Talk:High Speed 1/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Vandalism

I've just reverted the page back to its previous edit because of vandalism, reading some of the changes comments it seems that this page is being vandalised for whatever reason. Might be a good ida to keep an eye out for such "hilarious" changes as making the title of the railway "low speed one". Captain Crush (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Diagram

Can someone put on the diagram that the line passes over the Victoria and Medway Valley lines?--Screen42 (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Metric v. Imperial measurements

An Imperial measurements advocate has converted all the metric distance and speed measurements to miles and yards etc (albeit retaining the metric conversion in brackets). I propose changing these back, on the grounds that Imperial measurements have not been taught in British schools for decades and that in any case this rail link is an extension of a foreign network (hence the rounded metric units). Rollo 19:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

er ... no. This is a *british* railway link, it is *not* an "extension of a foreign network", and what is taught in our schools is irrelevant to WP readers. In general, all articles should contain imperial *and* metric alternatives. --Vamp:Willow 20:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Rollo, particularly as the CTRL website itself [1] uses metric units almost exclusively, with miles in brackets for just a few distance measurements. Try asking a tunnelling engineer how many "long tons" his TBM weighs! I also note the unhelpful way in which User:80.255 described his significant changes with an edit summary of "mi -> mile" and marked his edit as minor. However, at least he retained the metric units, so the article is usable in its present form. --Heron 20:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with VampWillow, and think that the imperial units should be retained, as many people are more familiar with these.--John 11:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
The UK has been metric for along time, and the CTRL has been built entirely to metric specifications (eg. 1435mm gauge, rather than 4ft 8½ in). I'm happy for the imperial conversion to be shown in (brackets), but the imperial is an approximation of the true and therefore should not be the primary figure stated. Sladen 23:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

As one of the people responsible for the introduction of Imperial units into this article I feel I should defend them! As has already been pointed out, this is an article about a British railway, and to be consistent with other British railway articles (and British articles in general!) it should have Imperial units. Railways in this country have mileposts with 440 yd fractions on them; bridges and tunnels are located in miles and chains and so on. Keep Imperial units. Owain 12:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The CTRL is marked with kilometre-posts, and the signalling system operates solely in kilometres per hour. It is a British railway, but it is a British railway which operates exclusively metrically. Hence I vote metric. (And it's probably more correct to say it's an extension of the European network, and the EU operates in metric). Willkm 21:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
If ones looks out of a train on a classic British railway it is likely that you will spot the diamond-shaped black and white signs, showing metric speed-limits, for example, showing 41. Sladen 23:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

So that's 3 for Imperial, 2 for metric. So far, I am outvoted. I take Owain's point about the possible specificity of British railways, although the article makes clear that in engineering terms the CTRL is indeed an extension of a foreign network. And it is not true that what is taught in our schools (in this case since the 1970s) is "irrelevant". I am British, and I don't talk in yards and inches, let alone in "long tons", whatever they are. Rollo 18:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

well, i personally switch from metric to imperial without thought. i live in the UK and i will say something like he is 5 ft 11. or how far is a certain town i will usually use miles. especially with long distance i will say miles, remember the UK uses miles on its roads (and long may it do so). however if someone says how high is my house, i may say about 12-13 metres. or just as common 40 ft. i think we should have both measurements. as for school, we r still taught what imperial units r but for simplicity in science etc we use metric. Pratj 23:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

well, if we r voting i prefer imperial, i can picture that in my head better than in metric. ie if someone says 200kmh i subconsciously translate it into mph anyway. i think as this is english speaking wikipedia we should use imperial as afterall, i thinjk more ppl in the english speaking world use imperial.Pratj 15:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware we was having a vote. surely someone has a wikipedia policy on this matter (appeal to higher powers here somewhere). IMHO while yes is is a British railway which is dominated in chines (IIRC - ie imperial, and thus metric in brackets), the CTRL is metric. Now the real toughie is should the article be in metric or imperial, I'm *weakly* going for metric (with imperial in brackets) because it was built in metric and I'm young (ish - ie tough in metric), although at the end of the day its not the end of the world FFS!!!! Pickle 06:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

if the sources of this information use metric then that is what should be used as the form of measurement in the article. it can then be converted to imperial in brackets. actually im surprised people care that much as long as both are shown. it doesnt really matter does it? Mad onion 10:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

YOu'ld be suprised - some people think its a vast european conspiracy to defraud them, others its just common snese - take it all witha pinch of salt - LOL Pickle 16:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This is beyond ridiculous. Engineers in this country have used metric exclusively for decades, the units were obviously originally in metric and the UK is a metric country by law. Not only that the use of 'long tons' is absurd, I don't think anyone under the age of 30 would understand what one was. If we really have to have imperial, then put it brackets, though I'd strongly be in favour of metric only. So I will revert to my metric only version.

I argee. British Engineers use metric, it's built metric standard, just use metric. Tancred 16:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
FFS everyone, is there not some policy somewhere that we should be citing and following ??? Otherwise we'll being going round in circles - request for arbitration???
Pickle 14:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
If the railway was designed in metric, list metric first; however the job of an encylopedia is to provide information in a way it can be understood by all. It would be foolish not to put the imperial mesurements in in brackets, as many people particularly in the UK still think in imperial - and as for claims that the UK is a "metric country by law" are conviniently forgetting that our speed limits and road signs are all given in miles. Captain Crush (talk) 11:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Minor Bits

Needs a grammar check, quite a few mistakes. Also, why has the Eurostar terminus been changed to St. Pancras? Why not just build the high-speed line to Waterloo? Not clear from this article. Badgerpatrol 01:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

IIRC
a) Thames gateway (ie Stratford and ebbsfleet) needed redevelopment, south London doesn't,
b) st pancras is the prettiest station in London (can think of the source but thats what everyone says, it does look good)
c) could be because waterloo is perceived as isolated (while king cross / st pancrass isn't), waterloo is already suffering from massive overcrowding or even waterloo is un PC to the French Pickle 01:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


The caption below the photo of the model of KX/St.P is slightly wrong. Eurostar trains will use the centre platforms running the entire length of both the old arched-roof section and the flat-roofed new extension to the north. 'Normal' BR trains will then normally use the 'side' platforms in the new extension. ChrisRed 12:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

