Talk:Gotthard Base Tunnel/Archive 1

Archive 1

No service tunnel

Unlike the Eurotunnel, the Gotthard Base Tunnel will NOT include a service tunnel between the two rail tunnels, only connecting tunnels every 300m. I removed the references to it. --80.219.168.196 22:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Train speeds

Won't the differences in train speeds eventually lead to problems, since there will be only one track in each direction? Unless there are passing loops within the tunnel, as traffic increases, the slowest freight trains will necessarily be ruling speed. Safety considerations will require some headway be maintained, especially in such a long tunnel, and nominally faster passenger trains that get caught behind slower freight (and even slower passenger) trains will be forced to operate at the same speed as the slowest trains. They may still be faster than the trains that currently must negotiate the spirals and horseshoe curves to get into the Gotthard tunnel, but how much faster will they really be? 207.69.137.200 06:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

There used to be a page on the official web site explaining this, but I cannot find it (it looks like they have slimmed it down). In a nutshell per one hour there will be bundles of 2 passenger trains and 5 freight trains. That is less capacity compared to all trains running at the same speed, so you see why they can operate fast and slow trains. Fast trains will overtake slow trains outside the tunnel. As to the headway, at any time a passenger train is supposed to have a clear run up to the tunnel portal or one of the two intermediate emergency stops (Multifunktionsstellen), AFAIR it is part of the safety concept.--Klaus with K 17:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Travel time Zurich-Milan

There are various trains going from Zurich to Milan. Travel time is 4:26 for slow ones and 3:36 for the Cisalpino. It think the one hour saving should be compared to what's possible now, which is about 3.5 hours, not 4.5. Rl 11:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

You are right (In fact the difference in time between the Cisalpino and normal trains in not in speed but due to the fact that the Cisalpino trains do no stop in Chiasso for customs but this has nothing to do with the article :-) Matteo 13:00, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

The problem is not the custom, but the fact that Cisalpino trains can run both on Swiss and Italian electrified lines. Other trains must stop at the border for 30 minutes to change the locomotive. Coccodrillo 19:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That is only part of the truth. If you search for trains from Zurich to Lugano on weekdays, you will find for example these two connections: Departing at Zurich 9:09 and 13:09. They stop at the same stations, but the first one needs 2:54, the second one 2:38. This is because the first train is a conventional (btw. also Cisalpino) train, and the second is a Cisalpino Pendolino tilting train. To make these time comparisons even more confusing: Yes, the Pendolino does not need a locomotive change at the border, but Cisalpino AG has some Re 484 which are used to pull conventional passenger trains, and they can run in Italy, too. So there are at least four possible travel times from Zurich to Milan: Cisalpino Pendolino, conventional train with a locomotive that is able to run both in Switzerland and Italy, a tilting train that is not able to run in Italy (not present in the current timetables), and a SBB-CFF-FFS train that doesn't tilt and has to change the locomotive in Chiasso. Moreover, the trains may stop at different stations...

Whether the locomotive has to be changed or not is an issue that is more or less independent of the base tunnel, so to estimate the time savings of the base tunnel it probably doesn't make sense to look at travel times between Zurich and Milan, but rather between Zurich and, say, Lugano.

What's more, current tilting train travel times are only possible with some restrictions. Due to their higher speed compared to conventional passenger or freight trains, they occupy a larger time slot and thus severely decrease the capacity of the current Gotthard line (which is probably a reason why there are so few fast tilting train connections). With the base tunnel being operational, all trains benefit and fast connections can be offered hourly instead of only two or three times a day.

Bottom line: The statement of the 1 hour travel time decrease is completely useless, since it doesn't say what was compared (anyone having a primary source?). Also, looking at the currently fastest connections does not necessarily make sense, because there are other important factors (frequency, type of rolling stock). --Kabelleger 22:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Broken Link in "External links" Section

Atlas Copco – The Longest Tunnel in the World (http://www.atlascopco.com/websites/acgroup/acgroup.nsf/docs/Gotthard+base+tunnel) seems to be broken. 66.234.222.96 (talk) 06:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Railway infrastructure contract awarded

The award of a railway infrastructure contract (track, electrification, communications, signalling etc.) has been announced. For example, see Alcatel-Lucent press release. Since I work for this company I cannot ethically add this information to the article myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.207.101.112 (talk) 06:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Total length

The article says "Total length: (incl. back-up equipment)" with no figure given.

210.246.51.107 (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

% of the total completed

The figures do not add up:

"2009 July 134.8 km 88.8%"

134.8 km is 87.9% of 153.4 km, not 88.8%

210.246.36.119 (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Conflict in start of article

The very start of the article says that only a small percentage of the work has been done, and if ever completed, yet the chart later on shows 98% of the work done. I'm guessing the 98% is the boring work, and the rest is railway, etc...but perhaps the wording at the beginning should reflect that if that is the case? Sabalon (talk) 12:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to correct the article back to an earlier version. Yes, 98.2% of the boring work is now done, and a reasonable part of the lining and railway installation. The offical project site has a graphic showing progress to date. In my opinion, it's progressing nicely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StuZealand (talk • contribs) 01:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Percent excavated

The actual excavation will soon be 100% finished. Do you think that the article should keep the historic figures of how much was excavated in previous months/years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.246.51.3 (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, why not? Anyhow, it's not going to happen until April 2011. Aldenrw (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Why?

