Talk:Ultra (personal rapid transit)

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 Wikipedia, 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" [singular] and "The unique Heathrow pod system" and "each temperature-controlled Heathrow pod [singular] 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 Wikipedia 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)

• 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 [1], and same goes for news results [2], and a Google Scholar search [3]. 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 "macy^★s". 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)

• 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

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)

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)

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.