New name

I suggest that the article be renamed High Speed 1, as LCR have just given the project that very name with (apparently) exactly 1 year to go before completion. Edvid 11:11, 14th November 2006 (UTC)

Disagree...move it back. What LCR calls it isn't necessarily 'the right thing'. It's called CTRL in all relevant legislation as well. --jrleighton 07:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Wikipedia seems to prefer calling railway things what companies call them. For example, we have 'one' rather than London Eastern Railway Ltd.
Agree...move back to CTRL. "High Speed 1" has so far been used in one press release by LCR. A quick look out of the train window at the control signs on entering/leaving the CTRL will quickly remind one that the railway is the CTRL, through and through. Perhaps if the use of "HS1" becomes great than "CTRL" this article might be suitable for a rebrand, but until that point I feel that the name should describe the product, rather than any particular company "brandname" for the railway. Sladen 23:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC) So that's a 'disagree' with moving it to HS1, isn't it? -- Solipsist 15:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia's naming policy is to have articles at their most common name. In this case that sounds like it is still 'CTRL'. The article can be moved to 'HS1' as and when that becomes the more common term. -- Solipsist 15:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with that - when it's open, according to LCR, HS1 will be the most common name (other than to Eurostar drivers, perhaps) being known as this on maps, road signs etc. It can be moved then. Willkm 17:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
"This may contain forward-looking statements."  :-) Shall we instead see what happens in the future? LCR have been known to put out press-releases to "test the water". Previously LCR announced that St. Pancras would be named London International or given a completely new name; but it looks like that particular rebranding is unlikely to happen... Sladen 18:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

WP Trail

While its a good summary that replaces the old table well, there is a lot more scope with the features of this template. (A job for the future!) Pickle 19:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

see WP:TRAIL Pickle 20:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
One point though with the diagram - the CTRL between the tunnel and Ashford is a different line (25kV High Speed Line) to the Kent Main Line (3rd rail electrified). --Stewart 23:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I big overhaul of the table on this page is on the cards from me as it is quite inaccurate at the moment (but a good start) Pickle 23:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Low Importance?

Surely one of the biggest civil engineering projects that Kent and maybe the UK has seen for years ranks as high importance? It slices Kent in half, its a key attribute for the Olympic games in 2012 and is a major transport link for Europe deserves to be of high importance. Comments please.--Screen42 16:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair cop guv, i've been mass tagging a lot of "low" articles and in prespective it is more important. however i haven't put high, as some really simple stuff (eg Kent and most of the major towns) have yet to be sufficiently tackled Pickle 18:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
OK thanks. What ranks as high? Just curious.--Screen42 19:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
We for WikiProject Kent we've put Kent and the big towns/city's as high, but its a new WikiProject only recently started. WikiProject trains is huge on the other hand and has a criteria - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Assessment - where details are given. IMHO the CTRL article isn't "vital to understanding the history or technology of rail transport". But I'm all for debate so if you think it is we can change it to high... Pickle 19:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The train one sounds interesting ! Tell me more plz--Screen42 21:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Have a look at it - Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Assessment#Importance assessment and Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Assessment#Importance scale - i think that does a better job than anyhting i can say. Pickle 22:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Singlewell freight Loops

Maybe the diagram should have these on?Screen42 14:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I was going to add these, but I can't find the detailed Quail track diagram with all the details on, I don't know what a good way to represent them is. Maybe a small/freight station symbol and just a comment rather than showing three lines of track. Sladen 18:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
They are building something else there as well. Two new buildings have appeared. Someone told me that they form some sort of base for the Eurostar operations.--Screen42 19:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)--Screen42 19:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The construction of these buildings are complete and the sign nearby says its a CTRL maintenance depot.--Screen42 22:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
It is the Singlewell Infrastructure Maintenance Depot, see this page at Kentrail.co.uk Pickle 18:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

New trains?

Since the CTRL (when it opens) will be of at least TGV loading gauge along its whole length, are there any plans to run TGV-size trains along it, rather than the current Eurostars (which, having to fit within the minuscule Victorian loading gauge of standard UK lines, are minuscule)? Or are the Eurostars going to to remain?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.192.96 (talk • contribs)

I haven’t heard of any immediate plans to replace Eurostar’s stock. They don’t seem to have any capacity problems, since they’ve been able to hand over some of the trains to SNCF (and, in the past, GNER), and a new Channel Tunnel train would still need to be purpose-built, since regular TGVs don’t meet its special safety requirements. The fact that they’re apparently willing to remove the third-rail shoes once the changeover is made does suggest, however, that continued interoperability with Britain’s traditional network is not a high priority for them. David Arthur 14:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
As above. The surplus "north of London" (NOL) eurostars (which GNER hired for a short period) have been offloaded to SNCF. The trainsets are young and at 18 cars long (IIRC) capacity appears not to be a problem yet. I'm not sure if length can be increased, widening the the carriages (from UK gauge to UIC GB+) wouldn't (i image) achieve much, as to upwards, double decker trains exist on the TGV network but over here ... je ne sais pas. While i understand the third rail shoes are to be removed (and have been pulled from the NOL sets on sale), the need to keep the trainsets within UK gauge for the event of diversions (ie the booked CTRL freight roots - so Maidstone east line, SEML, Redhill, etc). While there are freight loops for fast freight I've herd of no use of the lines UIC GB+ gauge - well where could the trains go ???. Pickle 18:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The NoL sets are 14 coaches these are the ones leased to SNCF. The NoL sets I've seen working North-of-Paris have lost their logos, but [so far] still have (had) shoegear; whereas the 18-coach 32xx Eurostars already previously assigned solely to SNCF domestic duties have had their shoegear removed, logos removed and new "white" TGV paint-jobs added. I suspect the larger CTRL loading gauge will only get used by future (as yet unbuilt) international trains. Sladen 08:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What about the new trains built by Hitachi for high speed domestic services? Are they larger than the standard UK loading gauge? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.251.192.96 (talk) 16:22, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

No, the British Rail Class 395 will operate on North Kent Line, Chatham Main Line, South Eastern Main Line, Kent Coast Line and Ashford to Ramsgate (via Canterbury West) line - all W6 (a tiny bit of W8) (see NR Business Plan 2007, for Kent, figure 8). W6 being the "standard" small UK gauge. Pickle 19:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Status

