| Revision as of 02:00, 24 June 2006 editATren (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers6,279 editsm →Just want to say...: sp... bet you can guess what term I was originally going to use here...← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 06:19, 2 June 2024 edit undoBilledMammal (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users49,325 editsm BilledMammal moved page Talk:Ultra (rapid transit) to Talk:Ultra (personal rapid transit): Moved per Special:Permalink/1226714899#Requested move 29 April 2024 using Move+ | ||
| (194 intermediate revisions by 46 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start| | |||
| == Clarification required == | |||
| {{WikiProject Trains|Subway=yes|importance=mid|UK=yes|UK-importance=mid}} | |||
| Is the cost for the guideway only? If so, how much are the pods? And how many are required? ] 11:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{WikiProject London Transport|importance=low}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Cardiff|importance=low}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Wales|importance=low}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Bristol|importance=low}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{old move|date1=16 March 2024|name1=ULTra (rapid transit)|destination1=Ultra (rapid transit)|result1=moved|link1=Special:Permalink/1219122582#Requested move 16 March 2024|date2=29 April 2024|from2=Ultra (rapid transit)|destination2=Ultra (personal rapid transit)|result2=moved|link2=Special:Permalink/1226714899#Requested move 29 April 2024}} | |||
| {{Archivebox|]}} | |||
| :: What sentence are you talking about? This one: "''total cost of the system - vehicle, infrastructure and control systems - is between £3million and £5million per km of track''" gives a total system cost/mile of track. Pods? Haha, you've been hanging around UniModal too much. ] 20:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Right, so it does not make clear how many pods, which (as we find in ]) is a crucial factor in determining system capacity. So at the very leats we need to know the estimated capacity. Also, if it's optimised for a ensely populated area, why is it being deployed to link a car park (a sparsely populated area) with an airline terminal (a single endpoint). I'd say that sentence should go. ] 22:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Dead Link== | |||
| ::::As it says : "''The current generation system will work best in a densely populated area with a typical radius of operation up to 5km.''". As for why its being put in a car park, i'm guessing they don't have support for a full on city development yet, what do you think? | |||
| link to Electric-Bikes.com leads tn 'oops we are sorry' page. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Thanks for spotting that. I'll fix it to what i think it was meant to link to. ] (]) 16:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Heathrow location == | |||
| :::: Personally I think the way the system is optimized is an interesting and useful thing to note on this page - *especially* given that they're building at a car park. ] 23:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| If someone wants to take photos or create a map of the Heathrow system, shows where it will be. -- ] (]) 17:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::As I understand PRT design, they've done extensive analysis and simulation on the dynamics of a PRT network, and from that they can estimate an optimal number of vehicles per length of guideway. Too many vehicles would be wasteful, too few vehicles would cause the guideway to be underutilized. So, in that sense, it could make sense to estimate total costs per-guideway length, because the total length of guideway implies an estimate of the number of vehicles required. | |||
| :There are very recent photos online at ATS's website . ] (]) 19:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Consider a light rail example: if you have a 10 mile bidirectional light rail line, with minimum separation of 2 miles between trains, then you would need no more than about 10 trains (5 each way). The same sort of estimations can be made for PRT, though they'd obviously be more complicated than the light rail case due to the fact that PRT is a network, not a simple line. ] 02:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Now if you could get permission to use those pictures on Misplaced Pages, we would be all set. ;-) --] (]) 22:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::As for the quote "...densely populated area... up to 5km" quote, this is not in conflict with the airport installation. Just because ULTra is appropriate for Heathrow does not mean it ''cannot'' be appropriate for other types of applications, i.e more dense. I think the line should stay, but I'd have no problem with qualifying it with something like "the company claims..." or "Even though the only application currently planned is at Heathrow Airport, the company claims...". But there's no justification for completely removing it. ] 02:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I uploaded a picture taken from an airplane on Feb 19 but OTRS is still pending. ] (]) 20:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::As usual we have a conflict between the manufacturer's claims and reality. They claim it is optimised for an urban enviuronment, but (a) it has not been tested in such an environment and (b) it is not being implemented in such an environment. SO I think the claim should come out. The ''aspiration'' to be an urban mode is amply covered in the main PRT article. This is about a system with one test track, and one order, for a car park. An interesting enough system, which I will most likely use from time to time unless they price it ridiculously (which, given BAA's track record, they will). Oh, and we still don't say how many pods there will be at LHR or what the forecast carrying capacity will be. ] 13:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Mr Thant (London Connections) created a . ] (]) 17:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The claim is made by the company, this much is verifiable. What is also verifiable is that there is no existing prototype or planned implementation with which to verify the claim. Instead of arbitrarily removing the claim, why can't it be made with qualification? I thought Misplaced Pages was supposed to state only that which is ''verifiable'', without a further requirement that what is being stated is ''proven beyond a reasonable doubt''. ] 14:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == New load/unload stalls == | |||
| :::::::# The word you are looking for is "vehicles". They are not called "pods". | |||
| :::::::# There will be 18 vehicles, as per this press release . | |||
| :::::::# Some very simple math reveals the carrying capacity (given 18 vehicles) to be in the neighborhood of 500-600 people per hour per direction. However, as I haven't seen this stated explicitely by either ATS or BAA, it doesn't need to be in the article at this time. | |||
| :::::::# There is no "conflict between the manufacturer's claims and realities". That is a logical fallacy. Technologies can be optimized for situations in which they are not applied, and technologies can be applied in situations for which they are not optimized. Motorbusses, for example, are for travelling between a great number of locations -- yet they are often employed to shuttle people between two fixed points, ie an airport terminal and a car park. Does this then imply a "conflict between the manufacturer's claims and realities"? No, it does not. In the case of ULTra, they did not optimize it for this precise application, but they are happy to be paid to apply it in this way nonetheless. No "conflict" there whatsoever. | |||
| ::::::: ] 15:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I've noticed that the Heathrow system will use parking lot style, one-way, angled stalls for loading and unloading passengers instead of the previously more common all-in-a-line style loading and unloading. In almost all previous PRT designs, the cars enter the station on a continuous siding and passengers unload near the entrance point of siding and load on the side of the station where the siding exits the station. With this new design, not only are the stations offline, the passenger load/unload stalls are further offline. Intuitively, it seems to increase capacity by allowing slower passengers avoid interfering with faster passengers. But it also seems to slightly complicate the command and control functions. Has anyone read about this change? | |||
| :::::::: I agree. The system may or may not work best with a 5 mile radius, however the company has *designed* the system for that. It is very useful information to know. For example, when I think of PRT I think "replace roads with guidways, and cars with small vehicals". Obviously ULTra is not optimized (or "meant for") longer trips and larger radiuses like the road system. It is a very important number to have in the article. ] 22:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| By the way, I noticed that Google Earth now has a great shot of the Cardiff test facility with the new loading stall design: --] (]) 18:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: So, we are willing to state without reservation that it is optimised for an application quite unlike the test or first comercial application? Seems like a bad idea. As to including what is verifiable rather than what is provably true, it has to be verifiable from a reliable source. The manufacturer are not a reliable source in this context, because it is a marketing claim which has not been substantiated elsewhere. Oh, and the word I was looking for was pods, since that seems to be the usually used term. Vehicle is generic and includes everythign from a bicyle to a B52. ] 22:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The offline stations are an excellent idea for the travel use, due to baggage handling complications. Of course the offline stations do slightly complicate the command and control, but should need very slight changes to the zone reservation code (zone blocking has been mentioned in descriptions, and solution is trivial when each stall and the station spur have their own zones). A little more complex might be changes to the vehicle's movement programming (such as automated backing out of a stall), but that's obviously been done because they've been testing it. Incidentally, that's a Google Maps link and not Google Earth. -- ] (]) 19:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: And pods can be anything from plants to machines - whats your point. Also, you're misinterpreting the issue of the "optimization". The manufacturor is the best person to tell you what they *tried* to build the system for. I really get the feeling you simply don't read our comments JzG. ] 23:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: I first noticed the image in Google Earth and thought Google Maps would be appropriate (no download of GE) for this purpose. ;-) --] (]) 18:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: Oh, for Pete's sake, JzG. You're still playing your same old game, simply because we are talking about a '''design''' and not an '''existing product'''. '''WE KNOW THAT IT IS A DESIGN. THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.''' Everywhere else on Misplaced Pages, it is absolutely permissible and desirable to make positive statements about the intent of a design. For example, the ] article states that "Microsoft's primary stated goal with Vista, however, has been to improve the state of security in the Windows operating system." It's perfectly okay to say this, even though Vista, of course, doesn't exist as a public product any more than ULTra does, and -- who knows? -- it's ''actual'' security, once it's released into the wild, might be terrible. Misplaced Pages should not suppress the fact that Vista's designers claim they are attempting to optimize security, simply because this is "a marketing claim" or that it is a claim which might not ultimately work out. | |||
| The in-a-line style stations was all that was (easily) possible with previous systems. They rode a guiderail, typically steered by small runner wheels at the front of the vehicle. The rail had to be continuous, so it's not a trivial exercise to produce a number of "docks", as each one would require a switch or break in the guiderail. This would be further complicated by the fact that the guidewheels would have to be able to run onto the rails from either direction, which would not be simple. I know of no older PRT that can back up. | |||