I'd like a explanation as to why this tunnel is being built. For example what is the time savings to the communities touched; and what is the primary goal? (time savings between two major cities?) - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Increased rail capacity between Italy and northern Europe; potential to run trains through the tunnel at 250 km/h. -- Arwel 10:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Sexy. Thank you. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Arwel for your fixes. My english is good but it's not perfect. There was too much focus on the passenger train improvements. Also some Porta Alpina fanboy left his traces and made some publicity for this project which is now almost dead instead of improving the main quality of the article.
The basic and overall idea is a major increase in freight capability on the north-south corridor. This is done by using the principle of the so called 'Flachbahn', the flat rail link which avoids any steep gradients and tight curves, not to mention the spiral tunnels build exclusively to gain/lose height on the old track.
On the political agenda, steps are being made to force international truck traffic onto the railroad by levying tolls (LSVA) and efforts are being made to draw european partners to support the idea of the 'rolling highway'. The responsible, semi-private swiss company 'Hupac' is already now moving 5.5 million tons of freight a year through the Alps, using container-terminals in southern Germany and northern Italy funded with swiss taxpayers money. The improvements for the passenger railroad traffic are rather a side effect concerning the Gotthard base tunnel. Lötschberg has a more important role in this matter. For people who'd like to know more, the .pdf-file I linked to is a must-read. Hope this helped clarify a few things. - [Cooper] 12:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Keine Problem! :) English can be an awkward language at times to get exactly right. I've just been reminiscing and realised it must be nearly 20 years since I last took a train over the Gotthard route - I hope they keep the old route open when the Base Tunnel opens, because passing the same village (Fluelen ?) three times at different levels on the northern ascent is very spectacular! I used to work for British Railways, so I got 8 days of free travel on the SBB every year, but alas no more. I've changed the location of the southern portal from Biasca to Bodio to agree with your useful diagram (I see from my 1985 Kantone und Bezirke map that they're only 3 or 4 km apart). One piece of phrasing that I'm still not too happy with is "cutting through the Gotthard massif at nearly ground level," - it doesn't read correctly to me, since "ground level" means whatever the level of the ground is locally; perhaps "cutting through the Gotthard massif on the level" might be better? -- Arwel (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The village you pass 3 times at different levels is 'Wassen'. There is no word of closing the old gotthard route, I'm pretty sure it will remain open as it does for the Lötschberg where the second Alptransit tunnel is about to be completed.
About that 'ground level' thingie: I keep having difficulties to describe why this tunnel is being built the way it is build without using a diagram (like: http://www.neat.ch/upload/galerie/download/flachbahn.zip). So if your expression describes the principle of the 'flat rail link', please feel free to replace mine.
I left 'Biasca' because it is better known however 'Bodio' is official (yet still a bit incorrect, the actual place the south portal is located is called 'Pollegio' which is even closer to 'Biasca' than 'Bodio' is).- [Cooper] 11:31, 04 December 2005 (UTC)

"Boring operations in the east tunnel were completed on 15 October 2010 ..." Well, at least after that they were able to move on to the more *interesting* operations. Toddcs (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

use of present tense

It surely isn't a railway-tunnel yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

"Across"?

Shouldn't it be "beneath" or "through" the Alps as opposed to "across"? How does one build a tunnel "across" a mountain range? Sesesq (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Although it does look unusual I think 'across' is an acceptable word, it simply means 'from one side to the other'. That said we are encouraged to be bold so go ahead and change it if you wish. Zarcadia (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Unclear sentence in lead

One of the sentences in the lead currently reads: "When it opens for traffic in late 2017, the tunnel will cut the 3.5-hour travel time from Zürich to Milan by an hour and from Zürich to Lugano to 1 hour 40 minutes." I understand the first part, that the trip from Zürich to Milan will be able to be made in 2.5 hours. However, the second part of the sentence is unclear. Are we cutting the travel time by 1 hour 40 minutes (and if so, what is the current travel time for comparison) or will the new travel time be 1 hour 40 minutes? SnottyWong ^soliloquize 19:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010 - excavation is _not_ 100% complete

The east tube is now excavated, but the west tube still has about 2 km to go. Please can people stop editing the table to say it's 100% excavated? The official site says this won't occur until April 2011. StuZealand (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

English

The English in this article is a bit skew-whiff! The first thing I noticed is that the (generally very good) diagram of the tunnel is labelled as a "scheme" - which it ain't - it's a diagram. This is a common German-speaker's misconception, since the German is "Schema", "schematische Darstellung" or "Skizze" (of which the latter can be, but isn't always, a "sketch" [in the sense of a rough freehand drawing]). Note (or I could say, if I weren't a polite Brit: "Get it into your head!" - I find the German habit of not paying attention to what educated native English-speakers tell them about the language very insulting): "diagram" (or, US English, "schematic") is the right term here! "Scheme" is a false friend (ein "fau ami", or "falscher Freund"!), and "diagram" in English is not only "diagram" as defined very well on the German page "Diagramm", but any schematic view of something. A "scheme" in English is generally a "Plan" or a "Programm" in German, all depending on the context. Maelli (talk) 11:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You may be completely right, but we still can't do much but wait until someone who knows the language better than we do fixes the article... --Kabelleger (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that this has occured because the original language of the GBT project is German. A lot of the graphics and titles of various images from the offical project site (even on the English version of the site) are in German.

