Talk:High-speed rail/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

RFC: Internal definition for Wikipedia

As discussed above I'm of the view that Wikipedia should have an internal definition of what counts as high-speed rail, so that we know what content to include in this and related articles. As fudoreaper said:

As a hypothetical example, if Vietnam now has 120 km/h trains, which is high-speed compared to the 60 km/h trains they had before, should that be included? In other countries, like Germany, a 120 km/h train is just regular speed. This suggests the need for policy to guide us on what we should be discussing when talking about 'high-speed rail'.

Comments? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

In my view, "high speed" means in excess of 100 miles per hour (160 km/h) average speed. Mjroots (talk) 10:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As I missed it out of my introduction I was thinking of 200 kilometres per hour (120 mph) being the lower limit. That makes sure it is quicker than the fastest steam train which had a record fastest speed of 126 miles per hour (203 km/h) and steam trains did also manage an average (EDIT: scheduled) speed of over 100mph - source. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I should also have made it clear that I meant regular scheduled speeds in excess of 100 mph, not occasional one-off runs to get a speed record. Mjroots (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

For clarity the steam trains going over 100 mph thing was timetabled speed and not a special run so I've clarified it above :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's my opinion. Wikipedia can't have its own internal definition of high-speed unless it is a definition established in the literature. What do reliable sources define as high speed? Vietnam calls its train high-speed in reliable sources. Say that but also say in other countries it would not be high-speed. MiRroar (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The justification of 200km/h is that it is the minimum acceptable speed for the three political groupings (China, Japan and the EU) which currently have the most high-speed rail track. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Good. Its still OK to say Vietnam calls its train high speed, but compare it with the other countries. MiRroar (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that if it doesn't meet the minimum speed requirement it wouldn't be mentioned on the high-speed rail table for example. It could be mentioned on the High Speed Rail in Vietnam article that they claimed it was high-speed but that it didn't meet the usual international standard. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

PS Currently the table claims that it includes all track at more than 200km/h but for the UK for example there is definitely more than 109km of high-speed track by that definition. The Great Western Main Line alone has more 200km/h+ track than that (OK its only 201km/h but still). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that the benchmark for using the term high speed raid should be the speed of the Bullet Trains in Japan that started it all. To Mjroots' suggestion-- there have been conventional trains that travel at or near 100 miles per hour in the distant past. I think high speed should have a a minimum of 150 miles per hour. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to go as high as 150 miles per hour (240 km/h) too, but to get a consensus we'll probably need sources to back it up. FWIW the bullet trains in Japan started at 210 kilometres per hour (130 mph). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

While I am not 100% certain of the exact numbers, various highly reliable sources and governments claim everything from 160 to 250 km/h (99 to 155 mph) as the "limit" to high-speed. Defining high-speed as a particular point will always violate some reliable sources, and will become the dispute of POV. In general, I would say that a line should be regarded as high-speed if the majority of reliable sources claim it is; this is not entirely determined by speed alone, but also the context it was built in, often including all-new track and right-of-way, and focus on direct trains. While the first Shinkansen trains were state-of-the-art technology when they opened, such speeds are often not regarded high-speed any more. However, I have never seen a reliable source not call the original Shinkansen lines high-speed; therefore we also must use that terminology. As for Vietnam, what the Vietnamese government and railway company calls the system is not so important as what the majority of independent sources are calling it (particularly international media and organizations). Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Arsenikk. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a challenge for any technology. "High-speed rail" really is meant to mean "higher-speed rail". As rail technology improves, yesterday's high-speed becomes today's normal speed. You see this in other fields as well. "High-fidelity" sound reproduction technology from the 50s, for instance, doesn't have an especially high fidelity given the standards of today. It seems that we ought to decide whether to include any rail service that was high-speed given its historical and geographical context or whether to have the definition be a presentist one.--Atemperman (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Auto archive

I'm going to setup auto-archiving for this talk page as it is getting rather long, with 90 days/5 topics minimum before archiving. Any objections? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"Sapsan in Russia" picture, wrong?