| :::::::::: That being said, the sentence you blanked did have some problems. It read: "The current design is optimized for a densely populated area with a system radius of about 5 km, serving a small number of destinations." This is problematic, but only because it seems to be making a positive statement about the ''actual'' optimization of the design (which is a no-no), as opposed to the ''intended'' optimization of the design (which is an important and valid point to include in the article). The sentence can be fixed by re-wording it as follows: "Designers say that the technology is optimized for a densely populated area with a system radius of about 5 km, serving a small number of destinations." I am therefore putting this text back into the article. | |||
| ULTra has no guiderail, reading its location from the track and steering itself internally. That eliminates all complications on the guidance, and makes backing up trivial. I assume there is some sort of local-area controller in the stations themselves to indicate free docks and tell the vehicles when they are allowed to back up. See ] for an example of station logic. | |||
| :::::::::: JzG, you are neither an idiot nor a newbie. You know perfectly well how to make genuine improvements to an article, improving the language where it is either too strong or too vague. Yet you prefer to delete content without adequate discussion, or demand sources which you have, often as not, previously deleted yourself. It is becoming baldly obvious that, rather than trying to improve the quality of the information here, you are simply trying to suppress it, based on whatever flimsy pretext you can think of. Please try to improve your behavior. ] 01:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| As a Canadian I can say that ULTra would never fly here. We have this white stuff called "snow" that, after a brief period, compacts into another material called "ice". Wheeled vehicles take a random amount of time to start and stop on ice and snow, so your headways get trampled and route capacity nosedives. You can fix a lot of this by using a LIM, which means you don't need the wheels to have any traction at all. But then that blows your infrastructure costs, you need larger vehicles to make up for it, and you end up with ]. Sad though. | |||
| ::::::::::: Yes, I am playing the "same old game" of requiring that we do not include unsupportable hypothesis. As usual in respect of PRT, that sentence is claiming it to be designed for an application where it has neither been trialled nor ordered. Leave it to the link to PRT to say what is the intent of PRT proponents - this is about a system in an airpoirt car-park, and should be about just that. Actually I can hardly wait - it is local to me (about 25 minutes away). ] 10:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 13:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::JzG wrote: ''"So, we are willing to state without reservation that it is optimised for an application quite unlike the test or first comercial application?''" '''No!''' We are willing to state without reservation that '''the company ''claims'' the design''' is optimised for an application quite unlike the test or first comercial application. It wasn't originally written that way, and you are correct that the original wording was not appropriately qualified. But as Skybum says above, the point is completely valid if properly qualified. ] 01:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Snow is only a problem if it accumulates, and accumulation only happens if you don't clear it regularly. With an automated system, it should be possible to automate snow removal as it falls and before it accumulates, by running automated plows or brushes on the tracks every 15 minutes or so during a storm. Perhaps every pod could have a snow brush that descended from the chassis as needed, meaning every pod is a snow remover. | |||
| :::::::::: It's a marketing claim. Leave it to the company's website to make their marketing claims. Why not document the actual applications, rather than the ones the salesmen would like to have one day? What precisely is the problem with this? ] 10:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Big huge plows are needed on roads only because there aren't enough plows (and ''drivers'') to clear the snow as it falls. So you need a large piece of machinery that can clear 3 hours worth of accumulation. PRT doesn't have that problem because automated snow removal can run at very high frequency. | |||
| :::::::::::JzG, you are being overly touchy about this. It was properly qualified as "Designers say...". In any event, I've re-worded and re-inserted the line from a different source. I found a paper by Lowson that discusses at length the ULTra system and its intended target: cities less than 1 million in population, or as a feeder network in larger systems. Unfortunately the paper is in MS Word format; if someone can find a PDF or HTML source, please change the link. ] 14:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :As for ice storms, that's a little tougher. Maybe you'd need a special vehicle with a scraper or salter (though salt is brutal on the road surface). In any case, however ice on PRT guideway is handled, it will benefit from fully automated vehicles to do the work. ] (]) 15:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::It's not overly touchy to require substantial proof before repeating that marketing claims which are in excess of any provable fact (remember, not only is this system iuntested in such an application, ''no'' comparable system has ''ever'' been deployed in such a way). And the paper is (again) direct from the makers- lowson identifies as being from ATS. Has ''nobody'' not connected with them actually validated this claim? ] 14:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Yeah, that's what they thought for the ICTS (now known as the ART). What happens is that wet snow blows onto the track and then wind evaporatively cools it into a thin sheet of ice. Very bad! Works fine in Vancouver though. ] (]) 18:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Lowson is a respected expert on PRT, with several published research papers on the topic. He also happens to associated with ATS, which is why the line is qualified. But his involvement with ATS does not disqualify all the work he's done on the PRT, or the fact that his expertise lends considerable weight to the claim of applicability in mid-sized cities. | |||
| :Well, I don't know, I've lived in one of the snow capitals of the world my whole life, and I've found that the key to snow and ice is to not let it build up. Even in high winds, if you have a steady, non-stop snow removal, you can stay ahead of it. With PRT, if every PRT vehicle has a deployable snow brush under the chassis, then you can have ''almost constant'' snow clearing along the entire guideway. In my above comment I had said "every 15 minutes" but really that is far from the maximum frequency. Vehicles on track spaced 20 seconds apart along the whole guideway would not be out of the question. That should cover even the most severe of storms. | |||
| :::::::::::::Your further qualification that no such system exists yet is fine. In the future, I would suggest that, rather than removing claims entirely as you've traditionally done, perhaps you should qualify them with your concerns so that the point and counterpoint are preserved, and then we can debate over the exact wording. Simply removing verifiable claims en masse just provokes hostility. ] 15:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The ICTS (or ART) you refer to - is this a people mover of some sort? Is it automated? How often can the snow removal vehicles run? ] (]) 18:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::I might also add, referencing some recent debates: | |||
| :::::::::::::*Has ''nobody'' not connected with Microsoft actually validated Windows Vista? | |||
| :::::::::::::*Has ''nobody'' not connected with Sir Richard Branson actually validated Virgin Galactic? | |||
| :::::::::::::*Has ''nobody'' not connected with Sony actually validated Blu-Ray? | |||
| :::::::::::::] 15:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, it's a people-mover/GRT/light subway, also known as the Vancouver SkyTrain, Scarborough RT, Detroit PeopleMover etc. Every vehicle is its own snow plough, but they need on-call teams for when it really snows. Closes down about once a year in spite of this. And that's with a LIM, no wheeled traction! ] (]) 15:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::: *Yes, we have tested the beta extensively and are currently doanloading beta 2. | |||
| :::::::::::::: *Irrelevant, the article makes the status quite plain - if you think there are ctill claims which cannot be supported feel free tpo remove them | |||
| :::::::::::::: *No idea, ask Stephen, that's more his field than mine. | |||
| :::::::::::::: None of this is particularly relevant though. I don't want to bloat articles out with endless they say, but... commentaries. ] 15:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Batteries == | |||
| :::::::::::::::* Microsoft Vista: "''Yes, we have tested the beta extensively and are currently doanloading beta 2.''" - this says nothing about its compatibility with the wide range of hardware in the PC world, not to mention its stability and security. Yet there are company claims about Vista throughout the article. | |||
| :::::::::::::::* Virgin Galactic: "''Irrelevant, the article makes the status quite plain...''" - So, for Virgin Galactic, it's OK to make speculative claims as long as they are qualified by a statement about the current status of the project. Yet for PRT pages, you regularly remove claims even if they are properly qualified. Do you see the disconnect here? | |||
| :::::::::::::::Why do we allow claims from Microsoft (the company who gave us Windows Millenium Edition) but not from ULTra, even if they are heavily qualified? ] 16:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::Oh, gee, maybe it's something to do with Microsoft having more money than many governments and a beta programme which is open to scrutiny from zillions of geeks the world over, allowing their claims to be tested? But really, you can't possibly be suggesting that there is a real-world parallel between microsoft and a university spinoff company which has just secured its first order. Branson has started several companies and made a lot of money - how many companies have these Ultra guys started? Rougly one? Where's the track record? Also, if you don't like the Virgin article, you can fixit. Incidentally, we are running Vista on beta Pentium 5 chips in white boxes direct from Intel in our labs. ] 22:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::Two points in response: | |||
| :::::::::::::::::# Maybe I'm ''more'' skeptical of claims from Microsoft, because of their long history of delivering less than they promised. Wasn't their OS supposed to be secure from threats something like 8 years ago? Just last week I got 8 ''critical'' updates in one shot. Did you ever stop to think that it is up to the reader to decide if (s)he trusts the word of the company that is making the claim? What you are doing, JzG, is making a judgement for all of us: namely, that claims from Microsoft can be trusted, while claims from ATS are to be suppressed as unreliable. Do you not see how the simple act of making that decision introduces your own POV into the articles in question? | |||
