Jump to content

Talk:Crossrail: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 106: Line 106:


The TFL rail article was incorrect, I have corrected it and added this reference<ref name=Standard>{{cite news |url=http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/crossrail-named-the-elizabeth-line-royal-title-unveiled-as-the-queen-visits-bond-street-a3186791.html |work=Evening Standard |title=Crossrail named the Elizabeth line: Royal title unveiled as the Queen visits Bond Street station |first=Rpobert |last=Jobson |accessdate=23 February 2016 |date=23 February 2016}}</ref> [[User:Absolutelypuremilk|Absolutelypuremilk]] ([[User talk:Absolutelypuremilk|talk]]) 14:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
The TFL rail article was incorrect, I have corrected it and added this reference<ref name=Standard>{{cite news |url=http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/crossrail-named-the-elizabeth-line-royal-title-unveiled-as-the-queen-visits-bond-street-a3186791.html |work=Evening Standard |title=Crossrail named the Elizabeth line: Royal title unveiled as the Queen visits Bond Street station |first=Rpobert |last=Jobson |accessdate=23 February 2016 |date=23 February 2016}}</ref> [[User:Absolutelypuremilk|Absolutelypuremilk]] ([[User talk:Absolutelypuremilk|talk]]) 14:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
:<small>Mind you, who's ''Rpobert''...? {{wink}} [[Special:Contributions/79.68.139.189|79.68.139.189]] ([[User talk:79.68.139.189|talk]])

Revision as of 14:37, 24 February 2016

We use miles not km.

"Crossrail is a 118-kilometre (73-mile) railway line".

I'm not usually offended by the first line of an article. This is English wikipedia. Most of the English-speaking-world by pop. use miles. And all of Britain, where the line is, only uses miles. I have no problem with metricating the whole world, even the US, but currently, we use miles.

I'd prefer: "Crossrail is a 73-mile (118-km) railway line" --LeedsKing (talk) 08:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • What do teh sources use? The new tunnels will be being built in metric, as will be the new track not in tunnels. The new sections will probably be maintained in metric. The existsing stuff may be a mix still. Thryduulf (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All modern engineering is done in metric so all data for crossrail are in metres and kg. It is possible that converted figures for the old system will be provided for the sentimental, but that is what they will be - conversions. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LeedsKing: wrote: "Most of the English-speaking-world by pop. use miles." I doubt this assertion is provable, particularly if you count former colonies, where English is an official language, even though it is a second language for most citizens. The English language article says English is an official language in 67 countries. The USA is just about the only holdout that hasn't officially made the metric system the official system. Canada, Australia, NZ and the UK all made metric the official system many decades ago.
So, use miles in the USA, and metric everywhere else. Geo Swan (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great Britain might be "officially" metric, but that doesn't prevent things like road signs from not showing kilometres, or road speed limits (which are laid down in law) from being expressed in miles per hour. No policeman has ever stopped me on a charge of doing 55 km/h in a 48 km/h street. As for the railways of Great Britain, they're still primarily surveyed in miles, chains and yards. The stretch between Paddingon and Heathrow Tunnel Junction is dual-surveyed in both miles, chains and yards and in metres; several new lines (including Heathrow Tunnel Junction to the Heathrow termini) is surveyed in metres alone, but this is not universal: Airport Junction to Heathrow Tunnel Junction is a new line, but that's dual-surveyed (Heathrow Tunnel Junction is 12 miles 27 chains from Padd). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Loading gauge

I've been trying to get a source for the loading gauge of Crossrail (or at least for the new infrastructure) for a while. The closest I've found is this letter, which seems to authorise the central section not to meet the GB loading gauge. ("GB" refers to the European derivation of the international UIC standards). Presumably it means that the tunnels will be smaller then the GB loading gauge, but it doesn't actually specify the loading gauge that will be used. Anyone have any better info? KarenSutherland (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of TfL Rail in the route diagram template

I have already done that in Chinese version so you may discuss if you guys want the same change to be applied here. (zh.wp uses the updated Lua version of RDT so the markups are different from English version but icon IDs are the same.) -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Serious weakness

A serious weakness in this article is that it makes no attempt to explain WHY it uses 7 metre wide tunnels, instead of 3.5 metre wide tunnels. 7 metre wide tunnels will generate four times as much muck as a 3.5 metre wide tunnel.