This image look like a picture i saw of the russian train at a Bombardier exhibit, if you look at the wheels it needs converters to fit the standard gauge track it's standing on --213.100.148.47 (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Average speed in Turkey

How to change the average speed in the table? Ankara Eskisehir line is 245 km, and train takes 65 minutes, that makes ~226km/hr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.55.181.97 (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that this table is prepared taking into account the highest scheduled average speed between to adjacent stations with scheduled stops, this should be 184 km / h for Turkey. 1 h 12 mins between Sincan - Eskişehir. Source: TCDD Web site! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gokaydince (talk • contribs) 20:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd presume the speeds are maximums not the average scheduled speed. 184km/h average is probably 250km/h max. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Style

There are too many negative sentences ("the comfort advantage of rail is not inherent") or use a double negative ("not infrequently"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.22.162 (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The UIC figure is not reliable

1. The UIC figure seems to forget Qinhuangdao–Shenyang line, and there are two new lines opened after May 2010. The total figure should not be less than 4250 km; HSR lines in China currently in operation:
   • Existing lines as of the sixth speed-up (April 18, 2007): 423 km
   1. • Shanhaiguan–Taian (part of Qinshen): 280 km
      • Xuchang South–Mengmiao: 45 km
      • Luohe–Suiping: 42 km
      • Anting–Shanghai West: 20 km
      • Jimo–Gaomi: 36 km
   • Hefei–Nanjing: 166 km
   • Jinan–Qingdao: 362 km
   • Beijing–Tianjin: 117 km
   • Shijiazhuang–Taiyuan: 190 km
   • Hefei–Wuhan: 356 km
   • Ningbo–Taizhou–Wenzhou: 268 km
   • Wenzhou–Fuzhou: 298 km
   • Wuhan–Guangzhou: 968 km
   • Zhengzhou–Xi'an: 457 km
   • Fuzhou–Xiamen: 275 km
   • Shanghai–Nanjing: 301 km
   • Nanchang–Jiujiang: 92 km
   • ShanghaiHongqiaoStation–JianqiaoBlockHouse: 148 km (JianqiaoBlockHouse–HangzhouEast still under construction)
2. And dear UIC, please tell me where the 362-km-long 250-km/h HSR line is in the United States?? Python eggs (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The Qinhuangdao-Shenyang line is only 200-250km/h which isn't fast enough for inclusion as this list is only for 250km/h+ lines. Per http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2010/10/high-speed_rail_americas_northeast_corridor the ones that should be included are Zhengzhou-Xi'an, Wuhan-Guangzhou, Shanghai-Nanjing and Beijing-Tiaijin.

From your distances (counting the track in each direction) it should be 3692 for China and in the article it is 3529. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Those 362 km in USA are probably part of the "there are some exceptions" note included in the UIC article. I agree it should not be considered a real HS line since its max speed is only 240 km/h (this figure is clearly shown in the UIC article). So, UIC figures are right, although its article is perhaps a bit too "flexible". UIC is one of the most reliable sources in terms of railways information (also for China where it held its last world congress on High Speed), but obviously new lines built after may 2010 are not yet counted in the table since the article was published May 2010. But even if its slightely out of date you will agree that the actual lenth of chinese new HS lines (only faster than 250Km/h as applied to the other countries)is closer to 3529 km than to the 7000 Km you wrote without having in mind the table criteria.--Antschaser (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it is no where near 7000 km. But we also need do an independent verification on UIC's figure, not only what the total kilometers is for each country, but also where are those kilometers is. Here is a useful link [1] Python eggs (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Qinhuangdao–Shenyang is officially a 250 km/h line. And trains running at 250 km/h on that line indeed. I personally have been on that line for several times. If you think only Zhengzhou-Xi'an, Wuhan-Guangzhou, Shanghai-Nanjing, Beijing-Tianjin, these four lines, are qualified, then there would be almost no HSR line in Germany and Japan at all, and barely in France and Spain.

