Template:Did you know nominations/Saverne Tunnel


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Saverne Tunnel

 * ... that the Saverne Tunnel was designed for high-speed trains to operate at a maximum speed of 350 km/h through the tunnel?


 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Jabali Upanishad
 * Comment: I realize "through the tunnel" may seem redundant, but I think it is useful to emphasize that the tunnel was designed for trains to travel up to 350 km/h while travelling in the tunnel, although the planned operational speed limit for passenger trains will be 320 km/h. To make things easy for the reviewer: First line under the "Infrastructure" heading: "The new line is 1,435mm twin-track, electrified at 25kV ac and built for a maximum of 350km/h, although trains will run at 320km/h." In the reference from a more authoritative source (page 5), albeit in French:  "Vitesse de circulation: 350 km/h, la vitesse de circulation commerciale étant de 320 km/h." (travel speed: 350 km/h, commercial travel speed is 320 km/h). This line is the fastest in Europe (at 320 km/h) and only a couple of recently-opened lines in China are faster, so this speed in a tunnel is quite remarkable.

Moved to mainspace by AHeneen (talk). Self-nominated at 01:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC).


 * Certainly long enough, new enough, and hook checks out. I agree that "through the tunnel" should stay; the French high-speed lines most likely to be familiar to English-speaking readers are the Eurostar network, where the trains quite noticeably don't run at maximum speed while in the tunnel. Good to go. – iridescent  20:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I still think it is redundant - designed is the operative word, not through the tunnel (unless there are other ways around the tunnel). Also note that the hook references refer to the rail line LGV Est, not just the tunnel (although it is a constituent part). From the source, trains run at a limit of 320km/h but the track is capable of 350km/h, so why not instead add:
 * ALT1: ... that the Saverne Tunnel was designed for high-speed trains to operate at a maximum speed of 350 km/h, but is limited to 320 km/h?
 * ALT2 is intriguingly misleading, in that it confuses the primary topic, an island in northern France, with a hill in eastern France:
 * ALT2: ... that the Saverne Tunnel bores under Mont Saint-Michel, as part of the high speed rail extension connecting Paris to Strasbourg? Fuebaey (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I propose a combination of these ideas ALT3: ... that the Saverne Tunnel beneath Mont Saint-Michel will allow trains on a new high-speed rail line in France to operate at a maximum speed of 350 km/h? AHeneen (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg This article is new enough and long enough. Going with ALT3, the hook facts for which have inline citations. The article is neutral and I found no close paraphrasing/copyright issues. I suspect that many readers will think at first that Mont Saint-Michel refers to the well-known tourist attraction Mont Saint-Michel in Normandy. This may make the hook more hooky. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)