| :::::::::::::::::# I never said I don't like the Virgin article, or the Microsoft Vista article, or any other article that has been brought up in this debate. If '''you''' don't like those articles, then '''you''' can go and try to change them. I've presented those examples as proof that claims are OK when presented correctly, not as examples of articles that need to be changed. The point is, those articles present company claims that are unproven, and there's nothing wrong with that as long as the claims are properly qualified. ] 23:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I can't find any mention of the battery life anywhere. How long does a charge last and how long does it take to recharge? This could be ULTRa's biggest problem - too many vehicles waiting to be recharged.] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 02:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::I think you are missing the point. What Microsoft says is reported because they are big enough, and it is public enough, that they will be held up to ridicule if they lie. I remember the ever-slipping Windows <s>93</s> <s>94</s> 95 deadlines as well as anyone - so do Microsoft. Vista is "real" in as much as beta software ever is, outside companies have had it for a while and tested it with a lot of hardware. We should be cautious what we say about it, but it is certainly a tangible product and will, to a very high degree of certainty, end up on millions of desktops in very short order. When they say it's designed to replace all their enterprise class operating systems, you can be pretty sure that many enterprises will have large-scale rollouts of Vista, and some enterprises have already tested it in large scale lab installations. By contrast, ULTra is supposedly designed for an application for which this company has no track record, and indeed there is no extant PRT system which meets these criteria. Microsoft already have XP and Server 2003, Vista is probably tagged NT 6.0 - it's certainly not a version 1.0 product like the Heathrow ULTra system will be. You brought up various parallels, I don't think they address the problem. And the fact that article A says something questionable does not mean that article B can do the same. ] 13:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Rename == | ||
| DrFrench recently renamed the article and all mentions of "ULTra" to "Ultra", citing the MOS, but the MOS says mixed-case trademarks are a decision left to editor discretion, and I believe it was better with mixed case. ULTra is short for "'''U'''rban '''L'''ight '''Tra'''nsport", so the name ULTra is actually more of an acronym than a simple trademark. We wouldn't write Ibm or At&t, and I don't think this should be Ultra. | |||
| You guys. This is freaking ridiculous. No long arguments, this ends right here - find a consensus. The company says that they designed the system to be '''optimized at a radius of 5 miles''' - NOT 100 miles, NOT 500 feet, NOT in farmland. Do you get it JzG. Instead of insisting on annoying the shit out of everyone, PLEASE try suggesting a method of including the information that will make you feel comfortable. I, ATE, and Skybum all think its relevant information. We are willing to accommodate, but I for one think you are being ridiculous to ask us to remove the information. Its not a marketing push, its not a publicity stunt. Its plain and simple a qulifier of the way the system is built. | |||
| If there are no objections in the next few days, I will change it back. ] (]) 02:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I dislike the 1 million population thing, as population has absolutely nothing to do with anything - despite whatever source. Density and size are what matter, as the company says. Can people please just say ''hear here'' if they think we should put the company's outragious marketing scam claim about their hypothetical 5 mile radius back up? For god's sake.. ] 07:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The company uses "Ultra" and not "ULTra" on their . The article should use the same name IMHO. ] (]) 18:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Either version is fine with me. ] 13:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Latest schedule == | |||
| :Agreed, and thank you, Freshenessz. This has absolutely got to stop; it's ridiculous. ] 14:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Well, spring of 2010 came and went and obviously the service has not opened. Has anyone heard of the latest scheduled opening? Some googling revealed nothing. ] (]) 02:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: Ok I decided to put in both statements: | |||
| ::It's now Autumn 2010 and still no sign of an opening. This is not good.] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 01:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| By the time these things go live they'll be covered in more cobwebs than the adams family's house.] (]) 10:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::"''The company says that the design works best as system with a 5 mile radius in a densly populated area. Designers say that the technology can handle cities with populations of less than 1 million - for larger cities, it could be used as a network link to larger mass transit systems,''" | |||
| Does anyone know why? It it a delay in regulator approval or is it a technical problem? ] (]) 21:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :: The first statement is the companies claim that the system is not really meant for far distances, and isn't meant for small populations (like the countryside). The second statement is a qualifier of capacity, that the system isn't meant to handle *too many* people. I should probably more priminantly mark tha the company's claim is a "claim". Does this look any better JzG? ] 21:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == External links modified == | |||
| :::Still has the same old problem. Designers ''say'' that, but nobody's actually tried it. All we have is a small instalation in a car park> I'd say it's best to see how well it works there before we start arm-waving about cities of a million population; if it falls flat in this trial I think we can safely say it's dead in the water. Better to wait. ] 21:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
| ::::Look, the problem is that you just don't ''like'' what the designers say. Fair enough, but that's purely your POV. This article is about ULTra, and in that context, it is absolutely NPOV to report what the designers do, verifiably and factually, say. Stop complaining about it. ] 21:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I have just modified 4 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: | |||
| ::::: Ok, this is plain and simple a semantic issue. JzG you're talking about technically physically optimized - me, ATE, and skybum are saying that the company tried to design their system for a 5 mile radius. Just like desktop computer are built for personal use, some may also be not too bad for server use - while others wouldn't ever even be considered. | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011132150/http://atsltd.co.uk/prt/faq/ to http://www.atsltd.co.uk/prt/faq/ | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060926221610/http://www.nesta.org.uk/ourawardees/profiles/1634/04_milestones.html to http://www.nesta.org.uk/ourawardees/profiles/1634/04_milestones.html | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713025436/http://www.ultraprt.com/news/89/149/May-2011-News-LHR-HSR-India-Apple-tools/ to http://www.ultraprt.com/news/89/149/May-2011-News-LHR-HSR-India-Apple-tools/ | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110122235138/http://www.hindustantimes.com/After-Heathrow-Pod-Cars-may-well-hit-the-Millennium-City/Article1-510141.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/After-Heathrow-Pod-Cars-may-well-hit-the-Millennium-City/Article1-510141.aspx | |||
| When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. | |||
| ::::: Is there a wording that you would be comfortable with to reflect that the company designed the system for a 5 mi radius, but that the actual optimal radius of the system may deviate from the companies efforts? ] 21:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} | |||
| :::::: Skybum, I neither like it nor dislike it, I simply find it lacking a provable basis for statement in an encyclopaedia. Fresheneesz, try the current wording. ] 22:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 05:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Looks perfect, good job. ] 22:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == External links modified (January 2018) == | |||
| ==Man-years== | |||
| Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
| Do you think 50 man-years should be changed to something like 440,000 man-hours? Man-years to me sounds awkward. ] 20:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: | |||
| :50 man-years is more like 100,000 hours. 50 weeks/year (two weeks vacation) times 40 hours/week, not counting unpaid overtime, etc. What units does the original source use? ] 22:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120805021844/http://airport-world.com/news-articles/item/1765-heathrow%E2%80%99s-pod-system-could-be-extended to http://www.airport-world.com/news-articles/item/1765-heathrow%E2%80%99s-pod-system-could-be-extended | |||
| When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. | |||
| :: I wasn't aware that man-years were counted by working days. uses man years. But I wouldn't think it makes sense to count man-years based on working hours, since obviously men aren't working every hour of the day. But, i'm not an expert on human resource statistics. If we can figure out what "man-years" means, I think we should change it to the more familiar and less ambiguous "man-hours", but if we can't.. I guess we should just keep "man-years". ] 23:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} | |||
| :::From , ''The similar "man-year" concept is used on very large projects. It is the amount of work performed by an average worker during one year. Obviously, the number of hours worked by an individual during a year varies greatly according to cultural norm(s) and economics, but a business man-year for management purposes seems to hover around 2000 man-hours.'' Since the conversion is ambiguous, I think that we should leave it as man-years. Or perhaps person-years? ] 23:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 11:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I emailed the company about it. When I get an answer I'll correct it into man-hours. Btw, the source you cite is a wikipedia-copy page of ]. ] 01:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Requested move 16 March 2024 == | |||
| :::::I've heard the term man-years, and I think it's acceptable here, especially if that's the units that were reported in the sources. ] 02:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> | |||
| :::::: The problem is the ambiguity tho, and the fact that even tho you may have heard of it, maybe other people haven't. For example, I assumed that there are 365 man-year in a man-hour, and 24 man-hours in a man-day - but apparently this isn't so. ] 08:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' | |||
| The result of the move request was: '''moved.''' Rough consensus to change non-standard capitalization. Some disagreement over the new title, so a new move request can be started to change to other alternative per ]. <small>(])</small> ] (]) 22:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Man-years is standard terminology in large projects. I'd leave it. It doesn't really directly scale anyway. ] 13:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| ] → {{no redirect|Ultra (rapid transit)}} – Per ], follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the company considers the name preference official. We should revert to that name. ] (]) 23:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC) <small>— '''''Relisting.''''' ] ] 02:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::::::How about if we Wikify it by pointing to the man-hour article (which has a section on man-years)? | |||
| *'''<s>Oppose</s>'''. Is this not an acronym? U(rban) L(ight) Tra(nsit). Will reconsider if someone provides a good reason why not. ] (]) 13:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:ULTra is an acronym for Urban Light Transit, but still, the L and the T should not be capitalized becuz that is not a standard English spelling. Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the company considers the name being official. Using stylized forms of names that don't follow English text formatting capitalization rules is prohibited. For more information, see ]. ] (]) 18:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::] says capitalise acronyms though. | |||