Anyway, from whatever point of view, the United States does not have a single mile of railway capable for 250+ km/h. It should not be included. Python eggs (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a suitable source (such as the ones I suggested on your talk page) which states that the Qinhuangdao-Shenyang line is 250km/h line I'm more than happy if we add the numbers together.

I apologise if I have been standoffish about this, the UIC figures are a hell of a lot better than the rubbish table we had before :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It's alright. So we can remove USA from that table, can't we? Python eggs (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It does seem a little far fetched, so I'm reverting my removal. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Citations

This article is in dire need of some form of substantiation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.195.125 (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for further editions:

We’ve seen much of the recent discussion on this article has focused on who has the largest ...network (hehe). I’ve taken part in this discussion very actively, so I don’t pronounce myself “not guilty” to the charges. Nevertheless, now that what appears to be the sexiest part of the article has been deeply analyzed and its section organized to be easily updated, I suggest we focus on other issues: I think technological aspects are very little developed (HSR are meant to be high end achievements). I’m working on it.

Same for Socio-economic implications: we know precisely how many HSR kms there are in…Belgium, but we know little about its implications (apart from the fact that people travel less by plane). I know it’s a difficult issue: it’s open to be contaminated by tendentious arguments, but what isn’t?

Finally I think we should make the effort to avoid sentences that could make the reader think we are not being objective: formulations such as “Europe’s leading nation” or “will have the most modern and sophisticated technology in the world” are generally difficult to prove: to give an aleatory example, I could affirm “HSR is much more developed in China than in Spain: about three times as many Km in service” , but I could also say: “HSR is much more developed in Spain than in China: about ten times as many Km per inhabitant”; both sentences are based on real facts and look evident but they are opposite. Proposing reliable sources should help to reduce this.

Lately, everything here looks to be discussed among Eraserhead1, Python eggs and me (very constructive discussions, I dare say, at least for me) but… Is anyone else out there?--Antschaser (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to apologize for possible mistakes in my contributions in English: this version of HSR article happens to be more active and interesting to me than others. I trust english native speakers generosity to correct eventual mistakes.--Antschaser (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want further discussion, I suggest creating an RFC. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

A Regenerative Fluel Cell? No, seriously, what is a RFC?--Antschaser (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for using Wiki-slang, see WP:RFC. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

734km of High-Speed Rail in the US?

When did that happen? LamontCranston (talk) 06:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Acela. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Except that the Northeast Corridor where the Acela runs is not a 734 km high speed line. It has a mix of speeds, was laid out in the nineteenth century and only a few miles of it has the 150 mph maximum speed; it is hardly a high-speed line in the same sense that the New Tokaido Line or the LGV Est are high speed rail lines. It is reasons like this that including non-high speed lines in the length count of high speed lines in the table makes little sense for those who are comparing things. The Acela is a high speed train that uses more-or-less conventional infrastructure. Even officially (for funding purposes) it is "not a designated high-speed line".^[2]Synchronism (talk)

discussion not related to above discussion of definition of high speed rail used in article, not related to article at all

It's hilarious how the supposed top economy of the world doesn't have a high-speed rail system crossing its territory! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.62.163 (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC) In the US, air and car travel is preferred. It is partially a political decision. There are no plans for a high-speed rail system crossing its territory, since the travel times would be much longer than air travel and the cost too high. The only plans are regional systems less than 1600 km/1000 miles. Many rail enthusiasts forget that air travel is better at least when traveling longer than 800 km/500 miles. --217.209.224.203 (talk) 07:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC) if you go overnight up to 10-12 hours on a train is OK. At 330km/h New York to LA would be doable by train as it'd take 12 hours. Besides as the oil runs out that'll be the only real option. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC) 1000 miles/1600 km is quite a distance, and the Strategic plan is for a sort of network between Northern New England and the Gulf Coast with branches to Florida and Chicago. Longer journeys (such as Coast to Coast) are probably best left to the airlines for the moment, but in a couple of decades time, it would be a lot easier to link this network up with the Californian and other regional networks to give a genuine Transcontinental High Speed Network. Tim PF (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

comparison with automobiles

as noted in the archieves, calculations are all wrong. this starts from the method! it compares FACTUAL data with THEORETICAL capacity.

