructive contributions. European55100 (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Right now this material may be interesting but too essay-like and too far outside this article's scope to include it. I'd recommend copying your text to your sandbox or user page on the wiki and working on it there (make it tighter and more about Thalys then the other companies, perhaps cite existing market research by reputed companies, etc.). Then everyone can have another look without unnecessary edit-warring and conflict. --Morn (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

To all deleters: Please show yourself the way, as you pretend to know better what should be done, and start making the improvements that you are talking about, instead of just deleting. As said before, this does not enter into Wikipedia deletion policy, and thus deletion will not be accepted. If you are worried about the quality of this paragraph, eventually but a banner on the paragraph. European55100 (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Table of journey times

I think it would be nice to have a table of journey times at several points throughout Thalys' history, to illustrate the effects of the high-speed lines that have opened through the years. Unfortunately, I can't find the Cologne data for 1996-1997, and some of it doesn't add up (according to Thalys, 1.5 hours were cut off between Paris and Amsterdam after 1996; this doesn't make sense.) Anyone at home with this stuff? SergioGeorgini (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Journey	From 2 June 1996	From 14 December 1997	From 13 December 2009
Brussels – Paris	2:03	1:22	1:22
Amsterdam – Paris	4:47	4:09	3:18
Cologne — Paris	4:31?	3:50	3:14
Liège — Paris	3:33	?	2:10

Unprecise

The article claims that the 15kV system in germany provides insufficient power. However the weak part is not the powersystem but the trainset which has a reduced output when operating under 15kV. The Optiway is not an off-peak fare but an advance purchase. While there is little competition on the Brussels to Paris Route with TGV running from Brussels to Paris Charles-de-Gaulle and Marne-la-Vallee, there are other operators on other parts of the Network, notably Brussels-Amsterdam with Fyra (HSA aka NS/KLM) and on Cologne-Brussels with Deutsche Bahn ICE. Overall, prices are very similar although farerules for discounted tickets vary. Overall the article reads more like some kind of consumer test report or criticism rather than NPOV 82.113.99.44 (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The Fyra has only run between Amsterdam and Brussels from December 2012 till its cancellation in January 2013. There is a train operating under the brand Fyra, but while it runs over the HSL-Zuid, its maximum speed is 160km/h, and it doesn't cross a border: it runs between Amsterdam Centraal and Breda, stopping at Schiphol Airport and Rotterdam Centraal. As of April 2013, there is a regular train (once every 2 hours) between Brussels and The Hague, but that runs on the conventional network. 2001:981:4B0C:1:DAA2:5EFF:FE8E:C8D8 (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Missing information

What is completely missing is the information about the equipment (electric multiple units) using template:infobox train. Peter Horn User talk 21:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The "missing info" is found in SNCF TGV Réseau and SNCF TGV Thalys PBKA. Peter Horn User talk 23:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Meaning?

A question arose in a discussion yesterday - where does the name "Thalys" come from? Is it a French or Dutch word, or an acronym, or what? Can anyone shed some light on this (preferably sourced so it can be added to the article)? — An optimist on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 07:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The name was invented by some brand consultant, as something which looks kinda nice (and is easy to pronounce in multiple languages). bobrayner (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Aha - found a source: [1] bobrayner (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

See also [2] Rp (talk) 09:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

And HOW is it pronounced? "THAAL-ease"? Casey (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Rp (talk) 09:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Tnx. I added but don't know how to do IPA. This the English page so presumably English pronunciation goes here, but perhaps similar in other languages. Casey (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

NMBS/SNCB vs SNCB

Please, note that the name used in English is SNCB rather than NMBS/SNCB. All official website ( SNCB, Thalys, Eurostar and RailTeam ) only mentioned SNCB on their English version. Furthermore, on the talk page of the SNCB, you can see that English-speakers in Brussels calls it SNCB.

Belgium is a trilingual country, but on the English wikipedia, we have to use the term mostly used in English in this case, clearly SNCB.

"Bobrayner", the source you provided ( raileurope-world ) does not belong to the SNCB, nor Thalys. Following websites ( SNCB, Thalys, Eurostar and RailTeam ) do:

http://www.b-rail.be/main/E/

http://www.b-europe.com/Travel

http://www.eurostar.com/UK/uk/leisure/about_eurostar/company_information/ownership_structure.jsp

http://www.thalys.com/be/en/about-thalys/corporate

http://www.railteam.co.uk/why-railteam/our-alliance/sncb/

and all mentioned SNCB.

By, the way, the link you provided ( see above ) for the meaning of the Thalys brand also mentioned SNCB. So, please... Le Liegeois (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thalys. 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/20120425062235/http://buitenland.nieuws.nl/67003l to http://buitenland.nieuws.nl/67003l

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 21:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Eurostar merger

Since the Thalys brand is soon to be gone, how is that going to work with this page? Will it be combined with the existing Eurostar page? Bobster1001 (talk) 11:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Two possibilities here:

- ex-Thalys services will still be operated by THI Factory, ex-Eurostar services will still be operated by Eurostar International Ltd, so it could make sense to still have two separate pages... if the operations remain separate. There are separate articles for easyJet: easyJet UK, easyJet Europe, and easyjet Switzerland after all, even though most passengers have no idea there are three different airlines behind the easyJet brand.

- We decide that the single "Eurostar" brand means a single page, in which the fact that there are two operating companies behind the brand will be mentionned

Slasher-fun (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)