StuZealand (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Diameter specification

Under "specifications", one can read:

Diameter of each of the single-track tubes: 8.83–9.58 m

Nothing is told about the reasons for the different excavation diameters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:6B0:E:2018:0:0:0:207 (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

This was done because of squeezing rock conditions. In some places, the pressure from the rock above was so high that it was calculated that the tunnel would close up by up to 0.5 metres. Therefore it was easier and cheaper to drill it to a larger diameter than have to expand the diameter again later on. StuZealand (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

List of longest tunnels in the world

This wasn't even listed. Was there any purpose to that? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Should the statement With a route length of 57 km (35.4 mi) and a total of 151.84 km (94.3 mi) of tunnels, shafts and passages,[2] it is the world's longest rail tunnel, surpassing the Seikan Tunnel in Japan. even be in here? Firstly, it won't be a train tunnel until it has train running through it, and secondly, according to the list, it will still be surpassed by Line 3, Guangzhou Metro at 60,400 m (37.5 mi). Can someone supply some clarification? BeadleB (talk) 07:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Units of measurement

The article is unnecessarily obscure in the description of trains that use the existing tunnel and will use the new tunnel. In particular, the letter "t" is not very informative to most Americans and I would suspect most ordinary people. Technical enthusiasts of railroading and scientific notation may feel differently, but I don't think the WP audience is supposed to be limited to them. I propose that the abbreviations be changed to plain words: "tonne", "short ton", and "long ton". I would even suggest that it be made really easy to read by saying "tonne (metric ton)", "short ton (U.S. ton)", and "long ton (Imperial ton)".

I would say the same thing about other relatively obscure units. I suppose everyone knows "km" and "mi" but "t" is a bit out of the ordinary for most of us. (And I strongly disparage "s" outside scientific publications, which is what it's intended for.)

There are other aspects that are in technical code (i.e., jargon), that also need accessification (to coin a word). Let them be rewritten so non-experts can understand.

I'm sure there will be objections. E.g., "Let them use the links." This is unkind. Having to stop reading every few words to check a link is not how to enjoy or benefit from an encyclopedia (or anything else).

I would do the edit myself but the measurements are encrypted into an algorithm that produces the text, and I'm reluctant to change that. I hope some generous soul will be willing to help. Zaslav (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

SI units should be standard along with their notation. Would you replace mm with millimeter or K with Kelvin? Although I live in Australia, which is a metric country (however, so is the United States [look it up, Billy Clinton did that one for you], as is most of greater Europe), and I understand that t, when following a number, such as 150t, is there to indicate tonnes. And, furthermore, despite the fact that I live in a metric country, I understand that, when used in this way, F means Fahrenheit, mi means miles and that ' and " mean feet and inches, respectively, that there are 1760 yards in a mile (did no one think of standardization? just make it up as you go along, right?) and even that a cricket pitch is the length of a surveyors chain.

So, should persons unknown happen across this page, especially when it is in regard to earthmoving, trains and other assorted heavy things, I would assume that they would understand simple metric notation and realize that the t indicates tonnes, and not that there will be 150 copies of Mr. T's biography, cups of tea or t junctions.

If you are looking for solutions (try dissolving some salt in water), I would either recommend making the t a wikilink to the page regarding SI units#mass or, if I may be so bold as to quote you, "Let them use the links", otherwise I believe this is a non-problem for the reasons I have outlined above.

However, this is not a democracy, THIS IS WIKIPEDIA!!! (it's not Sparta today), so please feel free to change whatever you like, but "if you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." CybergothiChé (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You're giving exactly the thoughtless, offensive, and self-centered answer I asked people not to give. Have you actually read what I wrote? Do you grasp the difference between a single-letter abbreviation and a multiletter abbreviation? Do you grasp the difference between scientific publication and popular writing? Do you understand that not everyone knows exactly what you know? Do you know the U.S. as it actually is (a "metric country" where metric units are rarely used and are unfamiliar to most of the population)? Zaslav (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I can only speak for what I know of the people in my country (Germany), but I guesstimate >80% of people here immediately recognize "t" to mean metric tonnes. That's what you get in newspapers and on websites. Actually, any one of "tonnes", "short tons" or "long tons" would cause more confusion, not less, since I also guesstimate that >90% of my fellow countrymen have no idea that there are other "tons" / "tonnes" than the metric one. I am afraid I completely agree with Cybergothiche on the subject. My opinion only, of course. -- DevSolar (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with DevSolar. Also, the weights are not really the focus of the article, they're more of an aside; so I'm less concerned about the possibility that some might see "t" and get an inaccurate impression of the weights involved because their definition of a ton/tonne has a slightly different mass. However, if I get some spare time I might throw in some Convert templates... bobrayner (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I strongly recommend the sole use of SI units in the articles, discarding totally Imperial units. In my country, Brasil, every person that has gone to school knows that "t" stands for metric tonne (= 1 000 kg), so there's no problem with that. Keep using only SI units! Tiago65 (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Right, so we should be using Mg, for megagrams. 192.4.0.12 (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Why does it take another seven years to finish ?

Why does it take another seven years to finish. The tunnel is completed. Does it really take another seven years to put in the rail tracks and electric wiring ?

You go and build a railway tunnel under the Alps and tell me how long it takes, I'll just wait here :P CybergothiChé (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I would also point out that "the tunnel is completed" is an oversimplification. One of the main tunnels has been dug. However, the other main tunnel has not finished boring yet. There's more work to be done even before rails can be laid. bobrayner (talk) 05:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Would be good to clarify, because considering the mind-boggling price of the boring alone, one would expect faster operational jump.--Musaran (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

? Delay ?