modify this a bit. let's assume 2000 BUSES can pass the highway each hour. this gives over 80 000 people moved per hour, assuming just 40 seat buses!

also, when one compares potential capacity of trains , one cannot take _factual_ use of cars. cars usually have 5 seats. so their _Capacity_ is 5, not "1.57".

also issues of missing clearance were not yet adressed. with so many problems this section of article should be removed altogether, as all it presents is obvious misinformation and insult of wikipedia standards.

83.18.229.190 (talk) 09:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point, the train capacity should be reduced to something more plausible - say 2/3 full or something. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

FWIW I'd say the theoretical capacity of a high speed line would be 70 seats x 16 carriages x 15 trains/hour x 2 directions, or 33600 people/hour in two directions, so 2/3 of that would be about 20k/people/hour in two directions. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If it's theoretical, we could even think about 30 trains/hour: for instance, ECTS (european train control system) operating at level 2 allows 2' intervals between trains. But in this theoretical case (if the line had attended it's top capacity) we could easily imagine overcrowded trains like in the tube. Otherwise I think operators would tend to optimize the number of trains put into circulation.--Antschaser (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The comparisons should certainly be factual vs factual and maximum vs maximum. Unfortunately, factual car occupancy values and types used for medium to long trips (those competing with high speed trains) are not available. Concerning maximum capacity of trains, it is a value which will never be attained, because the rail carrier will always be forced to increase service as maximum capacity is approached, and do so in increments of rail cars or train sets. Magic pumpkin (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, the comparison is usually used to evaluate the difference in energy per person-mile, but trains have significant energy costs hidden in maintenance, personnel and infrastructure which are not directly tallied into the fuel usage. Trip cost is indicative of resources used, and I have generally found that in the US, Amtrak vs auto, a 1-passenger coach ticket costs about the same as the 1-passenger car trip (including fuel, and portion of registration, vehicle cost, maintenance, etc). Additionally, user fees (fuel tax, tire tax, tolls, registration, etc) included in the cost of the car trip have been used to subsidize the cost of the train ticket. The amount of the car cost subsidizing the train is less than 1% of the total cost (about 5% of the user fees, which constitute about 15% of the total), while depending on line and ticket class, between 10% and 50% of the Amtrak ticket is annually subsidized, not including government support of rail infrastructure (re)development, and occasional bankruptcy bailouts. The case can be made that the subsidies have enabled such inefficient operation. Magic pumpkin (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I realize the issue of subsidization can be touchy for some of the editors who favor trains and detest cars, but before saying something uninformed and unsupported, please realize that in the U.S., vehicle user fees are excessive, with approximately 80% to 90% (varying by year) of automobile revenues paying for the automobile infrastructure, and the remaining 10% to 20% of automobile revenues subsidizing other modes of transportation. At the Federal and State levels, revenues for highways have always been raised through user fees, with very little of the general revenues being employed; in fact, it is often the other way around, with revenues significantly exceeding appropriations. At the local level, streets may be partially maintained with property and sales taxes, but streets are necessary, and do not usually compete with trains, especially not high speed trains. BTW, this information comes from the Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council, which is contracted by Congress to study this stuff. Magic pumpkin (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

HSR by region: China

The lenght of chineese HSR network has been significantly edited. I've translated the source (a chineese paper shown only in chineese), and it's seems tendentious to me.I have found no updated serious article showing those 7000 km in service. Even the "more than 10000 km" in constraction shown in the table is very imprecise and is not sourced. I propose to revert chineese network lenght to the previous version shown in the UIC article which seems more realistic.