| *::However, on further inspection this whole request is out of date. They are just called now (or pods or PODS; choose your poison), so I '''Oppose''' on those ground and would suggest '''ALT''' move to {{no redirect|Heathrow Pods}}. ] (]) 18:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Does ] consider terms that are not initialisms? The "Tra" at the end is unusual. Also, relatively recent sources don't use "ULTra" as far as I can tell. The two most recent sources cited in the article are from 2017 and 2018, and they don't use it. The current content www.ultraglobalprt.com (links below) also don't use it. — ] (]) 18:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::@] see my follow up. This is academic anyway. My sources above are from 2023 and 2024. ] (]) 18:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Yes, maybe it's academic for this topic, but see ]. — ] (]) 18:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::No worries. Are you supporting the '''ALT''' then, or am I going to have to wait? :) ] (]) 19:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::'''Move to {{-r|Heathrow pod}}''' (leaning lowercase for the '''p''' in '''p'''od and also ]){{snd}} as in saying "Heathrow pods transport passengers to the future" and "Heathrow Airport has today unveiled the Heathrow '''pod'''" and "The unique Heathrow '''pod''' system" and "each temperature-controlled Heathrow '''pod''' has been designed for privacy and comfort" and also Yorkshire's Paddington source saying "PiP students took a ride on the Heathrow pods" and "Heathrow unveiled three freshly wrapped pods" and "to design new artwork for the pods" and "displayed on the pods". Closer inspection of the links I provided below reveals that, currently, that source also uses the term Heathrow pods (sometimes uppercase 'P', sometimes lowercase, in which case Misplaced Pages would use lowercase). The company is Ultra PRT (with no capital letters in "Ultra"), but the vehicles are called Heathrow pods. — ] (]) 22:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::@]@], this article is also on pods outside Heathrow? All the sources you've cited only discuss Heathrow, not other proposals too? Do they call them Heathrow Pods in India etc? ''']]''' 22:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::I've lost interest. ] (]) 22:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::I sympathize with Yorkshire's comment. As far as I know, there are no operational systems other than at Heathrow. The vehicles aren't operating in India, so they don't need a different name there yet, and presumably they don't have one. Some of the proposed systems discussed in the article seem stalled or unsourced, and it seems clear no one is calling anything "ULTra" lately. The ''company's'' name seems to be {{-r|Ultra Global PRT}}, with the shortened common name {{-r|Ultra PRT}} (with no capital letters in "Ultra"). Currently the article is about the pod car system. If it's changed to be about the company, it could be called {{-r|Ultra PRT}}. — ] (]) 00:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::Sorry. Was in a mood :P ] (]) 12:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Weak support''' largely per ], not universally capitalised, (when searching "ULTra pod" a lot are decapped), and normal capitalisation is to be used. However, TITLETM does have an exception if this the only one that styles it as such? Because there may be a case for ] on its own (again) as a form of alternative disambiguation. But hard to search to prove it, at least for me. ''']]''' 14:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''<s>Support</s>'''. The current title does not seem to be formatted like ordinary English. Even (at least some) self-published "official" sources and the logo don't use it (see , which is the first source cited in the article about the service offered to the public, and ). — ] (]) 18:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:That's because it's an acronym. See above. ] (]) 18:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''Oppose'''.</s> This is demonstrably an acronym, and it is not required or universal that every acronym/initialism be written with entirely uppercase letters (even if that is the most common approach). If "ULTra" is conventional for this specific case (and it seems to be, judging from the sourcing available) then it is, and that's fine. A general Google search shows "ULTra" dominating when you ignore false-positive results that simply contain the string "ultra" somewhere in them but aren't in reference to ULTra in particular , and same goes for news results , and a Google Scholar search . What ] is concerned about is tedious style shenanigans that are just done for typographic effect and have no grammatical/syntactic/semantic basis to them, only an attention-demanding intent, like "SONY" and "macy<sup><small>★</small></sup>s". This isn't such a case. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 10:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:You may have missed some of the subsequent discussion. The topic seems to have undergone a name change or at least a styling change. While the original form may have been justifiable, no recent sources are using that form. The company is now calling itself Ultra PRT (or Ultra Global PRT), and the vehicles are being called Heathrow pods. The identified uses of "ULTra" (in reliable sources, independent or otherwise) all seem to be from 8+ years ago (unless your searches have turned up more of them). — ] (]) 16:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I did miss that, and didn't take into account the source ages. So, '''Support''' per BarrelProof's arguments. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 21:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' per BarrelProof. The old strained acronym is no longer in use. ] (]) 21:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :<small>'''Relisting comment''': Relisting for clearer consensus. ] ] 02:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *'''Support''' It may be derived from an acronym but it is not being used as an acronym and usage does change (eg radar). The company isn't using that styling (see ) and usage in google scholar since 2012 is mixed (see ). Could support an '''alternative''' eg ] as more natural and only one more word than present. ] (]) 09:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: Personally, I couldn't care less if its standard or not - I only care if I understand it. An abiguous standard is as or more useless than if we measured the amount of human work in Joules. ] 22:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::That alternative seems worth considering. It's ] and does not narrow the scope. — ] (]) 17:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: What is ambiguous about man-years? One man, one year. Seems simple enough. If in doubt, link to the article on ] wich describes the concept consisely. ] 23:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] --> | |||
| </div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div> | |||
| == Requested move 29 April 2024 == | |||
| ::::::::::: How bout you read the other comments JzG - i'm not going to paraphrase. | |||
| <div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> | |||
| ::::::::::: I got this email from martin lowson: | |||
| :''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' | |||
| ::::::::::: "''Probably our estimate of man years in not sufficiently accurate for the precise definition to make much difference. | |||
| ::::::::::: ''However sine we have had a team of around 50 equivalent full time people (including all subcontractors) and also a good size BAA team working on the project for the past year I am sure that the total investment, whatever the definition, is now well over 100 man years''" | |||
| The result of the move request was: '''moved.''' Moved to ] <small>(])</small> ] (]) 06:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::: It is clear that he is using Pstudier's interpretation of a man-year. Comments on changing it to man-hours? ] 23:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| ] → {{no redirect|Ultra pod transit system}} – More ] and more clear than the current title. This was suggested without objection in the RM that was just closed. — ] (]) 22:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC) <small>— '''''Relisting.''''' ] 15:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)</small> <small>— '''''Relisting.''''' ] (]) 13:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::::::::::Fresheneesz, I'm quite familiar with the terms "man-hour", "man-month", and "man-year". Just because you aren't familiar with these terms doesn't mean they are ambiguous. In fact, I think in this case man-years is the more appropriate term, because it is ''appropriately vague''. In other words, man-hours implies a more precise measurement, whereas man-year indicates that it's more of an informal estimate. Man years are certainly not sufficient for a company audit, but they are sufficient to give a general indication of the level of effort that has gone into the system. I say keep it man years. ] 01:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' as the proposer of the alternative in the RM just closed. ] (]) 00:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::: Seconded -- keep it as man-years. It's a unit of measurement that I've frequently seen with regards to large engineering projects (dams, airplanes, operating systems, et cetera), so it seems like the right unit to use here. ] 02:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''': natural and clear. ] (]) 18:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose''' ]. It doesn't seem to be a name used for the company or in any of the titles in the references. ] (]) 20:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Well, I can't argue against a clear consensus - my only concern is that the readers of this article might mistake 50 man-years to mean 400'000 man hours - not 100'000. ] 06:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The article is primarily focused on the ''transit system''. ] (]) 22:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Are there any references using this name 'Ultra pod transit system'? ] (]) 22:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's a descriptive title{{snd}} about a transit system composed of Ultra pods{{snd}} not intended as an exact name of a particular system. — ] (]) 22:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The introduction states it is a type of ]. What is 'ultra' about this transit system? ] (]) 07:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Maybe read the article? ] (]) 08:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Specifically, Ultra is the (short) name of the company that makes the pods used in this transit system. — ] (]) 11:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :<small>Note: ], ], ], and ] have been notified of this discussion. ] 15:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per above. Seems to be a bit clumsy as well. ] (] • ]) 22:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''', ] states the alternative name has to be used in sources, searching this only comes up with this RM, are their used alternatives? Otherwise the current should stay. ''']]''' 01:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I believe that guidance is just to avoid creating new choices of proper name titles. In contrast, ] says that descriptive titles "are often invented specifically for articles". — ] (]) 00:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Using the prefix 'Ultra' seems to be just a promotional prefix if the article is supposed to be a general description of a system other than just one company. ] (]) 22:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It is not trying to describe a generic type of system made by any company; it is just describing the system(s) made by this company. — ] (]) 23:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@] If we followed your logic we'd just have an article at ] and nothing for any particular models. ] (]) 18:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I would actually '''suggest Ultra (personal rapid transit)''' to match other similar articles and I also '''oppose the current proposal''' - too wordy and unnecessary. ] (]) <small>Time, department skies</small> 00:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::: My understanding is that a man year is the time a man works in a year. ] 20:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I can get behind that. Much more descriptive and natural. ] (] • ]) 01:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] and undue weight == | |||
| ::Relative to the current title, isn't that just adding an unnecessary word in the parentheses? — ] (]) 02:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] absolutely agree. Can't support alt. Also 'rapid' might be considered a weasel word. ] (]) 21:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Guys: I did some research, and you need to know that JzG has a critically flawed understanding of what NPOV is about. (I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt by attributing it to ignorance rather than malice). He is correct in stating that articles must reflect the "majority viewpoint," and that even where facts concerning "minority viewpoints" are attributable and verifiable, it can skew the POV of an article by including them, thus giving the minority viewpoint "undue weight". This much is absolutely true. | |||
