Talk:Eurostar

Comments

Traffic on eurostar appears to be way below original forecasts when the tunnel was built. I see 7.3m passengers in 2004 [1], compared with original forecast of 17.1m [2]. This explains the financial problems in debt servicing of eurotunnel.

Extension

Are there any plans for extending the Eurostar across Europe in the future? For example extending the line to Berlin etc. Or if it is not planned could it be one day expected to happen?

Generally passengers change at Paris or Brussels onto other international trains. -- malsdavis

The Eurostar trains were designed for the specification of going through the Chunnel Tunnel and operating on the system they do (safety features, electrical pickups...) and as such they are wasted on journeys that don't go through the Chunnel. Three repainted sets are used domestically within France (and the line to Brussels). There are the Eurostar ski-services, the daily service to Disney-Land and weekly service to Avignon, all of which combine extra distance with the cross-channel segment. The only other route that has been talked about (by the CEO of Eurostar) is having a direct service to London->Amsterdam on the Dutch HSL-Zuid. The trade-off of is asking passengers to walk across the platform, verses running an entirely duplicated service; additional passport handling in Amsterdam and of course the signalling and possibly pantograph upgrades for the new High Speed line. Sladen 00:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Stations and Information for Passangers

The London stations are mentioned breifly but the Paris and Brussels stations are not. It could be useful for future passengers of the Eurostar to include a bit more information on the various stations served aswell as other such journey details.

Satellites

"Eurostar" is also the name of a line of satellites made by EADS Astrium, as is shown here.

Trivia Section

Where is this information sourced from?

Whears some of it appears to be true, some "facts" I find hard to believe. I also wonder whether this section could not be reduced, does the article really require the explanation of the conventions used for the 4-digit ID numbers of power cars and other such extremely trivial trivia? Canderra 17:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say you're right to be suspicious. 'Waterloo is the only UK gateway to have French border controls'. Wonder who those guys who looked at my passport in Dover were then? Also, 'franglais' usually is used to designate someone who can't really speak french filling in words they don't know with their english equivalents Indigenius 01:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not really correct practice to include informal "comment" in italics under each bullet point. I am apprehensive about attempting to amalgamate the italic additions with the original trvia, since I am unsure which, if either is correct. But I do feel that some effort should be made to fix this inappropriate tone or maybe just remove the "incorrect" parts entirely. 80.177.20.202 21:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the Trivia section is a shambles. Personally, I would like to see the trivia section either completely removed or at least reduced down to just a few lines of actually interesting trivia facts. There are other websites where prople can find information on every nut, bolt and serial number of every train, but Wikipedia is not the place for such pedantic information. Would anyone object to the removal of all but the remotely informative trivia pieces? Canderra 21:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed all the pedantic responses - I merged in some of the useful bits and deleted some of the stuff that they disagreed with. I've also reorganised the trivia by topic as the first step to making this into a proper article --Dtcdthingy 02:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have commented out the entire Trivia section for now. Apart from the issue of there being absolutly no references or way to backup any of the claims made, the vast majority of the "trivia" is not really trivia appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Most people seem to agree that it is the main detrement to the article. Information on immigration services at either end of the tunnel, advice for disabled customers and how many frequent flyer miles using the service gains a customer is not appropriate for this article. If anyone thinks that a piece of information contained within the trivia section is valid then it should be intregrated into the body of the rest of the body of the article. In a month or two's time I will completely remove the Trivia section from the source code. Canderra 17:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The "Rolling Stock" section is already beginning to look like the old "Trivia" section also. This definatly needs improvement. This is an encyclopedia article. Not a train fanatic's guide to every little nut and bolt used in the Eurostar trains. Canderra 17:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Canderra for you efforts and action. I truly hope tis is an end to the trivia, which quite frankly was silly. NoelWalley 18:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

 Done I've incorporated one or two pieces of trivia into the main article, transferred some to other articles, and deleted the rest. Regarding the rolling stock section, I've transferred the technical stuff to the British Rail Class 373 article where it sits more naturally, and re-named the section to Train fleet. I hope this is an improvement. --JCG33 (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

References please

The article is fun and well written, but it feels journalistic, not encyclopaedic.

I'd lke to see either more references or a serious rewrite. While I would regret the lack of fun, the wiki ethos means we need to have this backed up with references or ot should go. Thsi is, in partm, the trivia section.