Maybe something can be sourced from: here. But I agree the UIC figures should be used. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I've done a little reseach and the lenght of 7000 Km includes 2876 Km of upgraded lines (200-250km/h). This table is meant to show only new lines over 250 Km/h. I think we should go back to UIC figures. --Antschaser (talk) 09:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

This news is about Official conference held by Chinese MOR, Aug 11, 2010:[3]. it is in Chinese and according to the report, during the 6920km HSR as of Aug 2010, 4044 of them are newly built Raiways with speed level 250km/h or 350km/h.

and from Chinese MOR news conference in Apr 12, 2007[4] 846 km of the 6003 km upgrade convitional lines service at top speed of 250km/h

the Jiujiang - Nanchang PDL, speed level 250km/h, total length 135 km, opened by September 20, 2010 [5]

so base on the above sources, China currently has 4985km HSR lines over 250km/h. -- Tigersandys (talk) 04:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that the 846 km 250 km/h line in 2007 includes Qinhuangdao–Shenyang Line, which should not be counted twice. Python eggs (talk) 05:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

So, for lines in service at 250+ Km/h we have, according to UIC table:

Beijing – Tianjing 120 Km

Jinan – Qingdao 362 Km

Nanjing – Hefei 166 Km

Hefei – Wuhan 356 Km

Shijiazhuang – Taiyuan 190 Km

Wuhan – Guangzhou 968 Km

Ningbo – Wenzhou– Fuzhou 562 Km

Zhengzhou – Xi’an 458 Km

Fuzhou – Xiamen 275 Km

Chengdu – Dujiangyan 72 Km

Total km = 3529 Km

And, updating with recently opened lines and upgraded to 250Km/h lines:

Shanghai – Nanjing 301 Km http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/shanghai-nanjing-high-speed-line-opens.html

Qinhuangdao–Shenyang: 404 km (upgraded to 250 Km/h in 2007) http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/4655264

Makes a total length network: 4234 Km

Jiujiang - Nanchang line speed is not very clear. China Today says it's 180 Km/h http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2010-09/21/content_11336095.htm . Other sources say 250, and UIC says 200. In my opinion it shouldn't be counted unless further sources comfirm it's speed.--Antschaser (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Apart from this, I wouldn't know what to do with the "in construction" section. I guess these recent lines in operation should be removed from lines in construction. It is not very easy to get technical information on this subject.--Antschaser (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

according to official news published by Chinese Ministry of Railways in September 21, 2010, the design speed of Jiujiang-Nanchang Intercity line is 250km/h. http://www.china-mor.gov.cn/detail.jsp?MSG_ID=23823 -- Tigersandys (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem in adding that line.--Antschaser (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Then, 4234+92 (according to UIC length of Nanchang-Jiujiang): 4326 Km oh HSL in service(over 250 Km/h).--Antschaser (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This File is from UIC highspeed 2010, published by Chinses Ministry of railway, it mentioned 11 HSR

http://www.uic-highspeed2010.com.cn/upload/ChineseRailways20101011.pdf

Beijing – Tianjing 120 Km

Wuhan – Guangzhou 1069 Km

Zhengzhou – Xi’an 505 Km

Shanghai - Nanjing 301 Km

Hefei – Wuhan 358.2 Km

Nanjing – Hefei 156 Km

Jinan – Qingdao 393 Km

Shijiazhuang – Taiyuan 189.9 Km

Ningbo – Wenzhou 292 Km

Wenzhou– Fuzhou 298 Km

Fuzhou – Xiamen 275 Km

plus the following lines

Chengdu – Dujiangyan 67 Km http://www.peoplerail.com/gaotie/gtjs/2010513/n734410731.html

Jiujiang-Nanchang 135 Km http://www.peoplerail.com/gaotie/gtgk/2010920/n430031213.html

by 2007, 846 km of lines over 250km/h (includes Qinshen PDL) http://www.peoplerail.com/gaotie/gtgk/2010317/n94385722.html

the Shanghai-Hangzhou PDL, dsigned top speed 350km/h, set to open by October 26, 2010, total length 202 km http://www.peoplerail.com/gaotie/20101022/n420435896.html

so the total length in China is about 5207.1 km by October 26,2010 -- Tigersandys (talk) 05:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Your file http://www.uic-highspeed2010.com.cn/upload/ChineseRailways20101011.pdf is interesting, although your transcription of it has little mistakes. But I think we could use it as definitive base.