"AlpTransit Gotthard Ltd. planned to hand over the tunnel to Swiss Federal Railways (SBB CFF FFS) in operating condition in December 2016;[12] on 4 February 2014 this date was postponed until 5 June 2016 with the commencement of an 850-day opening countdown calendar on the AlpTransit homepage." Changing the date from December 2016 to June 2016 isn't a delay. 14.202.71.217 (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

You are quite right about the "delay" not being a delay. There was a glitch with name="AlpTransit" being defined twice pointing to two different URLs, which I fixed, but the first URL is incorrect. I have to do 3D things, so I hope someone else will figure it out and fix it. See https://www.alptransit.ch/en/media/press-releases/detail/article/final-preparations-for-the-opening-of-the-gotthard-base-tunnel/.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Earthquakes & geological hazards

Partly echoing the post at the very top of discussion, are there any specific protections built against earthquakes or other geological hazards, like an avalanche or landslide blocking part of the tunnel opening, for this tunnel? It looks pretty safe; if so, perhaps we could mention it directly. The Swiss Alps are somewhat geologically active and this is relevant information for people with a geology background, like myself. 220.179.132.75 (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Geographical coordinates

In long tunnels, bridges, roads, etc. I believe giving the coordinates of the two ends makes much more sense than just some intermediate point. I have tried to search for the location of the north and south ends of this tunnel but with no luck. Maybe someone can add that information? GS3 (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Safety rules

The article says, "Safety rules: The safety requirements on the rolling stock will be similar to other long Swiss tunnels, like possibility to override the emergency brake." This doesn't work grammatically and I can't figure out what it is trying to say. Why would a brake override be a safety feature? Anyone know? Ma^t_chups 17:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Matchups: Because an emergency brake in the middle of a 50km tunnel means that the train operator can't just speed away from a fire or cave-in. For example: passenger sees smoke, goes desperate, pulls emergency brake, trains goes to a halt, fire is external to train. The operator in this case could override the break and move the train away. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_brake_(train)#Override. UCaetano (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Construction techniques and challenges

A section on how the tunnel was built would be interesting if someone knows useful sources for this info. For example, how do they determine the drilling machine's exact position underground in order to make sure different sections line up? You can't use GPS underground! And why does the path curve somewhat -- wouldn't a straight line have been less total drilling and also easier to align per my first question? How do they remove the crumbled rock as the tunnel gets longer and longer? 129.219.155.89 (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

"operational concept"

Someone had an empty section with this title, containing only a note that we ought to have it. I have no idea what this is or whether it needs a section, but I deleted it because it seems absurd to have that kind of thing. I would encourage people to write a sentence or two or twenty about this, then decide if they need a section header or not and add it where they think is best. Wnt (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Should Link to Base tunnel article

I came here specifically to find out if the word "Base" was just an arbitrary part of the name, or had some other significance, and had to search again for "Base Tunnel" to resolve the issue. Not sure if "Base Tunnel" is a commonly understood term for general readers. Changing the link from "Tunnel" to "Base Tunnel" in the first sentence would solve the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.119.84 (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. Note that you could have done so yourself; it's a wiki. JanCeuleers (talk) 06:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Geology/rock

There's no mention in the article of the types of rock. Since some is being bored by TBMs I guess it must be soft(ish) stuff, like limestone, but the use of dynamite on other sections suggests harder rock. Can anyone add some detail on this? Sangwine (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the types of tunnel boring machines used on the GBT work best on hard, solid rock. They tend to jam up when encountering loose/soft/unstable material.

StuZealand (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Are there core samples available? Khawkbend (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Double-stack

I removed the mention of "double-stack" operation from the introduction. I could not find a source for the claim and the 17.1 foot clearance in the tunnel from top of rail to wire seems far too low. The U.S. loading gauge for double stack (Plate H) is 20.17 ft (6.15 m) and the Gotthard loading gauge would have to be significantly less than 17.1 ft to allow adequate separation between the high-voltage wire and the containers. Note that an ordinary flat care can carry 2 TEUs--either two 20 foot containers or one 40 foot unit--in single stack configuration and this may be what the writer intended. I did find discussion of double deck passenger cars, which is another matter.--agr (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Deaths of workers

The article says 9 but only lists 8. -- SGBailey (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

No, it lists 9. It is not numbered list but bulleted one.--Obsuser (talk) 06:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Number of trains per day

The BBC reports (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36423250) that "About 260 freight trains and 65 passenger trains will pass through the tunnel each day in a journey taking as little as 17 minutes". That's rather a lot more than the 200-250 trains per day mentioned in the article. Which is right? Is the 200-250 number valid in each direction? JanCeuleers (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I found an authoritative number on the AlpTransit website and included it in the article. JanCeuleers (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Change

I am not a template genius, can you change the opened to opens on the template. --NJR4 (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

You have tried to change the open parameter name. That is a field, named open which contains the given data (date). Changing that name happens to ignore the given data. Instead the text "Opened" is contained in the label18 field of the Template:Infobox tunnel. If you want to have it changed (and it will change in all articles using that template), you have to open a discussion here, explaining what you like and why. --Robertiki (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Think the template as a form. Are you asking to change the printed part of the form, where you read "Opened" ? (and that works for all articles which use that form) --Robertiki (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@NJR4 and Robertiki: I worked a bit on Template:Infobox tunnel making sure it supports now either |opened= or |opens= as a parameter, as well as the corresponding ones for reopening and closing. As long as the given date is 1 June 2016, no change is needed though. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Gotthard Base Tunnel

Moved from user talk page. -- ZH8000 (talk) 10:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

Could you explain explicitly (as I as the reader or someone as a reader cannot get it) how is A controversial funding of the Ceneri Base Tunnel was finally passed by parliamentary approval only, the possibility for an optional referendum was not raised by any political groups, nor by the public related to the Gotthard Base Tunnel.

My goal is to clarify what is being said in the article; if it does not get clarified, I will place {{clarify}} next to this fifth item.

Regarding numbering, I will introduce it back for [first] four main items, and if this fifth stays — it should be bulleted.

I can agree that dates should go first as bolded names are not "official".--Obsuser (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

First of all: WP:NOTFORUM. In other words, if your knowledge to contribute is too low, do not discuss your gaps here. And I am not your teacher.

Secondly, see given link. Did you actually read it, did you even try it???