It's surely built now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.136.128 (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Speed run was yesterday (4/9/2007), but its still not technically open, its been finsihed for a few months now. IIRC it (CTRL stage 2) opens sometime early November. Pickle 02:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a press release from Carillion (?) dated 26th July 2007 [2] when the builders' consortium handed the track over to Union Railways for their commissioning work. The well-publicised 14th November date is for start of scheduled services. Bob aka Linuxlad 07:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

High Speed 1

Shouldn't this article now be renamed 'high Speed 1'? Chump Manbear 22:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This came up before. The 'CTRL' is a railway line. 'HS1' is a brand name used by one company when marketing their services on that railway line. —Sladen 08:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I understand your argument, but the term CTRL is no longer being used by the owners of the route, the train operators or the government, so I would say this is more of a 'permanent' name change than a re-branding exercise.Chump Manbear 12:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The renaming seems sensible to me. While the legislation that created the line calls it the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, that is clearly a descriptive name; since everyone, including its owners and the train operators, is calling it High Speed One — to the extent that the proposed London–Birmingham line is assumed to by High Speed Two — I think it would be very difficult to argue that that is not its actual name. David Arthur 19:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is formally HS1 now, please change the name. AnTiChRiSt 23:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.136.194 (talk)
So looking at Google News just now (eg. only really recent stuff). Channel Tunnel Rail Link gets 133, and high-speed-one gets 20] results. —Sladen 09:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
If loking at high Speed 1 the other way on the google news site High Speed 1 218. Could an article be created on both, or would that have too much duplication? Simply south 15:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
which exactly proves the mainstream media know almost nothing about railways...Chump Manbear 21:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I think Channel Tunnel Rail Link is a more descriptive, less ambiguous name. Belgium uses a similar naming convention for their rail lines. The use of High Speed 1 as the name has a hint of bias, too, as it suggests that a second high speed line in Britain is likely or desirable. I think keeping the current title is more appropriate for a wikipedia article for those two reasons. (In the interest of full disclosure, I'm an American who would very much like to see more rail and high speed rail infrastructure both in my own city, and elsewhere, including in Britain.) -- Alcuin (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I understand that you prefer the CTRL name, so do I. Nevertheless, the line is now officially called High Speed 1 and this article should reflect that.Chump Manbear (talk) 12:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
This article should be renamed High Speed 1, as that is its subject. The Channel Tunnel Rail Link was a project, now completed. If in the future the name changes once more, that's no problem, we'll change it here. The redirections will still work.Rollo (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I have changed the name of the article to 'High Speed One'. CTRL now redirects to this.Chump Manbear (talk) 10:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
What's the more appropriate title, High Speed One', or 'High Speed 1'? Alcuin (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
If there's any more dispute about what this article is going to be called, we might just have to revert the change and stick with the only name that we know to be legally correct... :-P —Sladen (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
In an encyclopedia a name is important. The exact new name of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link is High Speed 1. From highspeed1.com: "On 14th November 2006, the CTRL was renamed High Speed 1 (HS1)." The bad news is that 'High Speed 1' already existed as a redirect page and I fluffed an attempt to reappropriate it (not having read the instructions). We will now have to get an administrator to do it, I think. Or perhaps one of you guys could try. Rollo (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Uncontroversial_proposals Rollo (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Gosh that was quick. Done. Our article has the right name. Rollo (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

They're both silly names. Why is it Rail-Link instead of railway. What's wrong with Continental Main Line? I though CTRL was bad but HS1 is worse. Tony May (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Notes

Department for Transport Annual Report 2007 "Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL, but also known as High Speed One);". —Sladen (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"Channel Tunnel Rail Link"→"High Speed 1" search and replace

As picked up by User:DavidArthur in the edit history it appears that an enthusiastic search of replace of most mentions of "Channel Tunnel Rail Link" by "High Speed 1" throughout Wikipedia has introduced a number of factual inaccuracies. These need to be reviewed and double-checked, it appears the most of the suspect changes can be found by checking ~2007-11-24 on Special:Contributions/Alcuin. —Sladen (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

As pointed out by Sladen, the vast majority of changes can be found in my contributions or the 'what links here' page. I think the bigger issue here is whether it's appropriate to refer to this rail line as HS1 or as CTRL in articles that reference its construction. What are everyone's thoughts? Alcuin (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
My view is that, in order to keep things representative and properly historical, we should use High Speed 1 for the line as built, and Channel Tunnel Rail Link when describing anything that happened before the renaming. David Arthur (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy with this suggestion. The first point at which Eurostar/LCR heavily started to use to the High Speed 1 nonclamenture was during summer the high-speed record runs from Paris/Brussels for the media. Would this be a good (arbitrary) point to use as a guide; most of the infrastructure and construction ("CTRL") would fall before this and references surrounding the re-opening of St. Pancras and the new line (as well as the first record runs) would fall after ("HS1"). If other people are happy with that, I would be. I think it roughly reflects Eurostar usage and change in prominence. If we go for this, the redirect will take care of the linking—that's what it's there for—we wouldn'tt end up with the awkwardness of putting both names everywhere (like was beginning to happen with Brussels Midi/Zuid/South).
I'm happy to side-step the two remaining issues of (a) the four years spent running over CTRL1 (call this "CTRL Section 1"?) and (b) the CTRL-DS opening until those services actually start—I would suspect ("HS1", eg. [3]), though I don't know what Southeastern (train operating company) are going to use once their trains start arriving in quantity and they proceed with actual running of those services; they may choose to append something, as has been done with the "-DS" postfix so-far. —Sladen (talk) 12:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm pleased that this discussion has started as HS-1 mania was worrying me too. Perhaps I have a different slant on the differences- to me, the CTRL track runs through Kent and all Thames GateWay documents and I don't see that changing- regardless of ministerial announcements. It makes as much sense as referring to the travelling down the E15 between Narbonne and Perpignan while the world and his nephew call it the A9. Network South East became Connex became Southeastern but we still refer to the Chatham Main Line. I think the term should be CRTL,currently called the HS-1 and redirect all back to CTRL. As for the future- does anyone honestly believe that the appellation of this track will survive intact the through the 2012, Olympic renaming onslaught? ClemRutter 17:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Certainly there’s always the possibility that High Speed 1 will be re-named, but how does using its former name solve anything? David Arthur 18:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Note to ClemRutter - your comments aren't consistent. High Speed 1 is the brand name of a railway line (future use of 'HS1' in official literature in place of/alongside 'CTRL' remains to be seen for now), while NSE/Connex/Southeastern were/are brand names of train operating companies. The Euroroute names aren't even the responsibility of the governments whose countries have such routes (they are in fact the responsibility of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe), although I accept that most of those countries recognise the Euroroute names and have used them alongside, or even in place of the 'sovereign' route names. Edvid (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