As for upgraded lines, I suggest you proposing itemized figures (line and length)to be added to the definitive list; otherwise we'll never know what lines have already be counted or not and we'll have to restart this discussion from zero again. For the moment, only Qinshen 404 Km PDL has been verified to be upgraded to 250 Km/h (in our discussion). I suggest going on with discussion after the break, but before the list so that "the consensus list" is alway at the bottom of the section, after all discussions.--Antschaser (talk) 08:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

China's consensus list. HSR lines at or above 250 Km/h (keep always at the bottom of the section; new lines could be added progressively, after previous discussion):--Antschaser (talk) 08:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Beijing – Tianjin 120 Km

Wuhan – Guangzhou 1068 Km

Zhengzhou – Xi’an 505 Km

Shanghai - Nanjing 301 Km

Hefei – Wuhan 356.2 Km

Nanjing – Hefei 156 Km

Jinan – Qingdao 393 Km

Shijiazhuang – Taiyuan 189.9 Km

Ningbo – Wenzhou 282 Km

Wenzhou– Fuzhou 298 Km

Fuzhou – Xiamen 275 Km

Chengdu – Dujiangyan 67 Km

Jiujiang-Nanchang 135 Km

Qinhuangdao–Shenyang PDL 404 km (upgraded to 250 Km/h 2007)

Shanghai-Hangzhou PDL 202 Km

Total length: 4752.1 Km

Beijing-Tianjin=117 km; Wuhan-Guangzhou=968 km; Zhengzhou-Xi'an=457 km; Shanghai-Hangzhou=160 km, others are okay to me. The total length should be about 4560 km. Python eggs (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Upgraded line capable for 250 km/h as of April 2007:

• Qinshen PDL
• Jingguang Line, Xuchang–Mengmiao, 45 km
• Jingguang Line, Luohe–Suiping, 42 km
• Jinghu Line, Anting–ShanghaiWest, 22 km
• Jiaoji Line, Jimo–Gaomi, 36 km

Hainan East Ring ICL, from Haikou East to Sanya, is set to open by December 30, 2010, Total length of the Hainan ER ICL is 308.11 km, designed speed 250km/h.Tigersandys (talk) 08:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Under construction

250+ km/h (incomplete)

• Beijing-Shanghai: 1318 km
• Beijing-Shijiazhuang: 284 km
• Shijiazhuang-Wuhan: 841 km
• Guangzhou-Shenzhen: 105 km
• Harbin-Dalian: 890 km
• Tianjin-Qinhuangdao: 258 km
• Extension of Beijing-Tianjin ICL: 45 km
• Nanjing-Hangzhou: 249 km
• Hangzhou-Ningbo: 150 km
• Xi'an-Baoji: 148 km
• Guizhou-Guangzhou: 857 km
• Guizhou-Chongqing: 344 km
• Xiamen-Shenzhen: 502 km
• Nanjing-Anqing: 257 km
• Yuanping-Taiyuan-Xi'an: 699 km
• Xi'an-Hangzhong-Mianyang: 510 km
• Mianyang-Chengdu-Leshan: 318 km
• Chengdu-Chongqing: 307 km
• Chongqing-Wanzhou: 246 km
• Chengdu-Guiyang: 519 km
• Bengbu-Hefei: 120 km
• Hefei-Fuzhou: 813 km
• Lanzhou-Urumqi: 1776 km
• Hangzhou-Changsha-Kunming: 1897 km
• Shenyang-Dandong: 207 km
• Jilin-Hunchun: 359 km
• Harbin-Qiqihar: 286 km
• Tianjin-Baoding: 158 km
• Wuhan-Xianning: 90 km
• Nanping-Sanming-Longyan: 247 km
• Qingdao-Yantai-Weihai-Rongcheng: 299 km
• Nanning-Litang: 93 km
• Zhangjiakou–Hohhot: 286 km
• Total: 15,478 km

