Talk:UK Ultraspeed
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list |
||
 |
This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments) | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance within the Trains WikiProject. | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Railways.
|
||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport in Scotland.
|
Contents |
[edit] Bias
Can anyone find some citations for the myriad of benefits claimed in the article? It seems a little like an advert at the moment Spoofer25 12:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Weird Style
This article doesn't seem to be encyclopedic. It reads more like promotional literature. I find it odd. Who wrote this? This is not wikipedic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sandrog (talk • contribs) 16:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Environmental benefits?
Can someone cite this fact stated in the article, i have previously read that trains give out more greenhouse gases per person then cars —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.50.233 (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Not generally true, although emissions per passenger km do of course depend on such factors as occupancy, speed and energy source (so that UK Ultraspeed's carbon emissions per passenger km would decrease as the UK moves to renewable energy sources). Perhaps the biggest enviromental objection to building increased high-speed rail capacity (local effects of the railway's presence on habitats and ecosystems aside) is that it doesn't simply prompt people to switch from car to train and make the same journeys - instead some idiots decide they're going to commute from e.g. northern France into London every day on the Eurostar, creating additional journeys. The priority must be to reduce travel by all polluting means before attempting to mitigate it by creating new public transport capacity that has as one of its consequences increased overall travel. The western world has invested a shocking amount in building suburban commuterlands, however, and it's harder to rearrange things so that people live and work in the same communities than it is to find new ways of transporting them vast distances from home to work. 79.68.150.126 (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Costing
The cost data is ludicrous. It needs to be challenged. If you take the cost data from Shanghai (1.33billion USD for 30.5 km of track), and calculating track length of 77,500km from journey times, the UK project should cost about £28billion. That's assuming that the Chinese and Siemens haven't lied about costs (unlikely) and neglecting increased UK land purchase, labour costs and being-rubbish-at-everything costs. I'd assume a price of somewhere in the region of £100billion to be more likely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.23.245 (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Significance
Exciting though this project sounds, and much as many readers would dearly love to see it come to fruition, I have to question its significance. People are always making obscure proposals that go far beyond what planners are realisically considering, and I wonder how seriously this has been taken outside of enthusiast circles. The article says that the 2007 white paper rejected the proposal, but a Railway Magazine article is cited and not the paper itself. Could it be that it just wasn't mentioned at all? This is followed by: "Ultraspeed claims that many allegations in this document are misleading or false, and successfully auditioned at the authors after the release." This is unsourced, and doesn't appear to make much sense either. 79.68.150.126 (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