London West Tunnel

I think this possibly unique feature should be mentioned in the article, although it is only small. At the St Pancras end of the London West Tunnel, the CTRL is still in tunnel when passing over the East Coast Main Line. Upon passing over this tunnel\bridge whilst heading west, the tunnel open up after the bridge then swings south to St Pancras. Simply south (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

For a visual representation, see here. Simply south (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No it's an enclosed bridge. The tunnel starts where the CTRL has soil above it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.234.190 (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Gifford Street Portal is on the west side of the ECML. As it happens, I just found this interesting document about the intended sale of the land above the portal: Land Sale above Gifford Street Portal & London Tunnels which has some diagrams on page 14. —Sladen (talk) 01:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Miles

Ok, this has been done before, but I still think that miles should be included (at least in brackets).

  1. Whilst this line is in metric, all other UK roads and railways are in Imperial. In fact, a road/rail/foot sign in metres/km is against the law in the UK. In the UK, signs must be in Imperial only (excluding height restrictions which have to include both). Therefore people are used to Imperial.
  2. The French/other countries in Europe will not look at this page, it is primarily the UK and the USA, both whom use miles.
  3. Most Wiki articles concerning the UK in this way imperial units.
  4. Most people in the UK understand and are used to Imperial.

So I am not calling for a complete change like a user did before. I understand that the line was built in metric etc. However, it would do no harm/be useful to put miles in brackets.

Regards, Dewarw (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Including them in brackets makes sense, I suppose, but to give the primary figures in miles for a metric line would be as wrong as giving figures in kilometres for a line built in miles. David Arthur (talk) 20:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I want them in brackets for that reason. However, I think the speed is in mph. Dewarw (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
NB: In the case of the CTRL, the speed limits are most definitely in metric; which are primarily displayed via cab signalling. —Sladen (talk) 05:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
You can consider to use conversion template - Template:Km to mi --Jklamo (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Er, can you cite your source for your claim that 'a road/rail/foot sign in metres/km is against the law in the UK', please? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There'll be something in the CTRL Bill passed through parliament which grants it an exception to use kilometres rather than miles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.234.190 (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Schedule 9 of the CTRL Act 1996 provides an exemption against the relevant section of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. –Signalhead < T > 14:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The French/other countries in Europe will not look at this page, it is primarily the UK and the USA, both whom use miles. How do you know? There is at least one counterexample: me.--92.228.223.65 (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Fare

Can anybody add a section of it's fare history?--TheEgyptian (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, it's about £12M/annum, but that covers you for running 50+ trains/day. Could you describe in a bit more detail exactly what sort of "fare history" you specifically had in mind? —Sladen (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually what I meant was the ticket prices, sorry for the misunderstanding :) --TheEgyptian (talk) 05:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

High Speed 1 is a physical railway line, rather than a train service, and so doesn't have fares as such: its owners collect access fees from train operating companies, rather than fares from individual passengers. At present Eurostar operate the only passenger trains using the line (rather expensive international ones), but they will be joined not too long from now by South Eastern Trains, who will be using it for fast domestic services and charging a premium fare. David Arthur (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


Speed

What speeds do Eurostar trains travel at on HS-1? I think the article should mention kph/mph speeds somewhere in the introduction (perhaps in the sentances regarding journey times) becuase at present I don't think it's obvious what the line's top operational speed is (and having read a few referenced links, I'm still not actually sure what it is) even though I think it's highly relevant given the track's status as Britain's premier "high-speed railway line". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tachy99 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, 300 km/h for CTRL1, 270 km/h for CTRL2, 270 km/h running "wrong line", 200 km/h for the first train of the day. —Sladen (talk) 14:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Map used by Network Rail themselves

This is satisfying, as published by Network Rail et al:

and they've used the CTRL rail template diagram for their Network Map. I guess now we know that it's 100% verifiable! —Sladen (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

What's up with the kmh-mph auto conversion?

One line reads "the new link allows trains to travel at speeds of 300 kilometres per hour (190 mph)". 300 kmh is 186 mph not 190. I see that an auto convertion edit tool was used, what's up with it being so inaccurate? Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

What is up is that the tool is guessing that there are only two significant figures in the 300 number. You need to tell the template that there is more precision than that. I have made the change, and you can see the conversion is now 186 mph, precise to the ones. Good catch, anyway! Cheers, —fudoreaper (talk) 06:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Opening dates

Isn't the December date for the power switch on? I am pretty sure this is the case, then testing can commence.

Travel time

It is now possible to travel from London St Pancras to Paris Gare du Nord
in 2 hours 15 minutes, and to Brussels South in 1 hour 51 minutes.[6]

Technically correct, if specified as "wheels are rolling"-time. Similar to "plane is airborne"-time, and hence misleading, as even air traffic defines its travel times differently (IIRC block time).

On High-speed rail in Sweden there is a travel time comparison table which uses Air, year 2009 incl. checkin for the plane, and hence I feel that Eurostar(UK) incl. checkin would be the most appropriate time to show. -- Klaus with K (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I get your point, but surely with 10 min check in possible [4], it's not that signicant - I would normally aim to get to my local railway station with 10 minutes to spare to get a local train. It's not the same as "plane is airborne", as there can be signicant time taxiing as well as check in time. And this is an article on the line, not the service, so the time that trains routinely take is important, not what regulations require. I would feel that check in times would be better presented on the Eurostar article, rather than here. Edgepedia (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
While I would like to argue about 10min best value or 30min median value (but I won't). And I still feel that the travel times as they are presented are misleading. I do however take your point that Eurostar is more appropriate. -- Klaus with K (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
P.S. What about: "After check-in, it is now possible to travel ... " -- Klaus with K (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thurrock viaduct

In view of this report,

The following evening, on 19 December 2009 an extra Eurostar service from Paris broke down. The train successfully negotiated the Channel Tunnel itself, then broke down outside. A second train was sent to tow the first to London, but failed at 18:25 whilst trying to haul it up a steep incline crossing Thurrock Viaduct on the outskirts of London.[1]

would there be value in adding a section about the Thurrock viaduct, or is it just a detail in the scehme of things? Is it particularly steep by railway standards? Or was the loco just slipping on frozen rails?