Perhaps the decision was made so large pits won't have to be excavated to mine out room for the stations -- if any section of tunnel is wide enough to accommodate a station platform. If so, perhaps contributors thought the decision to bore super-wide tunnels was obvious.

It is not obvious, and the article should explain this. It should explain it in a prominent place -- not buried in an obscure place in the article. Geo Swan (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've given a referenced answer, and I think the reference is worth reading. If you think I have buried the answer, please dig it up! Thincat (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Crossrail. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lorries

I'm trying to understand why the health and safety section of this article doesn't discuss the members of the public killed by Crossrail lorries. Crossrail is responsible for huge numbers of lorry movements and the consequences of those are as significant as anything that happens on site. If you put "Crossraal lorry safety" into Google you'll find countless press releases, Evening Standard articles, people selling Crossrail-specific lorry safety equipment, hauliers promising "Crossrail compliance", etc etc. Not discussing the topic at all in this article is weird. --90.195.148.226 (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is undue, a project as large as this is bound to have lots of lorries and therefore some people killed by them. Unless the numbers killed are significantly larger than for other similar projects then I don't think it's necessary. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous to include these accidents. Do we mention on the Scania AB article every cyclist killed by a Scania lorry? No. --TBM10 (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting of historic proposals

What do other editors think about splitting off the sections on the historic proposals for Crossrail, which are not really relevant to the current development (and to most people looking for information on Crossrail)? While this article is currently not so long as to make it unreadable, I imagine that as building progresses and more content is added that it will be necessary to split the article up Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid transit

Wouldn't the railway, at least the central section be classified as rapid transit like the S-Bahn? TfL seems to think so, on their site it says "We hope that Crossrail will provide a service that sets the benchmark for metro railway services in Europe." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.54.2.76 (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Crossrail. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth line

Crossrail has just been officially renamed as the Elizabeth Line. Somebody with much better editing skills than I should update this page accordingly - http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/crossrail-named-the-elizabeth-line-royal-title-unveiled-as-the-queen-visits-bond-street-a3186791.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.165.144.162 (talk) 11:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking: Crossrail for the route, Elizabeth line for the service. Second opinion on this? --Marianian(talk) 15:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not the other way round? The Elizabeth line is looking to be the first of three Crossrail lines.   JaJaWa |say hello  15:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The news seems to suggest that "Elizabeth line" covers to whole alignment from Reading/Heathrow to Shenfield/Abbey Wood. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 16:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The official, and common, name is and will remain Crossrail. Not until December 2018 will it be re-branded as the Elizabeth line, and even then the common name may well remain as Crossrail. Certainly, the article should still refer to Crossrail in the main, until December 2018. --TBM10 (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's been called Crossrail for 20 years, it will still be even if TfL want a publicity stunt. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the time being, it might be helpful to retain a logical split between Crossrail as the name for the construction project, and Elizabeth Line for the actual line when it opens. A similar split emerged between East London line extension and London Overground when all that was being built.Cnbrb (talk) 09:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When is renaming

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TfL_Rail says "The service will be re-branded as the Crossrail Elizabeth Line in May 2017 when the new Class 345 trains are introduced" but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossrail says "The central section and a large portion of the line ... is due to open in December 2018; at that time the service will be renamed the Elizabeth line." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.34.78 (talk) 10:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The TFL rail article was incorrect, I have corrected it and added this reference[1] Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you, who's Rpobert...? 79.68.139.189 (talk)
  1. ^ Jobson, Rpobert (23 February 2016). "Crossrail named the Elizabeth line: Royal title unveiled as the Queen visits Bond Street station". Evening Standard. Retrieved 23 February 2016.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crossrail&oldid=706650915"