Fiddle Faddle 22:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Quite right Fiddle Faddle, I entirely agree. NoelWalley 18:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

 Done I've re-written quite a bit of the article, and re-organised most of it. I've also added some references, although it probably needs more. I hope you think it's more encyclopaedic now. --JCG33 (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to make a record of this; we have reached 50 references on the page now! This is a good mark, but we can do better. I'll keep my eye on the news and add significant things when I see them. We've come a long way, lets keep it up! 81.111.115.63 (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've done some more work on it, we've now hit 80 references. Feel free to look them over, this page is now becoming highly sourced, with no small part to myself if I don't mind saying so. :P Keep on working wiki'ers! 81.111.115.63 (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well there's 101 notes and references to the article, just reached it today. 81.111.115.63 (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

And there goes 130 :P 81.111.115.63 (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Good work! You are adding refs like crazy recently, and it's all good. Cheers —fudoreaper (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

152 references now on the page, I've added over a hundred references to the page in the last month. Glad to know it is being appreciated :) 81.111.115.63 (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

162 references achieved today, wonder if this article is coming any closer to GA standards?81.111.115.63 (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not submit it for WP:GAN? It does not appear to be a candidate for an immediate failure; I suspect that it will either be passed, or put On Hold (for remedial action).Pyrotec (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

That would make sense, I was just waiting for some confirming opinions that this article was ready for it; and to see if there were any more obvious flaws that could be drawn out and resolved (as to not stain a GA with simple mistakes I didn't notice). If you think it is good and ready, I'll look up how to submit it.81.111.115.63 (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

And there goes 175 references, thanks to the latest reshuffle. I wonder if this page is going to be made a GA? 81.111.115.63 (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Eurostar Routes

How bad can computer graphics get? We would be far better of without these clumsy lists. NoelWalley 18:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree somewhat, although the idea of including a schematic sounds good to me. By far the main current route served by Eurostar is the London Waterloo to Paris Gare du Nord and vice versa (with slightly less, but still a significant number, serving Brussels Gare du Midi). The graphic shown though hardly makes it obvious these are even routes. The graphics seems to concerntrate more on routes that either don't exist yet or are only served by special services. Canderra 18:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:BS-table1Template:BSTemplate:BSTemplate:BSTemplate:BSTemplate:BSTemplate:BSTemplate:BSTemplate:BSTemplate:BSTemplate:BSTemplate:BSTemplate:BSTemplate:BSTemplate:BSTemplate:BSTemplate:BSTemplate:BSTemplate:BSTemplate:BS

|}

Perhaps you prefer this? I am not sure whether it is correct, but you can adapt it if you like. See Wikipedia:Railway line template and have fun. HandigeHarry 17:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I see what your trying to do, give a while and i cna correct it Pickle 20:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've used HandigeHarry 's worka bove to create the table at Ashford via Maidstone East Line. Eurostar's haven't used that since CTRL stage 1 opened so the above table would need copious work before it acuratly represented what takes place. There has been a rough table over on the CTRL page, but it dosen't exploit the excellent feautres of the WP:TRAIL template. Pickle 22:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem with the route diagram

The station at Disneyland is actually Marne-la-Vallée – Chessy and not Marne-la-Vallée. The latter is a region/area. I can't work out how to edit those boxes so I thought I'd inform you all.Martin Leng 21:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the template (Template:Eurostar) and hope this is now correct. Adambro 22:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

external links

90.193.31.50 has twice added "http://www.findeurostar.co.uk/directory.html Eurostar Directory" which IMHO appears to be linkspan. Is it valid ? (i don't want to go into a WP:3RR breaching edit war). Pickle 12:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the website in question being down, it looks very linkspamish to me! Sladen 23:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Same again, slightly different IP - 90.193.31.33 this time. sjwk 23:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Rethinking this link: I see this discussion took place in May, but I was tooling around this talk page after reading about Eurostar yesterday and found the link that you have classified as SPAM. It may in fact technically be such per Wikipedia policy, but I actually went to the website http://www.findeurostar.co.uk/directory.html and found it quite useful. It has links that could take days/weeks to find on ones own. Any thoughts on putting it back into the article? I think to a traveler or someone curious about Eurostar, it could be quite useful. Believe it or not, I find myself increasingly turning to Wikipedia articles for good external links since you don't have to sort through 100's of inapposite links on the leading search engines. I am sure others are doing the same. I stand four-square with you in preventing purely commercial links, but I think this link is not commercial and moreover, the official Eurostar link *is* de facto commercial and we've obviously made an exception for that and every other official website in articles having to do with commercial enterprises (General Motors, Harrods, Tesco, Mercedes Benz etc.) Your kind thoughts please. Bundas 11:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"DMOZ" or Open Directory Project appears to be the answer. On several pages i watch, a link to DMOZ has been used to stop the external links section degenerating into a list of external links. Pickle 10:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Cost of CTRL ?