| ::::You're right. "Rapid" seems like a weasel word, despite being commonly used. Deleting it usually doesn't alter the real meaning. Calling something a "rapid transit system" doesn't mean it's any faster than calling it a "transit system". — ] (]) 22:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The alternative would be just as "wordy" and less "natural" because of the parenthesis. Per ], a natural {{tq|title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles.}} ] (]) 22:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| However he is absolutely incorrect in applying that to this situation. The issue of "weight" only comes up when a minority viewpoint ''on a given topic'' attempts to dominate that topic. For example, if verifiable ] facts cluttered up the ] article, then that would be a problem of undue weight, because space elevators are a distinctly niche topic, outside of the mainstream, and are completely irrelevant to contemporary space launch. However, that does not mean that the space elevator article ''itself'' must be truncated and minimized to reflect this fact, because virtually any and all facts about space elevator design -- but pro and con -- are appropriate ''for that specific topic''. (Remember that "wiki is not paper," and we are under no injunction to conserve bandwidth). | |||
| ::::Please elaborate. "Rapid transit" is a common term used for these systems because, more often than not, they're faster than other forms of transit, like walking or driving a car. ] (] • ]) 00:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The "because" part seems unproven. I suspect it is a common term used for these systems because it can help ''give people the impression'' that they are rapid. We also drive cars and bicycles because they are more rapid than walking, but we don't feel the need call them "rapid cars" and "rapid bicycles". — ] (]) 01:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Even topics which I (and the majority) consider to be absolutely false and invalid get this treatment. For example, ] and ] have substantial and detailed articles. It would be giving them too much weight if they were more than a footnote in the ] and ] articles, but within their own articles, anything that is on-topic goes. | |||
| ::::::'''Support''': Parentheses is better to avoid mixing two different types of name. ] (]) 23:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support Ultra (personal rapid transit)''' as the best option proposed. The "Ultra" part is not in dispute, and "personal rapid transit" is a standard term for this type of system. ] (]) 11:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Similarly, if ULTra facts were to dominate the ] article, or PRT facts were to dominate the ] article, then that would be a case of the "undue weight" problem that JzG talks about. But ''within their own articles,'' that is absolutely not the case. JzG needs to stop misrepresenting this rule, and we need to stop giving him any credence when he does so. ] 14:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] --> | |||
| </div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div> | |||
| :What needs to stop is people attacking me for trying to keep these articles to policy. Large amounts of speculative detail have been removed from PRT and UniModal, but there appears to be a massive battle being fought to include speculative data. What we include, should be verifiable from reliable ''secondary'' sources, per policy. The assertion that PRT is suitable for a wide-scale implementation is a minority point of view; if it were a ''majority'' point of view this would surely be evident by now in the shape of wide-scale implementations, or arguments in the mainstream engineering press in favour of PRT. It's a minorityu point of view because it is asserted by proponents but is not backed up by real world data - it's never been tried. | |||
| :Creationism has a big article because there are millions of Americans who believe in it; how many US states have laws requiring PRT? I can document several places where the schools are required to rteach creationism. And PRT has a ''large'' and very detailed article, which spends most of its time discussing a scale of operation which (as it makes clear) has ''never been tried''. This article says that ULTra is the world's first actual PRT implementation. Is it, as the makers would love to see, an urban system covering about 5km? Not as such: it's in a car park. Misplaced Pages is not paper, but neither is it on a deadline - we can afford to wait and see if PRT becomes a significant mode. If it does, we can talk about it in detail citing facts verifiable from multiple reliable sources. Right now it's mostly a dream, and has been throughout virtually all its history. Monorails have achieved more installations than PRT, and a lot of them are in theme parks. ] 15:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Cabintaxi was approved by the German government for city-wide installation. Yet you still call it a dream. Never been tried? Neither has Windows Vista. Neither has Blu-Ray. Neither has the Airbus A380. JzG, your POV causes you to hold PRT to a different standard. ] 15:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Just remind me again, where was the full implementation? Which cities have a Cabintaxi system? How many miles of production Cabintaxi guideway are there in operation? Oh, wait, I remember now - the answer is "none", isn't it? So, a dream then. ] 21:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So, until a ] has been built and is operating commercially, we can't write about any of the design principles therein? Bollocks. JzG, you absolutely ''are'' holding PRT to a different standard than everything else on Misplaced Pages. Knock it off. ] 21:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::All of which is wholly irrelevant to discussions of ULTra's '''design''', which is ''not'' speculative, because that ''is'', factually and verifiably, its current, contemporary, '''design'''. If there is some large body of criticism specifically of ULTra -- such that it constitutes the "majority viewpoint" on ULTra -- then you should include that criticism in this article. It would be on-topic, and welcomed by me. But the fact is that this (and PRT as a whole) is a niche topic: the "majority" has no awareness of it whatsoever. That does not in any way imply that Misplaced Pages should not cover it; there are ''millions'' of niche-topic articles here; that's practically the entire point of Misplaced Pages. We cannot engage in speculation, of course, but we can certainly document it -- that's why articles like ] and ] and ] and ] and ] exist, all of which are appropriate to document. So is this. Now stop trying to censor it. ] 15:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I dunno if this disucssion is very neccessary. We've had it before, and I think we should all know now that NPOV dictates majority view inside individual articles, not separate articles. Anyways, JzG has been trying to argue that some of the information here is actually biased, and not verifiable. In many cases I disagree with his allegations, but I haven't seen him argue undue weight in a while now. ] 20:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Yes, what I'm saying is that the manufacturer's claims for what applications this system is "optimised" for are at odds with the test installation and the ''only'' application it's been bought for, unsupportable from other comparable systems (of which there are none), and therefore must be treated with scepticism. They are marketing claims, and this is not supposed be a sales brochure. I'd like to see some discussion of these claims in the technical journals. As an engineering application that's rather what I'd expect in terms of reliable sources, rather than endless quotes from the promoter's website. Surely it's been discussed in the civil engineering press? ] 21:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The lack of a test installation is ''one piece of evidence'', for which you have provided an adequate qualification. However, ''another'' piece of evidence is the claim made by the company. Presented as a qualified claim, it is completely verifiable, as verifiable as any claim made by any company who has a product that has not yet reached the market. That's what we've been saying over and over here. Instead of removing verifiable ''claims'' why can't you just qualify them? Furthermore, your notion that the claim is "at odds" with the test installation is logically incorrect. The fact that the test installation does not demonstrate the claim does not mean the claim is false. ] 15:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Just want to say... == | |||
| ... that as irritated at JzG as I am right now, was a fair one. If he can keep up that kind of editing without engaging in so much grandstanding on the talk pages, I wouldn't mind keeping him around. ] 21:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :What you need to understand is that I am doing my very best to explain my thinking; many other editors would simply revert, or insert a single pithy comment - or edit-warred. We have much more talk than edit war in these articles, and that is entirely right, and they are better for it. Plenty of admins would simply have locked the articles down. If people (including me, I never claimed to be perfect) spent more time trying to understand each other and less time trying to read motives into each other's words then I think we'd have less trouble. As to grandstanding, I would remind you to remain ]. With thousands of main space articles on my watchlist and all teir associated talk I do have better things to do than argufy; I only engage in debate where I think the result is worth it to the encyclopaedia. Thus far, for the most part, it has been, although the PRT article is once again starting to creep. ] 22:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: One thing I keep forgetting is that maybe half of all arguments are due to semantics - although I speak only from experience. Besides, on wikipedia, basically the only thing we're arguing about is wording - so we should try to be very clear and carful that we fully understand exactly what our opponents are arguing before we counter it. ] 22:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :JzG, I agree, we need to understand each other more. But that means you need to '''trust us''', that we are not just a bunch of PRT fanatics pushing POV here -- that's the Avidor view, and like most of Avidor's views, it's basically a grossly exaggerated caricature. Sure, there is enthusiasm for PRT in what we write, because it's a technology that interests us. Does that mean we have an agenda? No, no agenda other than trying to present a ''comprehensive'', ''neutral'' picture of PRT. | |||
| :Perhaps some our edits may look like blatant promotion to you, and, admittedly, sometimes their tone may be slightly more promotional than is appropriate. It doesn't mean the edits don't have ''any'' merit at all; in most cases, when you ''qualify'' the points we are completely in agreement with what you write (as in this case). But when you mass-revert without comment (you've done it several times, even recently), it just causes frustration, and it leads '''us''' to distrust '''your''' motives. It's a vicious cycle. | |||