  1. ^ "Eurostar train becomes stranded on way from Paris". BBC News Online. 2009-12-19. Retrieved 2009-12-19.

-- 12:35, 21 December 2009 user:John Maynard Friedman (talk | contribs)

loading-gauge

It would be interesting to know whether the channel tunnel and CTRL will allow continental loading-gauge trains to reach London. If they could, one could scrap the nasty, poky EuroStar stock.

  • The Tunnel has a huge loading gauge for the shuttle (ie the arctic lorries on flatbeds), i don't know about the CTRL though - one assumes at least W10. However the stock using the CTRL also needs to go other places eg the depot at North Pole (accessed via North London and West London Lines) and use the diversion routes such as the Chatham main line which are only W8 or W9 (and all British gauges have different platform to mainland Europe despite being standard gauge .....) Pickle 19:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I was told by someone who was connected to with the CTRL that the Eurostars don't run at full spedd in the UK, when using the track. This was because the track was angled in order to take freight wagons on it. If the Eurostar's were to go full speed the angle would need to be greater than it is now (on corners etc). This would be fine for the Eurostars, but freight wagons would have the load tipping all over the place and could cause spillage etc. In saying this the CTRL has never seen frieght use. Whether it will is unclear. The Singlewell freight loops are also being re-modelled. Does anyone know what for?--Screen42 13:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Reading about the CTRL yes there have been many freight loops put in (singlewell being one), but I've no idea what the work that they have been doing there for some time is for. the CTRL (as i understand it) is designed as a high speed passenger railway with he ability to take light freight. It is explicitly not meant to take heavy freight - the Ashford to Swanley Junction branch off the Chatham Main Line and Redhill to Ashford lines were upgraded to W9 clearance specifically for CTRL freight. Pickle 18:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a mention from Hansard some years ago about how the CTRL should conform to the UIC "C" loading gauge: [5] (scroll to bottom of page). There's also a mention of the CTRL having a "European loading gauge" here: [6].

From memory: loading gauge C up to the beginning of the long London tunnels, then B or B+ right into the terminus. Maybe platform geometry adaptation might be needed. But have a look why the Eurostar calling points are operated like airports and contrast this with proper railway stations and you might stumble across more significant obstacles than loading gauge.Klaus with K 15:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
If i understand it correctly the eurostars can only use certain platforms at Ashford and ebbsfleet due to their loading gauge (something to do with height from platform). CTRL-DS stock will run the same lines but use normal platforms (again re height) - if i understand the difference in UIC (ie european) and GB loading gauges correctly, a) GB tunnels (and other infrastructure above the train) is very curved (cutting the corners offs) and b) GB platforms stick out a long way, so we may use standard gauge between the rails but the width at the bottom of a european rail vehicle would hit GB platforms as they stick out) - hope that helps Pickle 20:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I have just added and cited loading gauge details to the article, (it is GB+ btw).PeterEastern (talk) 12:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Article

Good Article Nomination

Good evening (GMT time); I have reviewed this article on 18:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC) in accordance with the Good Article (GA) criteria. There are seven main criteria that the article must comply with to pass:

  1. Well-written: Pass
  2. Factually accurate: Pass
  3. Broad: Pass
  4. Neutrally written: Pass
  5. Stable: Pass
  6. Well-referenced: Pass
  7. Images: Pass

I have concluded that, in my opinion, the article has passed all categories and I therefore award it GA status. Congratulations to the lead editors, and keep up the excellent work!

Kindest regards,
anthonycfc [talk] 18:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Any idea why is the date/time for this review set to the current time rather than the time/date when the review occurred? I was confused the first time I saw it and thought the review had happened today. It seems that the review actually happened in 2007! PeterEastern (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Article in need of serious overhaul

To be honest, I do not know why this is a GA. The writing seems sloppy, with very little if any references. The referencing is awful, a GA should have boatloads of references, certainly not under 25 to its name before I started making improvements. Some of the information is dangerously close to triva and is trivial and unmentionable, doubly so in many cases as it appears to be lacking substance or relivance. Rather than listing this page for a reassessment which will almost certainly result in this article being stripped of its status, in light of its clear importance and the ease of finding sources and information, I'm giving this notice of warning to all editors who have care for the article that they need to sorely help this page out. This is going to need a major top-to-bottom shakeup, there could very easily be over a hundred references attatched to statements just in the rough counting that I have already made. I'm doing my best, but help would be appreciated, as it'll take more than one person to make everything ship-shape as it should be.81.111.115.63 (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you. This was probably rated a good article compared to other rail articles at the time, but that does not mean it cannot be improved. You're the same editor who contributed an enormous amount to Eurostar, right? You did great work there, especially getting over 100 references for basically all the important statements. Any reason why you don't have a user account? If you contribute in the same way to this article, everyone will appreciate it, you're doing great work. :) I will help where i can, though i am not an expert on railways or rail in the UK. But I can copy-edit and provide feedback. Cheers —fudoreaper (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
To start this comment off, though I'd make clear that I'm 81.111.115.63 under a different IP. Sorry for not responding quickly to your comment, moving house (and ISP for that matter) means I'll no longer be appearing under my old name. And yes, I'm the same guy who banged together 140 references for the Eurostar, a very nice and neat topic, not to mention well documented by various media organisations and its owners. Recently I've been working on getting Docklands Light Railway up to scratch after it lost its GA status, got 60 more references in there and am struggling now, but I'm hoping to make it a nice round 100+. One of the primary ways I find sources is via Google, often Google News searches, going back over certain time periods and keyword topics to tease out offical sources around at the time, though it is often quite hard to make these references sometimes. Any help here is appreciated, I'll try to spend some time breaking into this article more, and implimenting a proper structure from which it can grow to current expectations of quality.86.155.132.194 (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Well as some measure of progress, references have travelled from being roughly 25 throughout the page to 50 currently. This still needs work, and I'll continue to do my best, but it is nice to see that the page is progressing after years of idling. This article will shape up to the grade it has been given, with effort.86.155.132.194 (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I have actually logged onto my rarely-used user account, this is the above IPs for those wanting to know (confusing isn't it?). I'm going to continue developing this article for now, 65 references now cited and several more original ones overhauled to proper standards. I'll be trying for 75 references right now, which I am more than sure is possible, and take it from there. Any copyediting will be appreciated, as well as some imaginative new catagories of information to build up.Kyteto (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Success in making it to 80, first time I've worked on this article in a while. I've also installed an extensive Bibliography and Further Reading section, this page is really beginning to look professional and at the standard a GA would be expected to be at. If anybody cares to make some input, I would be very willing to listen; able to help and that's just as good. Kyteto (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I have done a reasonable amount of work on the article over the past 24 hours. I hope people feel it is an improvement. PeterEastern (talk) 12:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Freight operations?