I have updated the table per above, but the list is still incomplete. Python eggs (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Environemental critcism?

Maybe it could be added, even if it seems to be confusing and wrong to me. But I have read on a famous 'décroissance'/Ungrowth convention website ,s conclusions that high-speed train should be 'abandoned' as an idea. Why that? It seems an acceptable alternative for long distance.... Ecologist wikipedians, answer this question please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.208.248 (talk) 05:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Link? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this was there; http://www.degrowth.eu/ in the conclusions declaration at then end. i couldn't find or understand the exact reasons why they are against high-speed trains. But surely an ecologist-minded wikipedian can tell us more... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.208.248 (talk) 03:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I did a Google for 'high speed rail site:degrowth.eu' and the only thing I found was saying that perishable foods should be grown close to the city rather than a long way away which requires rapid transport to get it to the city. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice to see the original source you refer to, because the author's reasons were probably outlined in it. You ask a valid question though. Many high speed lines are not operated at their ideal capacity, or in an ideal manner. When comparing the resources used to construct them against their actual usage, they become economically and environmentally costly relative to other transportation solutions (airplanes, autos, normal trains, etc). This is the primary reason that the U.S. has very limited high speed rail development. -- Magic pumpkin (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The other reason is that high-speed does not significantly shorten a trip or increase riders. In the U.S. we have a lot of class V (90 mph / 145 kph) and class VI (110 mph / 180 kph) rail lines. In the simple math of distance divided by speed, going from a mix of class V and VI to class VIII rail (160 mph / 260 kph) should reduce a 300 mile trip from 3.0 hours to 1.9 hours, but including stops, the trip is actually reduced from 5.25 hours to 4.0 hours. The high speed train compares more favorably to a 2.5 hour airport experience, but it does not increase ridership 300% (values given by Amtrak to the Illinois legislature for a similar upgrade). BTW, the auto takes about 5 hours. If you include the time going between the rail stations and the beginning and ending points of the trip, the car may even be faster than the high speed, and it already costs less for a single occupant. If multiple (2) people are in the car, it may even be more efficient, and it is certainly more efficient with 3+ passengers. -- Magic pumpkin (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

That's because no serious high-speed rail line has so many stops that it would take 4 hours to do a 300 mile journey - certainly not on the fastest trains, which usually stop extremely infrequently. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Cummulative passengers by country

I think intensity of use by country should be shown as passengers per year, and not cummulative passenger as shown on the last column. This makes impossible to compare real usage, since periods of time are different.--Antschaser (talk) 09:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

If the figures are widely available, sure. Otherwise the column should be removed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree it should be removed until homogeneous figures are provided): it is not only useless but also imposible to understand.--Antschaser (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd consider passenger-km (or passenger-miles, of course) a more realistic passenger metric than raw passenger numbers. In other words, a 1000km journey counts for more than a 1km journey. Passenger-km numbers are available for most substantial rail networks, if I remember correctly. bobrayner (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Are they available for high-speed rail specifically? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

History section too focused on the United States

The history section of this article is majorly messed up. To start with it is too focused on the United States. Secondly someone has littered it with references to the US interurban system which has only superficial similarities to any real high speed rail system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.210.95 (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I think there are two underlying problems here:

• What is the definition of High-Speed Rail History (eg the gradual speeding up of passenger train services)?
• Where did events for this definition happen (which you cannot answer first)?