Thirdly, numbering is wrong, because numbering implies one point is based on the other. This is not correct, they are sorted according the timeline, nothing else. These five points are only a selection. -- ZH8000 (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know whether Osbuser read the cite, but I have. The context is that we need the cite to justify the inclusion of a vote on the Ceneri Base Tunnel in a list introduced in the article by the words:

The realization of the GBT is also a prototypical example about direct democracy in Switzerland. In order to succeed this mega-project the political institutions also had to overcome many parliamentary sessions and four major popular votes, including the following:

Given that the acronym GBT is clearly referring to the Gotthard Base Tunnel it therefore follows that the cite needs to show why this vote on the Ceneri Base Tunnel was crucial to allowing the Gotthard Base Tunnel to go ahead. The cite you quote does not do this. Nor is it obvious that this is the case, especially given that Gotthard Base Tunnel has now managed to open before the completion of the Ceneri Base Tunnel, which suggests there is no particularly strong practical inter-dependency between the two tunnels. However I concede that there may have been some political or economic linkage at the time the decision was made. I shall add cite needed to give you (or somebody else) time to come up with a cited explanation. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree, pronouncing only the GBT can lead to wrong conclusions, if somebody did not read the entry. However, the GBT in a larger sense, is always also understood as a synonym of NRLA. And it was the NRLA the people of Switzerland had to vote about, not the GBT on its own. GBT's main goal is to enhance the fright traffic on rail through the Alps, capacity-wise so that the transport per trolly can be reduced (Alpeninitiative). This can only be fulfilled by a flat route. Currently, before the completion of the Ceneri Base Tunnel in 2020, the trains running through the Monteceneri (the old route) still have to be executed by two locomotives and with less weight than the GBT would allow, since the trains still have to overcome larger gradients. The requested citations about the NRLA's goals are already given in the opening paragraphs! -- ZH8000 (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@ZH8000: Who is talking about something else than a GBT, CBT or related things? Nobody wanted ever from you to be a teacher but to explain unclear statement. If it is clear to you (maybe) it does not mean everyone can get it. So, discussion should be started, and concensus might be even that everything was actually clear, not important...

Let's assume I did and I still can't see a link between "The realization of the GBT" and "In order to succeed this mega-project" + "A controversial funding of the Ceneri Base Tunnel". Could you explain it?

Regarding numbering, if I state there are four topics to be discussed today: 1. windows, 2. doors, 3. crabs, 4. electricity, why must it be true that "numbering implies one point is based on the other"? Five points are a selection but it was stated that there are four main initiatives or whatever (not important); I've never introduced fifth numbering item and I did propose to have four numbered and then others bulleted. Why is this wrong?

@Chris j wood: Thank you for your contribution. However, it is still unclear how Politics section i.e. politics involved into realisation of the GBT must be linked to a construction of the other part of the NRLA (btw, @ZH8000: NRLA is not a synonym for GBT) project that will be finished one, two or four years later, only as an extension to the previously mentioned GBT? --Obsuser (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

See my previous post. -- ZH8000 (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I've already seen it, and did answer to it. Your turn now. --Obsuser (talk) 08:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, you did not raise any new issue or any new argument. You are just repeating yourself and reading my text not precisely. Therefore I pointed you to my still standing text. Well regarding the numbering: Numbering also implies that there are no other points, and as I already said, it's a selection. -- ZH8000 (talk) 11:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100529224525/http://www.transco-sedrun.ch:80/1_DEU_HTML.htm to http://www.transco-sedrun.ch/1_DEU_HTML.htm

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Success! --1990'sguy (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gotthard Base Tunnel. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20111116192243/http://www.alptransit.ch:80/en/media/press-releases/gotthard-basistunnel-soll-2016-in-betrieb-gehen-735.html?cHash=559529f6894fdbc15dd6646646b4ae7b to http://www.alptransit.ch/en/media/press-releases/gotthard-basistunnel-soll-2016-in-betrieb-gehen-735.html?cHash=559529f6894fdbc15dd6646646b4ae7b

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Success! --1990'sguy (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gotthard Base Tunnel. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150321160152/http://www.alptransit.ch/en/home.html to http://www.alptransit.ch/en/home.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Success! --1990'sguy (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Why no hype?

Why wasnt this talked about more when construction began? I only recently learned about the tunnel, and it seems like with a project this big, there would be more of a community around it. I recently moved to sweden, but is this a european thing that was on the news and wasnt talked about in north american news? There must be a community of engineers or anyone who must be excited, but in the states i didnt see that. Khawkbend (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

That could very well be the case that this was covered much more in Europe than the U.S., but I do remind you to adhere to WP:NOTFORUM when posting to this (or any) article's talk page. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Pronounce

/..../

We should have this for whom from other countries do not speak English — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truongtuananhhau1 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

MrUser200 's changes

As long as MrUser200, or anybody else, can not show how these changes do not violate the policies WP:EVENTS, WP:SENSATION, WP:NOTSCANDAL, I will revert them. NPOV is not the problem here. These kind of information is just not part of an ecyclopedia. -- ZH8000 (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

popular intiatives success

User:John removed the word surprisingly from the following sentence arguing about NPOV despite the given explanation:

20 February 1994, Alps Initiative (federal popular initiative): Initiated by only a few private people with the goal to protect the Alpine environment from the negative impact of traffic was surprisingly (Federal popular initiatives are seldom successful (about 1 in 10), therefore its success is even more remarkable, despite the low majority!).