We currently state "While High Speed 1 was constructed with passing loops for freight usage" and the associated link is dead. Having just used google eaerth to traverse the line other than stations and at Cheriton, the only place with a passing loop is the Singlewell Infrastructure Maintenance Depot (so I created an article about it ;-P) I'm therefore inclined to delete the statement (singular isn't plural, and pdf about the depot suggests the passing loops weren't directly for freight anyway) unless someone can supply some evidence / locations. --AlisonW (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a passing loop at 'Lenham Sidings'. I'll find it on google maps for you later. Edgepedia (talk) 10:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Lat/Long 51.208214,0.746148. Currently used by Engineering trains. (but that's OR)Edgepedia (talk) 10:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Photos on Flickr [7] Edgepedia (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah yes. No idea how I missed it, Ta. --AlisonW (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The CTRL/HS1 Network Statement explicitly mentions looping possibilities at Lenham, Singlewell, Ebbsfleet, and Stratford "for train regulation purposes". There's also multiple tracks between the tunnel mouth/Eurotunnel interface and Dollands Moor, and (if really desparate) through Dollands Moor Yard. Note that the speed restriction diverging from the main line, via the freight loops, and back onto the main line is still 160 kilometres per hour! —Sladen (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, two loops plus the stations/tunnel entrance. Would be interesting to see them try and use the loop at full speed though! (I wouldn't advise it!) --AlisonW (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:High Speed 1/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I will be doing the GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is very informative and comprehensive. I'll outline a few concerns that I have here:

1. Per WP:LEAD the lead is to contain a summary of all the main points of the article. In this case the lead should be expanded to conform to this requirement. Specifically I do not see anything in the lead about: the history of the project, and the cost crises in 1998, and 2001, and future plans for the project.

2. In the Project section at the end there is a statement that on Oct. 12, 2009 it was announced that 16 billion pounds of stock were to be sold to cover public debt. What was the result of this? Has the sale happened? What is the current financial situation of the project?

From my perspective nothing has happened. It's much like most political ideas broadcasted before an election, the action will happen afterwards. Though likelihood is that it's going to be hard sell to pursuade anybody to take the line on; no news on interested parties that want to buy it. Kyteto (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

3. Watch overlinking Channel Tunnel. It's a small thing but I noted at least 5 times in the article where the term was linked.

 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

4. In the St. Pancras station section there is a [citation needed] template from December 2009, this should be addressed.

5. There is a brief allusion to "early protests" in the Tunnels subsection of the Infrastructure section. What early protests?

6. There is another [citation needed] template in the Southeastern subsection of the Operators section.

7. I'm a little skeptical of the final section, Additional information. Could this be better organized, or folded into the rest of the article. This section is essentially "miscellaneous", with a hodge podge of facts. The information is good and very topical. It just seems like most of it could find a home in other sections. For example, the paragraph on deaths could go either into the Project or Route section, perhaps having a subsection on construction in one of those sections would work. That would also create a place for the second paragraph on construction.

8. There are several dead links in the reference section: Ref. 20 requires a subscription and this should be specified in the ref, ref 38 links to the most recent issue rather than issue 75, refs 37, 43, 79, and 69 are dead links. These will need to be fixed.

Could you point the dead links out to us again please? The reordering of the article makes the currently listed numbers invalid; that way we can find them and fix them. Kyteto (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
You've made a lot of progress, the only link that appears to have issues is Ref 63, my ISP won't open it, but that could be me. If you find it working and ok then disregard. Also I'm not sure if this was something on the to do list but I note several references have simply the web site with no publisher or accessdate. These include: 17, 18, 64, and 93 isn't really a complete reference either (it should include title of the article and the date as well as accessdate). H1nkles (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
For #63 do you mean the CNN one? It loads for me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 Done I've updated the other references. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes the CNN one, if it loads for you then it is probably just my thing so no problem. Thanks. H1nkles (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