According to the Daily Mail [5/9/07/pg4 & search for- queret] the new Eurostar line from Dover to London is mentioned to have cost (effectively)~£45000 per meter. Can anyone explain why the amount is so (extortionately?) high?
--83.105.33.91 11:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Two-thirds of the money went on one-third of the distance: the three sets of twin-tunnels reaching under the Thames and all the way into North London. CTRL1 (long and "cheap") opened in 2003; CTRL2 (short, underground and expensive) is the part that will open fully later this year (2007). Tunnelling is a really expensive business; the nearest equivalent of somebody trying to built a tunnel motorway under a major city is Boston MA's Big Dig ($14.6bn for 5km ≈ US$3,000,000 per metre). —Sladen 12:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a good idea to put Waterloo in the memory hole

I think the former London terminus "Waterloo" should be put back into the route diagram, using the "xHST" version. An encyclopedia is not only to show a fotographic reflection of the current reality, but should inform about the history, too. --L.Willms (talk) 12:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, Waterloo only has a connection with Eurostar through the fact that it used to terminate there, this should be and is mentioned in the article, however, Eurostar no longer terminates at Waterloo thus it can't be included on the route map. Hencetalk (talk) 12:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I had been considering putting it back in as it should be there for consistency with most other rail maps. In the end the reason I didn't was that although it might be logical to show it with "x" version pictograms, standard usage of pictograms is that where the line/station is still open then one doesn't use the 'defunct' version, hence it would comfuse people looking at the routemap if it appeared to show both the old and the current termini as open. Leave it to the text, therefore. --AlisonW (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

'Betrayal' of Ashford International

The material about reduction in service to Ashford following the opening of Ebsfleet has recently been reworked into its own section with the above heading. I think there are two problems with these changes:

• The words/phrases "betray", "forced to defend", "severely cut", "scrapped", "residents ... were forced to travel" etc imply that Wikipedia supports the view that the service cuts were a bad thing. This is against Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Sorts of terms to avoid
• I don't see that this issue justifies its own section. While no doubt of great concern to the residents of Ashford and the surrounding area, the article is about the train service as a whole. The situation prior to 19 Feb 08 when this was mentioned under Current routes and services seemed more balanced.

Any other views?--JCG33 (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The high speed rail link caused great disruption for the people of southern kent, but it was done with the promise that trains would stop at Ashford and so they would benefit. Lets call a spade a spade, Eurostar lied to them and betrayed their trust.

Besides, the words used looks like they were quotes in the reference (betrayed, severely cut, etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.190.44 (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

We already know that 86.29.190.44 and I have a different opinion about this because it was 86.29.190.44 who made the original changes (on 19 Feb 08). It would be helpful to get some 'neutral' views.--JCG33 (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It is very bad that the Eurostar no longer stops at Ashford. I used to travel from Paris to Ashford and it is very annoying that the train stops no more there. I know get the TGV to calais and boat. It takes nearly an hour longer but is much cheaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.212.203.236 (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to remind people that we are on an encyclopedia, NOT a general forum, please discuss the article ONLY, not your own personal experiences, that's the reason we have discussion pages. Otrin (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Otrin and JCG33. The "betrayal" section is unduly emotive, whereas the previous format stated the facts and alluded to public reaction neutrally. Sad to note that the author of the "betrayal" section, 86.29.190.44 appears to be responsible for replacing the article on SeaFrance with a line of abuse; this user seems to have problems with his/her cross-channel operators, but this is not the right place to air his/her grievances. -- Timberframe (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've deleted the 'Betrayal' of Ashford International section, but incorporated some of its less emotive material into Current routes and services. I hope people feel that's a reasonable compromise. --JCG33 (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep. -- Timberframe (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Other languages

I notice that many of the "other language" versions of the Eurostar article linked via the languages panel are actually about the Class 373 rolling stock rather than the Eurostar service which is the subject of this article. Would it be too pedantic to suggest transferring such links to the Class 373 article? I'm up for doing the work if concensus is that it's worthwhile. -- Timberframe (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Eurostar national rail??