In my opinion NPOV was never violated here, since this is a statistical and political fact. Only about every tenth popular initiative in Switzerland is successful. Additionally the Alps Initiative was only successful by a quite small majority. The only lack I see here is a reference about the statistically low success of popular initiatives in Switzerland. But these can easily found. Additionally you can easily find many newspaper articles about this initiative explicitly calling it a surprise. So what's your real objection? -- ZH8000 (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH. --John (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• I am sorry but this really could not stand. I've removed it again, pending a consensus to keep it. --John (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Pardon-me, but this is not acceptable, since so far you only make a claim without any slightest argumentation. What is SNYTH about it? It is well explained in the article and common knowledge for virtually every Swiss. If you need further references, then please explain what you do not understand! But just because you do not understand it, does not make it a SYNTH. As long as you can not substantially support your objection by reasonable argumentation I will keep it in the article. Thanks.

Besides: Funny, that you changed your claim from violating NPOV to SYNTH now. I find this rather ominous. What will come next? -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

It cannot be permitted to remain I am afraid. The exclamation mark alone disallows it. If you are struggling to understand, there are places you can go to find out. --John (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You are still lacking a single argument. You are only claiming but not explaining any single point of your accusations. That's poor esoterism. And whether you are afraid is totally irrelevant. -- ZH8000 (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Every single bit is now sourced. -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• 'To a very large scale, the populace usually follows the executive's and/or parliamentary recommendations about any proposal, but not in this case. ' - no source. Especially since the sentence reads 'usually follows' - which suggests that you can source that independently (and not 'synthesise' it from other texts). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

See added official statistics about accepted vs rejected referenda.  Done -- ZH8000 (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• 'Additionally, federal popular initiatives are seldom successful, about 1 in 10 ...' - that is still not supported by the reference, at best it is a synthesis from the numbers '32 vs. 182', which at best is a '1 in 6' or '1 in 7'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

it is 15 of 116 since 1981, or 16 of 161 since 1941  Done -- ZH8000 (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• '... therefore its success is even more remarkable, despite the low majority.' Also that is then synthesis, and still not supported by the reference, which does not describe it as a remarkable. The closest it gets is 'ein Meilenstein in Nachhaltigkeitspolitik'. Also does not seem completely neutral. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

See the added references, especially the offical answer by the Federal Councilor Adolf Ogi to a so-called urgent interpellation by a National Council member.  Done -- ZH8000 (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• 'And therefore its unexpected success strongly supported the idea of the NRLA, especially the shift of heavy traffic from road to rail' - From nothing in the previous text I can see that it was unexpected (does not read like a neutral explanation without those references). It goes against some advice and the majority is minor, but .. who did not expect this? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The Federal Council, the large majority of the parliament, conservative parties, the EU (in particular Eu's transportation ministers), newspapers ... see given references, just as examples of many available.  Done -- ZH8000 (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• • I'm sorry, it still looks pretty sketchy to me. Badly-written OR. Anybody disagree?--John (talk) 06:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @John and ZH8000: Yes, I still feel it is OR and non-NPOV. Words cherry-picked from references. Everything after "by 51.9% yes votes (declined by 7 cantons, turnout 41%)" should be removed. E.g. one article uses the word 'surprising', but it neglects the side (as there is a majority) where people would write something like 'justly'. Regarding OR, I gave you a ratio of 1:7, you come with two different numbers which are 1:8 and 1:22 (note that both have an accepted of 15, so you can tailor that number to anything you want. It ignores reasons and trends for the ratio, it is an interpretation of numbers without independent sourcing and hence OR. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I haven't gone into the figures, I'm just commenting here on the wording -- "surprising" and "even more remarkable" are not encyclopedic, they're journalistic, editorializing, non-neutral. If you wanted to quote an RS saying they considered it "surprising" and "remarkable" then it might pass muster but it doesn't as is. ZH8000, I think you really should step back from the article and let a good copy editor have a go at it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Beetstra: Just abrief respond, since I have not a lot of timeavalable at the moment:

A feeling is never a good basis for rational reasoning. So I can hardly accept this as an argument.

So point 1 was fulfilled.

point 2) "15 of 116 since 1981" (pardon-me for the wrong spelling) is just the rather recent development. "16 of 161" (since 1941) is almost exactly 1 of 10, I would say. At least according my mathematical undertsanding. Where should 1:22 come from??

point 3) We can, of course, discuss this. But please provide more substance to your reasoning (except for feelings). Just a brief prejudiced screening of my sources does not help at all.

point 4) Of course, we can discuss the usage of some terms, such as unexpected and surprisingly. Nevertheless, the unexpectedness is clearly stated, by several entities (government, newspapers, EU, conservative parties). There is no doubt here in Switzerland, that the accpetance was a – actually a huge – surprise. And the fact, that a newspaper (Aargauer Zeitung) writes an article about this vote even 20 years later and then begins the article with the words "sursprising acceptance" (the literal translation of überraschend is indeed surprising!) speaks for itself. Further, a very well sourced and very strong indication that this is a widely accepted and not questioned view of the event.

BTW: What's the point of using stars (*) instead of (:) for organizing/intending talk page paragraphs  ??

-- ZH8000 (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@ZH8000: - I think I made a typo in the numbers (and I think I mean 1 on 11).

The whole point is, it was removed a couple of times as NPOV and OR. Then it is not the point to keep pushing it in, we first discuss to get it neutral. For point 1 - it is still synthesis - you conclude from the numbers that it usually follows, and give the numbers. That reference does not show independent analysis. Point two is the same problem, and the fact that the ratio is different in 1981 from 1941 also means that again in 1994 it will be further different. Moreover, it seems to trend towards lower numbers. My own synthesis is now that this referendum is an example of how that average is moving. For the rest, I'd like you to read what Ian wrote on this matter - describing it as surprising and remarkable is not encyclopedic, it is journalistic, editorializing and non-neutral.

All in all, this is all not necessary, you can now go at length to show both sides (the ones that found the result surprising, and those that didn't - which are not mentioned in total), it does not change the fact, and I don't think that this type of analysis is for Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

"The whole point is, it was removed a couple of times as NPOV and OR." – In fact, by the same single user, without any reasoning. Despite my repeated request to do so.