| :So let's start from a position of trust, and assume that we're all after the same thing here: a rock solid set of articles on a very promising technology that has yet to find a place in a very tight marketplace. If we work together on it, our respective POVs will balance in a positive way and improve the articles, rather than just cause talk page wars. ] 23:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: It's always good to work together. The talk pages are also a good place to test out wording that might be controversial. ] 07:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Also, the trust thing is a two-way street. I came to this from outside as a neutral third party, remember - it is very important to remember that the average of enthusiastic and sceptical is ''not'' neutral (the neutral version of an article on a pseudoscience, for example, is not somewhere between scepticism and promotion, it's scepticism). Neutral is the average between promotion and detraction - halfway between ATE/Fresheneesz etc. and Avidor. Stephen's view is probably the closest to the properly Wikipedian middle ground here. As is acknowledged above, these articles have a history of - how should we put this? - somwehat uncritical editing. Enthusiasm is good, but neutrality is better. As to whether this is a "promising" technology or not, I have no idea. That sounds like begign the question to me. Were monorails promising? They were all the rage a few dacades back but are not being built in any numbers. Automated guidance of private cars is far more likely to take off than PRT, in my view, because in the end public transport, even on your own, is seen as less desirable by users (and society, guided by extensive advertising spend by auto makers) than private transport. This is, of course, a philosophical argument with no place in the articles. In the articles we talk about what has happened, not what might happen one day. ] 08:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, you are wrong, JzG. Neutral is ''not'' halfway between us and Avidor, because ''our'' positions are based in verifiable science, and Avidor's positions are conspiracy theories with absolutely no verifiable basis. You continue to miss the point that, in this case, '''the ''skepticism itself'' is pseudoscience'''. We've provided research papers, scientific evidence, regulatory endorsement, working prototypes. Balance that against the Avidor position, which is based on ''nothing but paranoid speculation''. How can you continue to claim that our positions are equidistant from center? That, I believe, is the fundamental basis of the problems we've had here. JzG, start looking at the verifiable fact, and stop assuming we're just anti-Avidors. Either that, or try to find hard evidence of Avidor's theories. ] 15:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: You are of course entitled to your own view about the neutrality of your own view, just bear in mind that it may not be ] :-) I return to the central theme: PRT is presented as an urban transport solution. There is no such installation, and no proof it would work as such. The only installations which exist are trials. One apparently proved to be unworkable as conceived so was changed to something else (according to your definitions). One apparently fell through because the necessary subsidies were not in place (not a good sign for a solution being sold in the US!). Another is being implemented in a car park. So, as it stands, it's an interesting but plainly minor technology which has yet to find a proven workable application. Avidor's position is, as I understand it, that such schemes should not be used as ]s against proven technologies. That is a perfectly reasonable proposition. Of course he states it in the language of satire and polemic, because he is a satirist and polemicist. As long as the article says, in effect, that this might be interesting but thus far it's all theory, there should be no major problem. UniMOdal is a somewhat different case, in that it is a hypothetical commercial product being pitched quite hard. We are not here to facilitate that. ULTra is different again: somebody has at least ordered it. Time will tell if it works - not technically, I'm sure the pods will move, but practically, whether the wait times will be as short as forecast, whether there will be public acceptance, that kind of thing. It's local to me, I will most likely see it one day. As a fully paid-up geek I will be in the queue to have a go. ] 15:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: My view is based in scientific fact (''German regulatory approval!!''). Avidor's views are political and unverifiable, and in many cases blatantly untrue (fraud? hoax?). You are being ridiculous in saying they are equal, and we will continue to have these endless debates until you start seeing things for what they really are, despite your obvious affection for Avidor. | |||
| :::: Furthermore, show me where I've objected to a reasonable qualification to an unproven assertion. Go ahead and search the histories, you will not find one. The only times I've objected are when you ''remove a point entirely'' because it doesn't meet '''your''' definition of reality, or neutrality, or "balance". ] 16:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Theres no largescale instalations, there is however smallscale instatallations, years of testing and theorizing, and the techology is draws off of is mostly tried and true. Avidor thinks this is some sort of marketing scam, while we see merit in it. By themselves they could be equal stances from center - but Avidor has proved that he ''does not''take science at face value. Ther merit is in the argument - and Avidor had plenty of low blowing and frankly crazy argumentative techniques. I reaaaaaly dunwanna be compared to that guy. ] 18:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Ultra is a lot more concrete than Unimodal, which has a pretty good article now. The advantage of Ultra is that a steady stream of reports should cover every aspect of the project allowing anything controversial to be verified over time. Is there a list of outstanding points somewhere? ] 20:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Stephen: do you agree with JzG, that Avidor and I are equidistant from the "center" position on PRT? If so, on what do you base this assertion? I only ask because JzG seems to base a lot of his edits on this assertion (that he's "balancing" the two positions), and on the fact that you supposedly agree with him. If you do, I'd like to know why, because I don't recall any of us saying ''anything'' nearly as extreme as "PRT is a fraud and a hoax", or that PRT scientists and proponents are "fanatics" and "wackos" who are trying to kill transit at the behest of the highway industry. ] 20:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: I arrived as Avidor was leaving, so I don't know how you compare. I think if someone makes POV edits mixed in with a good edit, JzG sometimes just reverts the whole lot. If you have a particular edit of yours you think is valid, I'll give my opinion on it and am happy to improve it through discussion. I am working on only a handful of articles at a time, so have the luxury of being able to sometimes winkle out, from amongst the assumptions, some of the hidden valuable nuggets of verifiable truth. ] 20:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: Stephen, you should be a lawyer. :-). In any event, sounds to me like it is only JzG who has made the definitive judgement that we're just two equivalently opposed sides of the argument. And frankly, I'm insulted by the insinuation, because I'm a scientist and I don't like being compared to someone who deals almost exclusively in propaganda. ] 21:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: I think that these guys and Avidor would disagree on principle. Avidor is a champion of sustainable transport and a big fan of traditional trolleys; PRT was used as a stalking horse to oppose reinstatement of trolley lines in his town. See ] for a bit of background. They see Avidor as a vehement opponent of PRT, but that's not really the case, he's a supporter of a competing (and well-proven) system. I'm afraid German regulatory approval for something which was never built in the world does not cut much ice with me, but you know this. As to whether the pro-PRT camp have said anything extreme - well, I'd say some of the claims which have been excised over the past onths have been pretty extreme. ] 21:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: Bollocks. Absolute Bollocks. I challenge you to find one piece of verifiable evidence on the stalking horse stuff. It's all flat-earth level conspiracy theory. JzG, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Avidor is a vehement of PRT, I can't even believe you would say otherwise. I'm beginning to think you are as much of a POV pusher as Avidor was. You continue to vigorously support a pseudo-skeptic while dismissing ''real science!'' | |||
| :::::::::: Go ahead, JzG, find me '''one''' Avidor claim that is '''one tenth''' as verifiable as '''German regulatory approval''', something you freely dismiss just a few words after publicly endorsing Avidor's ridiculous claims. | |||
| :::::::::: BTW, how about I propose a new theory: cyclists push light rail as part of their conspiracy against highway development! Obviously I don't need any more proof than the fact that you and Avidor are cyclists who also happen to support rail! Avidor doesn't need to provide evidence, why should I? I'll just draw some cartoons, put up a web site, and write op-ed pieces for every newspaper considering rail. That's enough evidence for you, right JzG? Unbelievable what passes for true skepticism around here. ] 00:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: Also BTW, does anyone remember back when JzG actually proposed adding a cartoon about a '''terrorist attack on PRT''' to the skepticism section? He actually called it "light-hearted"! A terrorist attack on a transit system -- lighthearted! This just goes to show just how distorted his POV is, and how deep his affection for Avidor is. Obviously, his views haven't changed after all this time. Nothing like a closed minded, arrogant, trigger-happy admin. Let pseudo-skepticism reign. ] 00:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 06:19, 2 June 2024
 | This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
 Archives |
Dead Link
link to Electric-Bikes.com leads tn 'oops we are sorry' page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.43.76 (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for spotting that. I'll fix it to what i think it was meant to link to. Simply south (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Heathrow location
If someone wants to take photos or create a map of the Heathrow system, this sketch shows where it will be. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- There are very recent photos online at ATS's website Heathrow / Test Track Progress. Germet (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Now if you could get permission to use those pictures on Misplaced Pages, we would be all set. ;-) --JJLatWiki (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I uploaded a picture taken from an airplane on Feb 19 but OTRS is still pending. Germet (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Mr Thant (London Connections) created a map. Germet (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
New load/unload stalls
I've noticed that the Heathrow system will use parking lot style, one-way, angled stalls for loading and unloading passengers instead of the previously more common all-in-a-line style loading and unloading. In almost all previous PRT designs, the cars enter the station on a continuous siding and passengers unload near the entrance point of siding and load on the side of the station where the siding exits the station. With this new design, not only are the stations offline, the passenger load/unload stalls are further offline. Intuitively, it seems to increase capacity by allowing slower passengers avoid interfering with faster passengers. But it also seems to slightly complicate the command and control functions. Has anyone read about this change?
By the way, I noticed that Google Earth now has a great shot of the Cardiff test facility with the new loading stall design: ULTra Cardiff (I hope) --JJLatWiki (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- The offline stations are an excellent idea for the travel use, due to baggage handling complications. Of course the offline stations do slightly complicate the command and control, but should need very slight changes to the zone reservation code (zone blocking has been mentioned in descriptions, and solution is trivial when each stall and the station spur have their own zones). A little more complex might be changes to the vehicle's movement programming (such as automated backing out of a stall), but that's obviously been done because they've been testing it. Incidentally, that's a Google Maps link and not Google Earth. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I first noticed the image in Google Earth and thought Google Maps would be appropriate (no download of GE) for this purpose. ;-) --JJLatWiki (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The in-a-line style stations was all that was (easily) possible with previous systems. They rode a guiderail, typically steered by small runner wheels at the front of the vehicle. The rail had to be continuous, so it's not a trivial exercise to produce a number of "docks", as each one would require a switch or break in the guiderail. This would be further complicated by the fact that the guidewheels would have to be able to run onto the rails from either direction, which would not be simple. I know of no older PRT that can back up.