I know that Eurostar is shown on on the National Rail website, like on Heathrow Express which is not part of National rail but as Eurostar runs on High Speed 1 only in the UK I don't think its part of National Rail.Likelife (talk) 11:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Why does Eurostar have check-in and Security Scanning?

• "any potential Eurostar services beyond Paris and Brussels would also require the installation of stringent security measures, due to the UK not having signed up to the Schengen Agreement"
• "Due to the UK not having signed the Schengen Agreement, London bound trains must therefore use platforms that are physically isolated".

This is not true. There is nothing in Schengen which says you cannot have on-train passport controls, which take place while the train is moving. The passport officers get on the train at the last stop in country A, and get off at the next stop in country B, and go from one end of the train to another, like ticket inspectors. Anybody who is refused entry is just escorted onto the first train going back the other way. This was common practice on the Swiss border until Switzerland joined Schengen earlier this month.

I have been trying to find out for a long time why Eurostar insists on checking-in passengers, doing border controls before getting on the train and screening luggage. All of which adds to the total journey time and adds some of the disadvantages of air travel to a rail journey. It also has an impact on the costs. Apart from the cost of providing the station facilities etc., it means Eurostar has to use segregated platforms and cannot easily transport non-international passengers. If a passenger gets on at Ashford for Paris, Eurostar cannot use the seat from London to Paris, and they charge the same fare as from London. In the rest of Europe there is no distinction between national and international trains.

As for security risks, why is it greater on a Eurostar train than in the (undersea) Severn tunnel or in the London Underground where that goes under the Thames?

Why do they keep shooting themselves in the foot like this? Why aren't local trains from London to Ashford just extended through the tunnel to Calais Ville to cope with the local traffic? TiffaF (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Regarding passport control, the first part could perhaps read better as "owing to the United Kingdom not being a par of the Schengen Area, it chooses to apply additional security controls, and at the point of entry". I have on occasions encountered no passport controls at Brussels and instead had an on-train check, or controls at Waterloo, or both. I have been at Brussels at busy time and seen them waving past people with Lille tickets (meaning you could complete an international journey without hitting passport control).
2. Regarding scanning, this is associated with the Channel Tunnel, and the intergovernmental commission requirement to scan 25% of passengers (which Eurostar fulfill by scanning 100% of passengers). Metal detectors/X-ray machines are also used before boarding high-speed services in Spain.
3. Regarding local trains. I suspect you have in mind the impact of the Oresund Railway. However, Calais is a tiny town and there is very little demand for through traffic. The Channel Tunnel (and Eurotunnel) impose additional technical requirements (fire protection, train length, redundancy) for transit. The transit fees are very high and extra equipment is needed to match pantograph height, electrical supply, signalling and radio in the Tunnel. (See Eurotunnel Network Statement 2008).

Does that answer some of your points? —Sladen (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks it does. The passport control is as I suspected a British Government decision (nothing to do with Schengen, obviously since the UK hasn't joined Schengen it has no duty to follow its requirements, which anyway would ban passport checks), and the scanning is a result of the "intergovernmental commission requirement" - does this mean it comes from the Treaty of Canterbury?

The Eurotunnel Network Statement 2008 has lots of good stuff, including the actual toll charged for a train passing through the tunnel and the technical requirements.

I suggest somebody with more knowledge than I incorporates all this into this article.

As for Calais, there is lots of "local traffic" across the channel (see booze cruise), and Calais Ville is an interchange for TGV services, which would give many towns in Kent access to "TGV" services, not just Ashford. Plenty of other local services in Europe extend across borders. Not all passengers on the train take the cross-border leg, it is just more convenient not to have two separate services either side of the border TiffaF (talk) 07:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The 'High Speed 1' section

The beginning of this section is odd. It starts with the September 2003 improvement (still using Waterloo) but the second paragraph starts 'shortly before the opening', meaning the opening of the St Pancras route. Some rewriting is needed here. 62.60.106.214 (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. --JCG33 (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"Class 373s only operate now on HS1, which is built to European loading gauge"

Hammersfan removed a ref containing the sentence "Any replacement or additional trainsets for Eurostar would have to meet similar requirements to that of the current British Rail Class 373 trainsets, such as fitting the smaller British loading gauge and the stringent rules regarding use of the Channel Tunnel" on the grounds that "Class 373s only operate now on HS1, which is built to European loading gauge". Obviously this needs to be qualified with "in the UK", but even so, what about those trains that call at Ashford International station? As far as I know the station structures are built to the UK gauge. What about diversionary routes in the event of obstruction on HS1? (Are there any?) However I agree with the removal of the ref because it is unsourced editorial comment. -- Timberframe (talk) 10:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to know what a "European loading gauge" is, the most common in Europe that I can imagine is the Berne gauge, but it is hardly universal. The loading gauges are all over the place, even if the differences are very marginal between some sets (such as the mild differences between the Netherlands and French loading gauge, that practically don't matter, there is no European standardised loading gauge.