"we first discuss to get it neutral" – no problem with this; I made this clear right from the beginning! :-o

"you conclude from the numbers that it usually follows, and give the numbers" – this is no SYNTH. I will show you, but later.

" That reference does not show independent analysis." – Mathematical simple results ("2 is larger than 1" and "2 is the double amount of 1") do not need any interpretation. It is, what is says.

"Point two is the same problem, and the fact that the ratio is different in 1981 from 1941 also means that again in 1994 it will be further different." – Whether it is 1:8 or 1:10 is really not the issue here (I wrote "rouhgly 1:10"). The point is that it is much lower than the avarage acceptance of any referendum (about 2:1).

"Moreover, it seems to trend towards lower numbers." – That's indeed speculation. But from your side and therefore not relevant as a counterargument!

"describing it as surprising and remarkable is not encyclopedic, it is journalistic, editorializing and non-neutral" - I generally agree, of course. However, in this case, "surprising" is not, since it is widly accepted and referred that way and even common knowledge to describe that particular event that way. The provided sources made this undoubtably clear. You cannot honestly neglect this fact.

I suspect you are not Swiss and therefore you probably do hardly know anything about the political situation and processes in Switzerland (by the way, do you speak German, can you read the given sources, in order to justify them?). No problem with that, but this lack of knowledge may lead you to very wrong assumptions and prejudices (" I still feel it is OR and non-NPOV. Words cherry-picked from references", "I haven't gone into the figures"). Generally, I find it quite questionable when editors without any in-depth knowledge try to edit articles (content-wise) about subjects they can not justify about relevance and substance. Comments like "My feeling is that" does not help to reduce this reservation about their competence and capability to do so. And yes, in this case, whether "surprisingly" is correct or not, is not a formal aspect, but a content-related issue and therefore needs knowledge about the subject (or at least the ability to justify the sources).

-- ZH8000 (talk) 12:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@ZH8000: you have here by now 3 editors who find it not neutral and synthesis .. and you yourself see for example that certain points are depending on the time frame you choose.

You chose to revert an editor who gave a reason to remove material, without getting to the point of it of why. Then you proceed to issue warnings, and report them to several noticeboards. You there get responses which are in line with the original remarks, and still insist in adding the material. "I suspect you are not Swiss and therefore you probably do hardly know anything about the political situation and processes in Switzerland (by the way, do you speak German, can you read the given sources, in order to justify them?)" - your assumptions about the editor determine what you think they should comment upon and what not? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

First of all, would you mind to use the normal intendation we usually use on talk pages?

Secondly, here a citation you eventually accept more: "A few months ago, the intiative wasn't taken seriously. Few thought it had a chance. There are no surveys giving voter opinion", The Wall Street Journal Europe, 18/19 February 1994, London, pages 1 and 5. – Just as a start. And there are many more.

And yes, I indeed doubt the relevance of content-related comments by (totally) uneducated editors. -- ZH8000 (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

With that personal attack you lost all credibility in this discussion. Please read WP:NPA. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I did not attack anybody, nor attack anybody personally, but simply questioning missing knowledge by editors contributing to an article outside of their competence, or the simple ability to verify the sources. You still did not answer the question whether you are able to verify them, whether you know German (or French or Italian)!? -- ZH8000 (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

You did, but it makes no sense to argue with you anyway. But to explain, you doubt the relevance of content-related comments from me (or User:John, or User:Ian Rose, though since the reply is to my comment I presume you are talking about me), because I must be a '(totally) uneducated editor(s)' (seen the plural, it must be most of us). That is a plain personal attack which I hope you will withdraw (and I hope that you understand that the basis for that attack, and the assumption of competence, is synthesis in itself). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

My final comment (yes I give up, you won. But very sadly this is not a success for WP and always a waste when it has to be a fight): Yes you are indeed right. This discussion does not lead anywhere, since it seems as soons as you loose any rational argument you try to deter it to blurred meta-remarks and transform it to a meta-level and try to attack me by imputed policy violences, instead of answering open aspects by rational arguments. Not an unknown pattern on WP, sadly. And it is even more sad, or better, counter-productive that so-called sysops are mainly involved in such patterns.

That's indeed unfortunate and sad for Wikipedia's original purpose and idea. And eventually a strong reason why it started loosing acceptance and trust by the public. And I must say, for a very good reason. -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@ZH8000: a short story: I am Dutch, or Frysian, grown up using both local languages, and I consider both Dutch and Frysian as my mother tongue. These West Germanic languages are not dissimilar from German, and texts written in German are reasonably readable (and the spoken language reasonably understandable) for Dutch people without any formal training in the language. That being said, in the Netherlands, in secondary school, besides Dutch students are required to follow several years of German, French and English courses, giving these students are reasonable level of German, French and English command. Following the higher technical education in the Netherlands then results in that many of the technical coursebooks are written in English, or their original languages. In my case, we had to use some of the technical books in German (most of those books are not translated to Dutch, too small an audience for specialist subjects, e.g. 'Spektroskopische Methoden in der organischen Chemie' by Hesse, Meier and Zeeh, which was only available in German 20 years ago). Moreover, much of the older literature is also never translated to English (see e.g. Zeitschrift für anorganische und allgemeine Chemie). Now, for other reasons, I also picked up Italian to a level that I can understand and read that reasonably. So in answer to your question: Yes, I am able to verify them, I do have sufficient command of German, French ánd Italian (and then there is always a translation option to help me with the rest). I hope that that gives you a feeling about how totally uneducated I am. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Now anyway, this is all outside of the substance of this discussion - and you are supposed to comment on that, not on the editor. The way this is written is an interpretation and one point of view. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@ZH8000: I am writing you this from France, where I am on holiday with my family. I have been reading and speaking French for the past several weeks. I was in Switzerland last week, albeit the French-speaking part. I have cumulatively spent many, many months in each of Germany, France and Switzerland over the last few decades. I speak and read French and German very well, even though English is my native language. I also have more than one university degree. I think you miss the mark in calling me uneducated; I am sure I have many faults but lack of formal education and language knowledge are not among them. I think you misjudged me and some others here, and I think you misunderstand how things work around here. If you have learned from your errors and can move on, I am sure we all can and we can get on with improving the article. No hard feelings from me. --John (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Epilog: @Beetstra and John: I have not the slightest interest in your personal settings, nor your private life, nor your supposedly academic or non-academic record. These stay nothing more than claims – at its best – and have not the simplest relevance here, nor does it provide any substance to the issue, not at all. I am only interested in the quality of the result, by whoever is able to contribute substantially and constructively.