ULTra has no guiderail, reading its location from the track and steering itself internally. That eliminates all complications on the guidance, and makes backing up trivial. I assume there is some sort of local-area controller in the stations themselves to indicate free docks and tell the vehicles when they are allowed to back up. See Cabinentaxi for an example of station logic.
As a Canadian I can say that ULTra would never fly here. We have this white stuff called "snow" that, after a brief period, compacts into another material called "ice". Wheeled vehicles take a random amount of time to start and stop on ice and snow, so your headways get trampled and route capacity nosedives. You can fix a lot of this by using a LIM, which means you don't need the wheels to have any traction at all. But then that blows your infrastructure costs, you need larger vehicles to make up for it, and you end up with Bombardier ART. Sad though.
Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Snow is only a problem if it accumulates, and accumulation only happens if you don't clear it regularly. With an automated system, it should be possible to automate snow removal as it falls and before it accumulates, by running automated plows or brushes on the tracks every 15 minutes or so during a storm. Perhaps every pod could have a snow brush that descended from the chassis as needed, meaning every pod is a snow remover.
- Big huge plows are needed on roads only because there aren't enough plows (and drivers) to clear the snow as it falls. So you need a large piece of machinery that can clear 3 hours worth of accumulation. PRT doesn't have that problem because automated snow removal can run at very high frequency.
- As for ice storms, that's a little tougher. Maybe you'd need a special vehicle with a scraper or salter (though salt is brutal on the road surface). In any case, however ice on PRT guideway is handled, it will benefit from fully automated vehicles to do the work. ATren (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what they thought for the ICTS (now known as the ART). What happens is that wet snow blows onto the track and then wind evaporatively cools it into a thin sheet of ice. Very bad! Works fine in Vancouver though. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I don't know, I've lived in one of the snow capitals of the world my whole life, and I've found that the key to snow and ice is to not let it build up. Even in high winds, if you have a steady, non-stop snow removal, you can stay ahead of it. With PRT, if every PRT vehicle has a deployable snow brush under the chassis, then you can have almost constant snow clearing along the entire guideway. In my above comment I had said "every 15 minutes" but really that is far from the maximum frequency. Vehicles on track spaced 20 seconds apart along the whole guideway would not be out of the question. That should cover even the most severe of storms.
- The ICTS (or ART) you refer to - is this a people mover of some sort? Is it automated? How often can the snow removal vehicles run? ATren (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a people-mover/GRT/light subway, also known as the Vancouver SkyTrain, Scarborough RT, Detroit PeopleMover etc. Every vehicle is its own snow plough, but they need on-call teams for when it really snows. Closes down about once a year in spite of this. And that's with a LIM, no wheeled traction! Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Batteries
I can't find any mention of the battery life anywhere. How long does a charge last and how long does it take to recharge? This could be ULTRa's biggest problem - too many vehicles waiting to be recharged.173.58.251.147 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC).
Rename
DrFrench recently renamed the article and all mentions of "ULTra" to "Ultra", citing the MOS, but the MOS says mixed-case trademarks are a decision left to editor discretion, and I believe it was better with mixed case. ULTra is short for "Urban Light Transport", so the name ULTra is actually more of an acronym than a simple trademark. We wouldn't write Ibm or At&t, and I don't think this should be Ultra.
If there are no objections in the next few days, I will change it back. ATren (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
The company uses "Ultra" and not "ULTra" on their web-pages. The article should use the same name IMHO. Hubba (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Latest schedule
Well, spring of 2010 came and went and obviously the service has not opened. Has anyone heard of the latest scheduled opening? Some googling revealed nothing. Vectro (talk) 02:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's now Autumn 2010 and still no sign of an opening. This is not good.173.58.64.64 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC).
By the time these things go live they'll be covered in more cobwebs than the adams family's house.Back ache (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone know why? It it a delay in regulator approval or is it a technical problem? Paul Studier (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on ULTra (rapid transit). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011132150/http://atsltd.co.uk/prt/faq/ to http://www.atsltd.co.uk/prt/faq/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060926221610/http://www.nesta.org.uk/ourawardees/profiles/1634/04_milestones.html to http://www.nesta.org.uk/ourawardees/profiles/1634/04_milestones.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713025436/http://www.ultraprt.com/news/89/149/May-2011-News-LHR-HSR-India-Apple-tools/ to http://www.ultraprt.com/news/89/149/May-2011-News-LHR-HSR-India-Apple-tools/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110122235138/http://www.hindustantimes.com/After-Heathrow-Pod-Cars-may-well-hit-the-Millennium-City/Article1-510141.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/After-Heathrow-Pod-Cars-may-well-hit-the-Millennium-City/Article1-510141.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on ULTra (rapid transit). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120805021844/http://airport-world.com/news-articles/item/1765-heathrow%E2%80%99s-pod-system-could-be-extended to http://www.airport-world.com/news-articles/item/1765-heathrow%E2%80%99s-pod-system-could-be-extended
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Requested move 16 March 2024
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. Rough consensus to change non-standard capitalization. Some disagreement over the new title, so a new move request can be started to change to other alternative per WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
ULTra (rapid transit) → Ultra (rapid transit) – Per MOS:TM, follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the company considers the name preference official. We should revert to that name. Aitraintheeditorandgamer (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 02:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. Is this not an acronym? U(rban) L(ight) Tra(nsit). Will reconsider if someone provides a good reason why not. YorkshireExpat (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)- ULTra is an acronym for Urban Light Transit, but still, the L and the T should not be capitalized becuz that is not a standard English spelling. Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the company considers the name being official. Using stylized forms of names that don't follow English text formatting capitalization rules is prohibited. For more information, see MOS:TM. Aitraintheeditorandgamer (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- MOS:TM says capitalise acronyms though.
- However, on further inspection this whole request is out of date. They are just called Heathrow Pods now (or pods or PODS; choose your poison), so I Oppose on those ground and would suggest ALT move to Heathrow Pods. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Does MOS:TM consider terms that are not initialisms? The "Tra" at the end is unusual. Also, relatively recent sources don't use "ULTra" as far as I can tell. The two most recent sources cited in the article are from 2017 and 2018, and they don't use it. The current content www.ultraglobalprt.com (links below) also don't use it. — BarrelProof (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- @BarrelProof see my follow up. This is academic anyway. My sources above are from 2023 and 2024. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, maybe it's academic for this topic, but see WT:MOSTM#Partially capped abbreviations with multiple letters from a word. — BarrelProof (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- No worries. Are you supporting the ALT then, or am I going to have to wait? :) YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Move to Heathrow pod (leaning lowercase for the p in pod and also WP:SINGULAR) – as in this source saying "Heathrow pods transport passengers to the future" and "Heathrow Airport has today unveiled the Heathrow pod" and "The unique Heathrow pod system" and "each temperature-controlled Heathrow pod has been designed for privacy and comfort" and also Yorkshire's Paddington source saying "PiP students took a ride on the Heathrow pods" and "Heathrow unveiled three freshly wrapped pods" and "to design new artwork for the pods" and "displayed on the pods". Closer inspection of the links I provided below reveals that, currently, that source also uses the term Heathrow pods (sometimes uppercase 'P', sometimes lowercase, in which case Misplaced Pages would use lowercase). The company is Ultra PRT (with no capital letters in "Ultra"), but the vehicles are called Heathrow pods. — BarrelProof (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- @BarrelProof@YorkshireExpat, this article is also on pods outside Heathrow? All the sources you've cited only discuss Heathrow, not other proposals too? Do they call them Heathrow Pods in India etc? DankJae 22:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- I've lost interest. YorkshireExpat (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- I sympathize with Yorkshire's comment. As far as I know, there are no operational systems other than at Heathrow. The vehicles aren't operating in India, so they don't need a different name there yet, and presumably they don't have one. Some of the proposed systems discussed in the article seem stalled or unsourced, and it seems clear no one is calling anything "ULTra" lately. The company's name seems to be Ultra Global PRT, with the shortened common name Ultra PRT (with no capital letters in "Ultra"). Currently the article is about the pod car system. If it's changed to be about the company, it could be called Ultra PRT. — BarrelProof (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry. Was in a mood :P YorkshireExpat (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- I sympathize with Yorkshire's comment. As far as I know, there are no operational systems other than at Heathrow. The vehicles aren't operating in India, so they don't need a different name there yet, and presumably they don't have one. Some of the proposed systems discussed in the article seem stalled or unsourced, and it seems clear no one is calling anything "ULTra" lately. The company's name seems to be Ultra Global PRT, with the shortened common name Ultra PRT (with no capital letters in "Ultra"). Currently the article is about the pod car system. If it's changed to be about the company, it could be called Ultra PRT. — BarrelProof (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- I've lost interest. YorkshireExpat (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- @BarrelProof@YorkshireExpat, this article is also on pods outside Heathrow? All the sources you've cited only discuss Heathrow, not other proposals too? Do they call them Heathrow Pods in India etc? DankJae 22:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Move to Heathrow pod (leaning lowercase for the p in pod and also WP:SINGULAR) – as in this source saying "Heathrow pods transport passengers to the future" and "Heathrow Airport has today unveiled the Heathrow pod" and "The unique Heathrow pod system" and "each temperature-controlled Heathrow pod has been designed for privacy and comfort" and also Yorkshire's Paddington source saying "PiP students took a ride on the Heathrow pods" and "Heathrow unveiled three freshly wrapped pods" and "to design new artwork for the pods" and "displayed on the pods". Closer inspection of the links I provided below reveals that, currently, that source also uses the term Heathrow pods (sometimes uppercase 'P', sometimes lowercase, in which case Misplaced Pages would use lowercase). The company is Ultra PRT (with no capital letters in "Ultra"), but the vehicles are called Heathrow pods. — BarrelProof (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- No worries. Are you supporting the ALT then, or am I going to have to wait? :) YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, maybe it's academic for this topic, but see WT:MOSTM#Partially capped abbreviations with multiple letters from a word. — BarrelProof (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- @BarrelProof see my follow up. This is academic anyway. My sources above are from 2023 and 2024. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Does MOS:TM consider terms that are not initialisms? The "Tra" at the end is unusual. Also, relatively recent sources don't use "ULTra" as far as I can tell. The two most recent sources cited in the article are from 2017 and 2018, and they don't use it. The current content www.ultraglobalprt.com (links below) also don't use it. — BarrelProof (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- ULTra is an acronym for Urban Light Transit, but still, the L and the T should not be capitalized becuz that is not a standard English spelling. Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the company considers the name being official. Using stylized forms of names that don't follow English text formatting capitalization rules is prohibited. For more information, see MOS:TM. Aitraintheeditorandgamer (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support largely per WP:TITLETM, not universally capitalised, (when searching "ULTra pod" a lot are decapped), and normal capitalisation is to be used. However, TITLETM does have an exception if this the only one that styles it as such? Because there may be a case for ULTra on its own (again) as a form of alternative disambiguation. But hard to search to prove it, at least for me. DankJae 14:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Support. The current title does not seem to be formatted like ordinary English. Even (at least some) self-published "official" sources and the logo don't use it (see here, which is the first source cited in the article about the service offered to the public, and here). — BarrelProof (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)- That's because it's an acronym. See above. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Oppose.This is demonstrably an acronym, and it is not required or universal that every acronym/initialism be written with entirely uppercase letters (even if that is the most common approach). If "ULTra" is conventional for this specific case (and it seems to be, judging from the sourcing available) then it is, and that's fine. A general Google search shows "ULTra" dominating when you ignore false-positive results that simply contain the string "ultra" somewhere in them but aren't in reference to ULTra in particular , and same goes for news results , and a Google Scholar search . What MOS:TM is concerned about is tedious style shenanigans that are just done for typographic effect and have no grammatical/syntactic/semantic basis to them, only an attention-demanding intent, like "SONY" and "macys". This isn't such a case. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)- You may have missed some of the subsequent discussion. The topic seems to have undergone a name change or at least a styling change. While the original form may have been justifiable, no recent sources are using that form. The company is now calling itself Ultra PRT (or Ultra Global PRT), and the vehicles are being called Heathrow pods. The identified uses of "ULTra" (in reliable sources, independent or otherwise) all seem to be from 8+ years ago (unless your searches have turned up more of them). — BarrelProof (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- I did miss that, and didn't take into account the source ages. So, Support per BarrelProof's arguments. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- You may have missed some of the subsequent discussion. The topic seems to have undergone a name change or at least a styling change. While the original form may have been justifiable, no recent sources are using that form. The company is now calling itself Ultra PRT (or Ultra Global PRT), and the vehicles are being called Heathrow pods. The identified uses of "ULTra" (in reliable sources, independent or otherwise) all seem to be from 8+ years ago (unless your searches have turned up more of them). — BarrelProof (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support per BarrelProof. The old strained acronym is no longer in use. Dicklyon (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Relisting comment: Relisting for clearer consensus. BD2412 T 02:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support It may be derived from an acronym but it is not being used as an acronym and usage does change (eg radar). The company isn't using that styling (see here) and usage in google scholar since 2012 is mixed (see here). Could support an alternative eg Ultra pod transit system as more natural and only one more word than present. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- That alternative seems worth considering. It's WP:NATURAL and does not narrow the scope. — BarrelProof (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Requested move 29 April 2024
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. Moved to Ultra (personal rapid transit) (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Ultra (rapid transit) → Ultra pod transit system – More WP:NATURAL and more clear than the current title. This was suggested without objection in the RM that was just closed. — BarrelProof (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE 15:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support as the proposer of the alternative in the RM just closed. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support: natural and clear. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Ultra pod transit system. It doesn't seem to be a name used for the company or in any of the titles in the references. Darrelljon (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- The article is primarily focused on the transit system. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Are there any references using this name 'Ultra pod transit system'? Darrelljon (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's a descriptive title – about a transit system composed of Ultra pods – not intended as an exact name of a particular system. — BarrelProof (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- The introduction states it is a type of personal rapid transit. What is 'ultra' about this transit system? Darrelljon (talk) 07:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe read the article? YorkshireExpat (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Specifically, Ultra is the (short) name of the company that makes the pods used in this transit system. — BarrelProof (talk) 11:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- The introduction states it is a type of personal rapid transit. What is 'ultra' about this transit system? Darrelljon (talk) 07:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's a descriptive title – about a transit system composed of Ultra pods – not intended as an exact name of a particular system. — BarrelProof (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Are there any references using this name 'Ultra pod transit system'? Darrelljon (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- The article is primarily focused on the transit system. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: WikiProject Rapid transit, WikiProject UK Railways, WikiProject London Transport, and WikiProject Trains have been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 15:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Seems to be a bit clumsy as well. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 22:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, WP:NATURAL states the alternative name has to be used in sources, searching this only comes up with this RM, are their used alternatives? Otherwise the current should stay. DankJae 01:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- I believe that guidance is just to avoid creating new choices of proper name titles. In contrast, WP:NDESC says that descriptive titles "are often invented specifically for articles". — BarrelProof (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Using the prefix 'Ultra' seems to be just a promotional prefix if the article is supposed to be a general description of a system other than just one company. Darrelljon (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- It is not trying to describe a generic type of system made by any company; it is just describing the system(s) made by this company. — BarrelProof (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Darrelljon If we followed your logic we'd just have an article at car and nothing for any particular models. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Using the prefix 'Ultra' seems to be just a promotional prefix if the article is supposed to be a general description of a system other than just one company. Darrelljon (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- I believe that guidance is just to avoid creating new choices of proper name titles. In contrast, WP:NDESC says that descriptive titles "are often invented specifically for articles". — BarrelProof (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I would actually suggest Ultra (personal rapid transit) to match other similar articles and I also oppose the current proposal - too wordy and unnecessary. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 00:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- I can get behind that. Much more descriptive and natural. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 01:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Relative to the current title, isn't that just adding an unnecessary word in the parentheses? — BarrelProof (talk) 02:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- @BarrelProof absolutely agree. Can't support alt. Also 'rapid' might be considered a weasel word. YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- You're right. "Rapid" seems like a weasel word, despite being commonly used. Deleting it usually doesn't alter the real meaning. Calling something a "rapid transit system" doesn't mean it's any faster than calling it a "transit system". — BarrelProof (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- The alternative would be just as "wordy" and less "natural" because of the parenthesis. Per WP:AT, a natural
title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles.
Cinderella157 (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC) - Please elaborate. "Rapid transit" is a common term used for these systems because, more often than not, they're faster than other forms of transit, like walking or driving a car. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 00:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- The "because" part seems unproven. I suspect it is a common term used for these systems because it can help give people the impression that they are rapid. We also drive cars and bicycles because they are more rapid than walking, but we don't feel the need call them "rapid cars" and "rapid bicycles". — BarrelProof (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support: Parentheses is better to avoid mixing two different types of name. Darrelljon (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- The "because" part seems unproven. I suspect it is a common term used for these systems because it can help give people the impression that they are rapid. We also drive cars and bicycles because they are more rapid than walking, but we don't feel the need call them "rapid cars" and "rapid bicycles". — BarrelProof (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- @BarrelProof absolutely agree. Can't support alt. Also 'rapid' might be considered a weasel word. YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Relative to the current title, isn't that just adding an unnecessary word in the parentheses? — BarrelProof (talk) 02:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support Ultra (personal rapid transit) as the best option proposed. The "Ultra" part is not in dispute, and "personal rapid transit" is a standard term for this type of system. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Start-Class rail transport articles
- Mid-importance rail transport articles
- Start-Class Rapid transit articles
- Unknown-importance Rapid transit articles
- WikiProject Rapid transit articles
- Start-Class UK Railways articles
- Mid-importance UK Railways articles
- All WikiProject Trains pages
- Start-Class London Transport articles
- Low-importance London Transport articles
- WikiProject London Transport articles
- Start-Class Cardiff articles
- Low-importance Cardiff articles
- WikiProject Cardiff articles
- Start-Class Wales articles
- Low-importance Wales articles
- WikiProject Wales articles
- Start-Class Bristol articles
- Low-importance Bristol articles
- WikiProject Bristol articles