I was the one who wrote that ref, but it was wrote as a 'Note' rather than as a supporting reference. I tried to follow the guidelines set out elsewhere on the 373 page on the original operational requirements; didn't factor in that they might simply stick to the lies where the loading gauge isn't standard, like the Eurotunnel Shuttles. The Channel Tunnel safety regulations still stand to this day, much to the annoyence of some operators, however. 81.111.115.63 (talk) 10:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

How/if this should be incorperated

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWSep2v1B_w

This youtube video is an upload of an offical Eurostar advert; reliability is not a question and the content is intact; but is this suitable for referencing? It would actually be helpful for one or two things, but I very rarely see internet videos being used as a source of information on Yoube, leaving me with the two problems of A. What kind of format to compose such a Reference by, and B. Is this acceptable/objectionable? Throw some ideas around, if I get a general "Yay!" then I'll make up something decent-looking and begin referencing it to the appropriate sections. Thanks. 81.111.115.63 (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, i have two thoughts about this, which contradict each other. :P First, i think in general, yes, a video would be a reliable source for reference, especially for visual items, or a historical reference, such as a video of an important event, or a first achievement. I think a video record is just as valid as a written record, and could sometimes be quite explanatory in a way that even a photograph could not be. However, and this is my second thought, the video you posted does seem official, but i does not seem reliable. It appears to me a computer-generated video of what St Pancras could look like, what's sometimes called an "artist's impression". Which makes me feel like we can't really rely on the content of this video to be factual. What did you think this video might be useful for? —fudoreaper (talk) 09:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I had taken it to be one of the promotional materials created for advertising the 2007 transfer of services from Waterloo to St Pancras/Ebbsfield, and a run through of the services available. There are also a couple of advertising messages within it that could be used to back up existing statements.

A good example I just noticed on a video in the same channel was a Eurostar train being given the name 'Trend Lightly', with Richard Brown (The Eurostar head guy basically) explaining it as a reference to the lesser environmental impact over aircraft. Basically demonstrating thier green credentials and how they are levering that into thier public image and marketing. Interesting in the right section. At least I know the means isn't unouthodox, just have to find decent videos with reliable enough content.81.111.115.63 (talk) 10:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I've implimented a trial run of the second video I put forward (the Richard Brown comment video). See if it gets erased by an enraged editor or not. If it has staying power, it may be a suitable means for future evidence on this page. 81.111.115.63 (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The "Milestones" section

Just wanted to leave a note that it is under construction, see free to add to it but try to avoid the temptation to delete it. :P I think it might be a useful summary for the service to mark out the key events in quick one liners, with appropriate referencing. Hopefully it'll catch on.81.111.115.63 (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, as a note to myself, a section on 'Fares' might be in order... 81.111.115.63 (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"Fares" section under construction, add to it but please don't wipe it, not nearly done with it.81.111.115.63 (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

"Fares" is more or less done, there is probably much that could be done with it still, but that's as far as my plan went originally. Any suggestions for a new section of content to develop? 81.111.115.63 (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eurostar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Some comments:

   • In general, the article is written with too long sentences and too short paragraphs. Especially where these are combined, this can give bad results, such as one-sentence paragraphs. Merge paragraphs and split sentences.'
   • The lead is short for an article this length. It should perhaps be 50–100% longer.
   • Let the reader determine what is a surprise; thus avoid words such as "unsurprising".
   • Railway stations are proper nouns, and should be capitalized as such.
   • Try to avoid using parenthesis in prose, especially of the type "and with construction of a new high-speed line between Paris and the Channel Tunnel (LGV Nord) under way". Instead, use commas, emdahses or reconstuct the sentence to include it.
   • Why are stations in Britain mentioned, but not those in France and Belgium?
   • I'm not saying it is incorrect, but stating "has been blamed" is very strong. I would have preferred to see a more neutral wording, epecially if it is speculative or disagreement.
   • It is unclear if the Nightstar was actually taken into use.
   • It would be much more logical if the routes were made their own top section.
   • Remember to keep the number of significant digits when converting from km to mi.
   • Does "with a 435m Brussels South Viaduct." mean "with the opening of the 435-metre (1,427 ft) Brussels South Viaduct"?
   • The primary unit of measurement should not be abbreviated (except optionally km/h due to excessive length). This option is normally intended for infoboxes, tables and the like.
   • Not a GA criteria, but still a good thing to learn: Emdashes (—) are for punctuation, while endashes (–) are for disjunction. Also, emdashes are never spaced.
   • It would be a lot more logical if the milestone section was merged into the history. At present, the article jumps forward and back between discussing the chronological occurence of events, the technical aspects of the line, the service and the routes and line.
   • Is the £59 fare for a single or round trip?
   • What does "This security often receives significant investment by Eurostar, in comparison to airport security it is less time-consuming, which is popular with passengers." mean? I do not see the connection between 'investments' and 'less time-consuming'. I think this is because 'investments' is a very vauge word in this sense.
   • Again, it would be more logical if parts of the "performance" section were moved into the history section. At currenet, the first mention of the two fires is in the "operations performance" section.
   • The last part of the "operations performance" section should be converted from bullets to prose.
   • Could the "organisation" section be converted to prose, please.
   • Remember to convert to imperial units (using {{convert}}) also in the "rolling stock" section.
   • Could not the bullets under the retired fleet be included as a "notes" entry in the table.
   • Why is the section on "Ashford International" under "future development"? Would it not be better to place it under history?
   • There is no need to block-quote a single sentence.
   • Company names should never be in italics, even if they do not have an article.
   • What is LCR?
   • The sentence "This would prove beneficial to future Regional Eurostar plans, as it was recently made clear that Regional Eurostar plans would not be considered until High Speed Two is undertaken" repeats almost everything twice. Could it not be shorten considerable.
   • London and Continental Railways needs to be mentioned earlier in the article, than with the Deutche Bahn buying interest.
   • Remember to establish what abbreviations are used by noting them after the first mention of the full-length fragment.
   • Do not duplicate "see also" entries in the text or in the navboxes.
   • Try to minimize the number of external links, per WP:EL. In this case, the only relevant link is the official one, that happens to be in the infobox. Rememeber: a perfect article has no "see also" and "external links" section.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • As seen with this tool, there are quite a number of dead links.

   All 'real' dead links have been fixed/deleted, the remainder are simply auto-blocks or faults with the tool, The Times links for instance work fine except with that tool (handy :S ).81.111.115.63 (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • The history, in particular about the pre-construction period, is very short. I seem to remember that there have been plans for this line for ages, and this being an international project, there must have been a massive amount of documentation about the planning. I know that a lot of this relates more to the Channel Tunnel article, but it is also relevant for this article.
   • To be frank, the table listing all the cars and how many toilets and seats each has may be relevant for the subarticle, but it is too focused for the main Eurostar article.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article tends to over-focus on the British side of matters, with much detailing on British plans, and considerably less on the French and Belgium developments.

I've done a few things to balance it out more, such as greatly cutting down on the out of proportion 'High Speed One' subsection, mildly enlarging the other route sections abroad, adding a few pictures on the other high speed lines and terminals, and provided a far better and more equal introduction. More developments on the foreign sections would be better, but the state owned segments have much less activity than the privatised version in Britain; there is less to talk about. I'll continue trying to do what I see can be done, anybody who wants to lend a hand, it'd be appreciated.81.111.115.63 (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

1. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

2. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • File:Eurostar organigramme.jpg should be converted to either .png or preferably .svg. This is not a requirement, but it sure would make things easier.

   Call me stupid, but I've downloaded and saved the file onto my desktop, converted it over to a .png (my image editor doesn't have an .svg file format to save the image into) but how do I edit the image used on the site though? There doesn't appear to be a 'replace' or 'edit' function on the image's page for me to replace it with. How do I do this? 81.111.115.63 (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

   It is not possible to convert an image from .jpg to .svg. Take a look at Scalable Vector Graphics—it involves saving the data as geometric shapes instead of pixels. This makes it ideal for diagrams, and easy to modify. It requires the use of a program such as Inkscape. As noted above, it is not a requirement, just a suggestion (so don't worry about it). Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

   • The article is a bit under-images. Feel free to add more images, including termanal stations and railway sections in France and Belgium.