In conclusion I feel that this article is very good it just doesn't quite meet the GA Criteria as it currently stands. To boil down the assessment into my make or break issues I would say the lead needs to be expanded, the references need to be fixed and the [citation needed] templates should be addressed. The rest is more my opinion of the article and wouldn't disqualify it from GA status. I will put the article on hold for one week pending work. If you have questions or concerns please notify me at my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed Ref 20. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Please note that soon after this assessment, a major edit was done, which changed all these refs. However, I've found them: 37, Railway Gazette International needs a subsciption and logging in so I've marked it as such, saveashfordinternational and The HS1 list of contractors I've located on archive.org and changed the links to this. The Arup HS1 document wasn't needed as the whole sentence could be referenced by the one at the end of the sentence. However, I couldn't find Railway Hearld 75 in it's usual place so I've marked it as dead for the moment. Edgepedia (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
[citation needed] templates. One of these refers to the "security-sealed terminal area for Eurostar trains". This is very likely to be discussed in "From concept to reality". Modern Railways (Ian Allan Publishing): pp. 51. November 2007. Anyone got a copy? It's also shown on the Station map [8]. Not sure about the "designed for fast accerlation"; there's some comment about it in blogs, but I can't find a reference and it's not mentioned in the class 395 article. I suggest we just cut it out. Edgepedia (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the sale of HS1, the reference gives a timescale of two years. It was announced 4 months ago, I haven't heard anything and I doubt anything will be made public until the sale as been finalised. Edgepedia (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Noted, this suggestion re: comprehensiveness is not a make or break issue, I figured it was still unresolved. No need to pursue that further, thanks for checking. H1nkles (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I've fixed the Railway Herald issue, they have a new website: http://www.railwayherald.org/. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Citation demands have been taken care of. Additional Information section has been redistributed by me. I have also cited the Early Protests against the plans. Kyteto (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that rating this article as GA is premature. I think that it is a good Cat B, but that is all. There is not enough on the history of the project, nor on the infrastructure. The article is padded to heavily by the Operations section, which as always happens, is stuffed with too much information on the trains and routes served, which is related too, but not really a primary part of the article. Bhtpbank (talk) 07:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, I am inclined to agree with you that the GA status of this article has been somewhat undeserving. Back in mid 2007 the user anthonycfc kicked a whole load of railway-related articles up to GA class with no discussion or review process. Now the GA process wasn't as developed as it was by the following year; but the process did not seem to perform actualy quality checks and improvements to the article itself, simply a two minute tick-off and dash onto the next article. I've already done much to bring this article up, having more than doubled the references in the past (it was in a great deal worse shape back in August 2009!) but it is still lacking in my own eyes. To be honest, I'm happy enough with it retaining its GA status as many of the flaws that people have pointed out over the last few months have actually been worked on, but I have my doubts as to weither it would be able to rise from GA status today if it were still a B class now. I would prefer if this article is to lose its GA status, then its flaws be listed and editors given the time to fix them. Kyteto (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Could it be dropped to an A class article? Or is that a silly suggestion? I suggest it because every vaguely decent article of a decent length seems to be B class. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
A class is well above GA class. Mjroots (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I am gratified that this review has generated discussion on the article's GA merits. This is the point of the GA Sweeps project, to go through the old articles promoted prior to the tightening of the GA standards. I usually approach these reviews from the perspective that the burden of proof is on the side of demoting. That there needs to be enough evidence that the article doesn't meet GA Criteria to overcome the status quo. I've listed the flaws that I have found in my review and it appears as though editors are working on them. I am admittedly not an expert in this field and so I could not adequately speak to the comprehensive issues raised by Bhtpbank. We have some time, and I can extend the hold by a week if editors would like a little more time to work on it. If you don't feel that the article can be improved by the end of February then I will likely demote it to a B class as we are at the very end of the Sweeps project and just trying to get the last articles done. Thank you all for your commitment to the quality of the articles. Let me know what you think. H1nkles (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
It's been a week and so I'm wondering where are we at with this review? Would you like me to extend the hold or do you feel it is ready to be reviewed again? What about the concerns of Users Bhtpbank and Kyeto? Have those been addressed? I can certainly read through the article and give my assessment of the progress if that is what you'd like. H1nkles (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
If you could read through the article and give an assessment of the progress that would be good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Second Review

  • Lead is good
  • In the Project section, is there a way to either expand the last sentence or fold it in to the preceding paragraph? A one-sentence paragraph, a stub, is not ideal. Also has there been any developments on the February 2006 attempted take over? The paragraph is sort of left hanging. If nothing has progressed then perhaps put something to that effect so that readers are not left feeling like the article is out of date.
  • See WP:access regarding layout of images, the images should not spill over from one section, or sub-section, to another. I'm looking mostly at the Route and Stations sections. Personally I think there are plenty of images in the article and some of the less informative images could be removed. Remember not to force the size down if at all possible.
  • I also noticed that the "High Speed One/CTRL" info box has no reference in it. Is this intentional? I'm not familiar enough with transportation articles to know if this is necessary but it seems like it should have one.

I think there has been great progress made. I can't speak to the concerns of the other users and I will ask them to join the conversation at this point. If you address these issues and they are happy with the article from a comprehensive stand point then I'll keep it. H1nkles (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've expanded the last paragraph of the project section and removed a couple of the images. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
On the infobox these route maps don't usually have sources. See for example Template:Circle Line RDT and even Template:C&SLR_route_map which is in a featured article (City and South London Railway). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, that's good just figured I'd ask. Thanks for getting back to me. I've placed a request on the talk pages of the two editors that had listed concerns about this article's GA status. I'll give them a few days to respond. H1nkles (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I can't see any major outstanding problems remaining now, in my own opinion I think the article should now remain as a Good Article. There will have to be some changes in several months time when freight operations begin and the line is truely brought into use (and once again when the Midland Main Line is refitted in the distant future for overhead electrical operation and regauged, which in turn will boost the usefulness of the freight route into Europe). Nothing else preoccupies my mind in terms of High Speed 1. Kyteto (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Given the work done on the article I will keep it as GA, my thanks to the other reviewers and editors who worked hard to maintain this article at GA Standards. H1nkles (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

New main image

Anyone mind if I put up a new picture? It includes a Eurostar in the image I propose to display as the main image.--Screen42 (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

There are already plenty of pictures of Class 373s/Class 395s operating on the CTRL (see slightly further down the article). My recollection of the choosing of the current train-less picture was intention—that this article is specifically about the railway line itself. —Sladen (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Auto archive

I seem to spend my whole life doing this :p. But this talk page is getting a little long, can we auto-archive (90 days/5 threads minimum remaining). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in High Speed 1

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of High Speed 1's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "highspeedwho":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done Edgepedia (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

London tunnel names

The line diagram shows the three tunnels between St Pancras International and Ebbsfleet International as (from West to East) 'London West tunnel', 'London East tunnel' and 'River Thames tunnel'. I note the lack of capitalization of tunnel, possibly indicating that the original editor regarded these as descriptions rather than names?

In any case, Quail (vol 5, 3rd ed.) gives the names of the tunnels as 'London Tunnel 1', 'London Tunnel 2' and 'Thames Tunnel'.

I've found a case study document from Tyco Fire & Integrated Solutions, which talks about their work to install fire hydrants in the CTRL tunnels, and they use the same names as Quail that I cite above.