Indeed, contributions in WP should be about the qualitative improvement of an excylopedia, not a fighting board for juvenile egomaniacs.

And any easy, binary question ("can you understand German, and did you read the references?") can be answered with yes or nos, and nothing more, and does not need any made up, totally unrelated story telling.

Your behavior and responses already showed profoundly enough that you have not even the most basic knowledge about the issue (Swiss politics, in particular in relation about the history of the GBT). So I truly wonder why you take part at all. And the crucial question why you try to inhibit interesting and suffiently sourced facts as uneducated outsiders is indeed a very valid and still open question here.

For the sake of future discussions, this was my proposal inbibited by the two previous, astonishingly twinned sysops:

To a large scale, the populace usually follows the executive's and/or parliamentary recommendations about any proposal (265 referenda has been accepted vs 133 rejected ones since the existance of the modern Swiss state). Additionally, federal popular initiatives are seldom successful, roughly about 1 in 10 (15 of 116 since 1981, or 16 of 161 since 1941). Therefore its surprising success was even more remarkable, despite the low majority. And therefore its unexpected success strongly supported the idea of the NRLA, especially the shift of heavy traffic from road to rail.

-- ZH8000 (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Gosh. So you really still don't understand why we can't use stuff like this? --John (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@ZH8000: great, thanks, more personal attacks.

@John: ironic, isn't it. I wonder whether you and I have sufficient command of English to understand them properly. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

world's longest and deepest traffic tunnel?

The article says this will be the "world's longest and deepest traffic tunnel." What exactly is a "traffic tunnel?" That term is not used on List of longest tunnels in the world to classify tunnels. Line 3, Guangzhou Metro and Line 10, Beijing Subway are metro area subway tunnels that are currently operational and longer than the Gotthard Base Tunnel.

Semi-related, some English language news articles call this the "NEAT Gotthard Base Tunnel".^[1][2] The word NEAT never appears in this article. I learned from AlpTransit that it's the German language abbreviation. I'm wondering if we should work at least "NEAT" into this article. I added a redirect for NEAT Gotthard base tunnel so that people can at least search for the term. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Though the acronym NEAT (Neue Eisenbahn-Alpentransversale) rarely appears in English coverage of the Gotthard Base Tunnel, I was intrigued by and am grateful for your mention of it.—Judgtastic (talk) 06:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Granted, AlpTransit is an English article in which Neue Eisenbahn-Alpentransversale has for many years been mentioned.—Judgtastic (talk) 09:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Details on deaths

Do we really need to list the full identities of the workers who died during the construction as well as the details of their gruesome deaths? How exactly does this improve this article? Tvx1 01:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Construction Items?

Using this as a reference: https://www.herrenknecht.com/en/references/case-studies/gotthard-base-tunnel.html it looks like the "Construction" section has several 'inconsistencies', especially in the graphic.

189.250.226.116 (talk) 03:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC) Baden K.

"is used to be quoted with"

Could whoever wrote this article in English - presumably not a native speaker of the language - please explain what the phrase "is used to be quoted with" is supposed to mean in the sentence "The then in charge transport minister, Federal Councilor Moritz Leuenberger, is used to be quoted with: 'This is the only way to make the railway [the Gotthard axis] a flat line between Basel and Chiasso.'"? The whole sentence is dubious English ("the then in charge transport minister" looks like a literal translation from German), but the six words in the title of this comment are completely meaningless. As so often, how I wish non-native users of English would have their Wikipedia articles checked by a native, rather than just post them and expect people to understand!188.230.248.85 (talk) 11:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gotthard Base Tunnel. 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/20120913020852/http://www.tat-ti.ch/ to http://www.tat-ti.ch/

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Picture comment misleading

The comment "Note the prevalence of coniferous trees and snow at the north portal and the absence of them at the south portal." is at best misleading, but I would say wrong. The probability to have snow in spring on both sides is low. There is some difference between the weather on both sides, but not the one implied by the comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.136.67.75 (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Why in the world is this not appropriate?

I see that my addition was deleted. Why exactly was this removed? It was a real event and it did receive a lot of attention. To remove it seems very arbitrary and, honestly, like censorship. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of the opening ceremony has been removed many times with the claim it violates WP:EVENTS, WP:SENSATION, and WP:NOTSCANDAL. This seems inappropriate given that WP:N (the policy which the first two are based on) clearly states These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article [...] They do not limit the content of an article, and WP:NOTSCANDAL is mostly about having higher standards for WP:BLP, which this article is not. Wcthor (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Units of length?

Why on god's green earth do the imperial units include chains, of all things? This is not a unit that is familiar to the vast majority of people, and should be changed to a fractional measurement. I will do this in two days time, unless anyone has any objections. LinkUCSB (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)