   Much has been done to improve this, image content close to doubled, should be suffice to satisfy this requirement.81.111.115.63 (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

3. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am placing the article on hold. There are a number of prose and structure issues that need to be resolved. Otherwise, the article pretty much covers all aspects and is well referenced (except for the dead links). Good work so far. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll crack on with this lot on the 22nd and the upcoming weekend, I'll do my best to fix these flaws as and where I can.81.111.115.63 (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've done quite a bit but I'm starting to run into barriers. I don't know how to update the problematic picture you hightlighted, it appears that it can't be edited or replaced or re-uploaded even though I've made a conversion of it ready to upload in its place. Also, the "Rolling Stock" {{Convert}} has run into a problem: The code is getting the numbers incorrect. It insists in turning 300 km/h into 190 mp/h, when it is clearly 186. I basically have a choice, let the code place incorrect numbers onto the page thus giving false information to people, or leave it manual where the number is correct. My knowledge with Convert code is limited to say the least, but the fact it is getting the numbers wrong is frustrating to say the least. How do I resolve either of these issues? 81.111.115.63 (talk) 12:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The problems experienced with {{convert}} is due to the issue of significant digits. The template presumes, as is natural, that a value of 300 has two signigifant digits. However, this is a special case where three significant digits is needed—and it is possible to tell the template this with the syntax {{convert|300|km/h|0}}. Here, the 0 indicates that rounding should be done with 0 insignificant zeros. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This GA review appears to have stalled. Arsenikk has vanished and I've been unable to contact him. It is like he just dropped off the web. Can anyone else pick this up, making more suggestions for development and hopefully make the final ruling in his absense? 81.111.115.63 (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments from second reviewer

Taking over review, as first reviewer has been inactive for over three, but if he returns before I've finished ....Pyrotec (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm basically going to work my way through the article, starting from History to the end and then consider theWP:lead last.

History -

• Some work is need to the grammar. Some of the sentences in the second paragraph are a bit stilted.
• Reference 4 is not properly cited. What is "Whiteside, Thomas (1962). The Tunnel under the Channel. Rupert Hart-Davis, p. 17"?
• Reference 5 is not properly cited. What is Wilson pp. 14–21"?
• Reference 9 is inadmissible Wikipedia:Circular: it is using wikipedia as a reference.

Grammar is something I should basically not touch, my own weak area myself, but I'll do my best to sharpen the area out as I can see fit. References number 4 and 5 have been upgraded correctly, they should no longer be at fault, though do advise if I am mistaken. Reference number 9 I believe was originally intended to be a note, I'll try and find some way to make that more clear; it seems too trival and by-the-by for the main text, yet it is an important destinction to take note of, the seperation between the two companies that many people familiar with Eurostar are unaware of, that they are not one and the same as the Tunnel's ownership and operations.81.111.115.63 (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll look at the grammar.Pyrotec (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Regional Eurostar and Nightstar -

• Ref 31 is broken, "Via", it gives a 404 error message

I think thier entire company website is temporarily knackered, I'm getting 404 Galore all over URL variants. Trying to reach the main page gets a "Site Offline" message, blaming technical issues. Most likely it'd come back online soon enough when their server is fixed and the rest of the site starts running again. 81.111.115.63 (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll come back to this one later.Pyrotec (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Replacd with a less to the point article, however it still makes the crucial bit of information, buried in tons of other peices, that the Nightstar rolling stock ended up in VIA's hands.81.111.115.63 (talk) 00:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Channel Tunnel -

• The statement: "Along the current route of the Eurostar service line speeds are 300 kilometres per hour (186 mph) except within the tunnel sections, where lower speeds apply for safety reasons" needs a citation.

Placed some in, ref name'd in some references from a very similar sentence under Rolling Stock.81.111.115.63 (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Services - Frequency -

• This set of claims: "Completion of High Speed 1 has increased the potential number of trains serving London. Capacity exists for up to eight trains per hour in each direction from London to Continental Europe, moving the bottleneck to the Channel Tunnel. Separation of Eurostar from British domestic services through Kent meant that timetabling was no longer affected by peak-hour restrictions." really needs an in-line citation, perhaps more than one(?).

I'll start looking around this one, might be a wee bit of a problematic series of statements to verify (Oh how I wish people had bothered to put thier citations in when they added these things...)81.111.115.63 (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Placed a reference into it, and deleted some of the unsubstanciated information I couldn't back up.81.111.115.63 (talk) 00:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sumarising

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A comprehensive, wide-ranging, well-referenced article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the quality of the article and many thanks to 81.111.115.63 for stirling efforts in adding and fixing the references and in-line citations. This article is now a GA.Pyrotec (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"There has only been one accident involving a Eurostar train to date."