Document here: http://www.tycofis.co.uk/markets-literature-folder/traffic-case-studies.pdf

I can't immediately find any references to "London West Tunnel" outside of Wikipedia and it's derivatives, except in the line diagram in the appendix to the HS1 Ltd Network Statement. (I confess I haven't looked hard, though) However, the HS1 Ltd line diagram looks suspiciously as if it was lifted from Wikipedia.

Document here: http://www.highspeed1.com/resources/documents/HS1%20Network%20Statement.pdf

Do other people believe that the names currently used on this page are correct? Would there be support for changing the page to use the names from the sources above? Roy Badami (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If its not currently sourced, and the new names are sourced by all means change them :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
London Tunnel 1 and London Tunnel 2 are also what the Infrastructure Register uses[9]. —Sladen (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
That reference confirms Thames Tunnel too - thanks! Roy Badami (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of China content

Good call, that is essentially WP:CRYSTALBALL. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Map

This article needs a geographical map 82.46.109.233 (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a fair suggestion. I've created an OpenStreetmap relation=2236601 with all the pieces of track, from which somebody should be able to dive in and make maps! —Sladen (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Fourth report

Fresh material:

—Sladen (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Dead links and various

Please detail the points you disagree with before reverting in block my modification, that do not correspond to the comment you left for the revert. A bit of politeness doesn't hurt. Regards, Freewol (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Good morning Freewol, thank you for the prompting. I was pondering whether to follow it up on User talk:Freewol or Talk:High Speed 1. I dithered and returned to other activities. The changes in the edit were:
  1. Forward-looking intended deployment of ICE 407 and e320 Velaro units. This is covered in the article and differentiated with italics
  2. Changing of {{convert|230|to|300}} to {{convert|300}} and removing the two references backing that up. The speed profile charts are in the Register of Infrastructure[16]. Only just under half of the route is capable of 300 km/h operation (40km between CH40+000→CH80+064 and and 14km between CH89+864→CH104+647). The whole of CTRL2 is at, or below 230 km/h.
  3. Linkifying London. WP:OVERLINK recommends that "names of major geographic features and locations" are not linked.
  4. "a big" engineering project gives little information as it is not measured against anything.
  5. "through Kent"; I think was an improvement. I'm sorry for having reverted it at the same time.
  6. unhiding "UK"; I think was an improvement. I'm sorry for having reverted it at the same time, IIRC it used to be expanded, and somebody must have hidden it at some point. I misinterpreted the edit looking at it.
–Sladen (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. I will paste your remarks to answer them :
  1. Forward-looking intended deployment of ICE 407 and e320 Velaro units. This is covered in the article and differentiated with italics
    For me it is not the purpose of the infobox to indicate future developpement, since it doesn't allow explanations, and future developpement is necessarily only hypothesis and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Covering it in the article is enough for me.
  2. Changing of {{convert|230|to|300}} to {{convert|300}} and removing the two references backing that up. The speed profile charts are in the Register of Infrastructure[17]. Only just under half of the route is capable of 300 km/h operation (40km between CH40+000→CH80+064 and and 14km between CH89+864→CH104+647). The whole of CTRL2 is at, or below 230 km/h.
    I think the "230 to 300 km/h" is very disturbing, as the reader has no way to know what this means. It is very far from the complete information that the maximum speed is 300 km/h on part of it, and 230 km/h on another part of it. Also, every railway line has a varying max speed, it is never the same on all of it. So when we say 'this line has a top speed of 300 km/h, it necessarily means "on some part of it"'. So it is not erroneous for me to indicate 300 km/h in the infobox. In the introduction, I took the information there : "Over most of its length, the design allows for trains with a maximum axleload of 17 tonnes running at 300 km/h using transmission-based signalling." Are you saying this article is wrong ? Or not precise enough ?
    By the way, the two external links I have removed where dead links for me, please verify it.
  3. Linkifying London. WP:OVERLINK recommends that "names of major geographic features and locations" are not linked.
    I am very convinced that the introduction needs a link to London as it is one end of the line. But I wouldn't mind removing it, since I am a great supporter of WP:OVERLINK.
  4. "a big" engineering project gives little information as it is not measured against anything.
    "one of the United Kingdom's largest civil engineering projects" is a lot worse for me. Maybe this whole sentence could be removed.
Regards. Freewol (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Just two comments: The lead and infobox are a summary of the article so why are there so many references in the lead? The speed limit is less than 230 km/h over a 1/3 of the railway's length (St. Pancras - Ebbsfleet [37km]/St. Pancras - CTRL Boundary [108km]) - doesn't this make it significant enough to mention? Edgepedia (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I've just reverted once again the recent additions made by User:Freewol and will briefly set out the reasons why:
  • Two sources were removed on the basis that the URLs were dead. The archived version of one has been added and the other has been replaced by another source which supports the claim set out in the corresponding sentence, i.e. 230kph on section 2.
  • The replacement of "230-300 kph" with "300 kph" when referring to line speed. This is clearly wrong as the line speed is limited on section 2 to 230kph.
  • The replacement of "one of the United Kingdom's largest civil engineering projects" by "a big civil engineering project". The original text is more professional and if it needs a reference, I'm sure one can be found.
  • The removal of the 2014- DB services from the infobox. Given that these services are due to be introduced in the near future, I see no reason why they should not be mentioned here.
Lamberhurst (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/chunnel/
    Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/highspeedone/
    Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.railway-technology.com/features/feature1345
    Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.railway-technology.com/features/feature1345/
    Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.railway-technology.com/news/newsdb-schenker-to-upgrade-locomotives-for-high-speed-1-service/
    Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Links in and out of Ashford Depot

There appears to be a new chord providing access to/from the Ashford from the Ashford station side which isn't on the schematic. Fooflington (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on High Speed 1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Errors

Thank you to Imaginatorium for flagging[18] and to Alarics for nuking this[19]. This and a load of other errors were introduced by this edit[20]. The rest of which still needs cleaning up/reverting. (In retrospect, a straight revert would probably have been better given the number of errors introduced). —Sladen (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Please go ahead and revert all of it then. -- Alarics (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 Done[21]. —Sladen (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on High Speed 1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:High_Speed_1/Archive_1"