• I recall a shunting collision in Forest depot which caused considerable damage to a motrice.
• There was a collision between a Eurostar train and a lorry which had stopped on a fog-bound user-worked crossing in Belgium, resulting in extensive damage to a motrice which was replaced in service with 3999 for some time.
• There have been several incidents of motrices losing pantagraphs when they struck Saltwood tunnel mouth, the driver having failed to deploy shoegear in time (prior to operation on HSL1) or, on one occasion, the A40(M) bridge, the driver having forgotten to switch to shoegear after leaving North Pole depot and coasted unpowered downhill towards White City.
• A Eurostar train on a test run caught fire in Belgium and was attended by the fire brigade.

I could go. I realise that many of these accident did not occur in passenger service; however the lorry strike and many incidents at Saltwood tunnel, some of which caused extensive damage to the motrice and common bloc, affected passenger services. 'Nuff ssaid, off to find some refs for you. -- Timberframe (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oooh, all very interesting—and I'll be intrigued to read more when you can source it. Some of them (off-service) should probably on the British Rail Class 373 page. —Sladen (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• collision with lorry 11/03/1997, with photo, google translation
• pan strike on Saltwood tunnel portal 28/06/1995
• Interesting, but unusable recollection of "6 pans lying around at the mouth of saltwood tunnel"

Can't find anything more than this at the mo; sadly these happened before the advent of mass publication of news on the internet. I had a photo of the Forest sideswipe (the result of leaving the Eurostar foul of points), but it's not mine and I couldn't now find the copyright holder. -- Timberframe (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Other notes; Ashford (opened 1995-09-06 by Duke of Kent) first use on 1996-01-08; class routes to the Chunnel denoted as BTR1/BTR2 (Boat Train Route) and later CTR1/CTR2 (Channel Tunnel Route). [3] reckons the pantograph hit the footbridge at Salding.

[4] notes three–six pantographs sitting in the signal box. —Sladen (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Incidents by date

• 1995-06-27: 3018 then 3227 LGV Nord (issues), Saltwood Tunnel (pantograph hit), Sevenoaks Tunnel (stopped completely), then hauled to Waterloo (barrier wagon + 2×British Rail Class 73 [5][6]
• 1997-??-??: ???? Ex-Brussels diversion to Kensington Olympia p.117
• 1997-03-11: ???? Belgian classic line, level crossing smash[http://www.skynet.be/actu-sports/actu/detail_peu-patience-vous-nen-mourrez-pas?id=52029&pagenb=2
• 2000-06-05: 3102 LGV Nord (Croisilles/Arras), broken tripod and derailment at 290 km/h[7][8][9]
• 2003-02-07: ???? Stewarts Lane Chord/Viaduct (outside Waterloo), stranded for 5 hoursp.116
• 2008-04-17: Base jumper off Medway viaduct[10]
• 2008-09-xx: Channel Tunnel fire[11]
• 2007-03-29: Riots at Gare du Nord [12]
• 2007-09-13: Body parts? LGV Nord [13]
• 2008-11-07: Concrete on LGV Nord, services diverted via classic lines[14]
• 2009-02-03: various, France/England, 5 hours delays because of heavy snowfall [15]

most bizarre Eurostar photo

This doesn't even warrant a mention in the article, but I thought I'd share it with Eurostar fans: one and a half Eurostars on the same line. There isn't a tick box for "This is a trivial edit" so I'll make do with "minor" -- Timberframe (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

New Split-off article: Route and Stations of the Eurostar

I feel that some sections of this article can be better reflected, fleshed out upon, and detailed in a seperate article page without continually expanding this one. I would like to complete remove the "Ashford International" paragraph, which feels out of place, and put it onto this new proposed article. As well, sections would be created for Waterloo and St Pancras with ease, and I've already got a strong academic source to form the basis for LGV Lille in France. There would be a "main article: ..." listed at the top of the current Routes section here, where the current four mainlines are listed and shall remain, initially there will be a duplicate of them made in the new focused article, but they'll be expanded over time, as priority is likely to be given to developing profiles for all the major stations Eurostar operate from.

The title is workable, better suggestions are welcome. Would this be an appropriate idea to undetake, or is it felt that this is going into unnecessary detail and will generally be unappreciated? 86.155.132.194 (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)