It looks as if the start of the section gives the competition from the Motorcar (and presumably airplanes), and does cite streamlined steam locomotives, but these are not followed up, but were used in the USA as well as elsewhere in the world.

I notice the "This section may need to be rewritten entirely..." banner tag from last September, but cannot see any discussion; it probably needs to happen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. Tim PF (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Folks, The problem is the WP culture in non English speaking Europe. They are not into doing free research an editing as the US and English speaking WP culture is. I do a lot of weapons pages. And I compare European weapons (ie like the ERYX and SAGAIE) and the English WP pages and the European non-English pages. Even when it is a weapon from that country. Sometimes the French and German pages on weapons from their countries are no more than translations of the English page. non-English Europeans have far most history with high speed rail. But unless they are willing to research and write about it, there is little that can be done. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

That generalisation is unhelpful; a quick look around other rail content shows plenty of European editors doing research and improving articles.

You should understand the difference between the location of an article subject and the location of an editor. They are different things. Personally, I'm a European who has edited both European and American weapon articles, and there are others who act similarly; if Americans mostly cover American subjects, that alone could explain a difference in quality. bobrayner (talk) 11:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Bob, You are correct. I was passing on some info I was given a long time ago that I had not checked. For example I checked the page on the Tilt Trains and there is a lot of editors from Europe contributing on that page. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 06:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Just Trivia - A Swiss Inventors solution for high speed trains

Folks, I thought some might find this of interest. I did not post it as I considered it not that important since no nation (ie as far as I know) did not adopt this idea. "Safety Track Streamlines Permits High Speeds", Popular Science, November 1936 Jack Jackehammond (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that is a proposal which has not been implemeted, and I think we should therefore not write about it in the article. --BIL (talk) 09:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't work anyway, not with those bent axles. It looks like the mad professor didn't understand the way that rail wheels are angled (conical section), and I believe that his 225 mph has been achieved with conventional track. Tim PF (talk) 12:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Bent axles? Probably technically achievable with CVJs or something :-) though lateral forces, and wear patterns, could be... interesting. Points could be a challenge too. It's probably not worth including in the article but I wouldn't completely rule it out as an aside, or an illustrative example of previous dead-ends in design, since we have a solid source. The previous unsigned comment was made by bobrayner (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

But is it a reliable source? It looks like vapourware to me. Tim PF (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Oops; sorry I forgot to sign. It's no big deal to me, but wikipedia does have quite a few mentions of vapourware, bad ideas, and even hoaxes, where it's relevant (or even whole articles on it, where the proposal is sufficiently notable). RS is not boolean, and I'd consider an article in "Popular Science" sufficiently reliable if we just wanted a brief mention of a failed proposal in this article, to flesh it out. If we were making bigger bolder claims (ie. of technical superiority) then I'd expect to see more solid sourcing. bobrayner (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

JEEZ! Folks. I did not post it expecting it to be used in a page. Much less have it examined, taken apart and put back together. I hope you all realize that this talk section now qualifies as an article.<GRIN> I was wondering about the effect of those axles also, but how dare you all state that Popular Mechanics or Popular Science are not reliable.:-) They have an article from WW2 showing a bomber dropping a torpedo on a Japanese carrier straight down from 5,000 feet. No seriously, some of the stuff printed during WW2 -- especially about the Japanese weapons -- you can not believe. And some of the stuff was dead on. Like a 1939 article that pretty well described how Radar worked that must have given some in the US Army and USN heartburn. Btw, If you want to see something very interesting, check out this idea the Russians had in the 1930s for a high speed "RAIL" system in Turkestan. Leave it to the Russians. "Twin Amphibian Cars For Monorail" Popular Science, July 1934 Jack Jackehammond (talk) 09:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Handling UIC figures (high speed network by country)

We've seen there are some exceptions in the UIC table we've used as a source for high speed networks length. This table is meant to show only lines with a top speed of 250 Km/h or above but it includes sometimes lines with an inferior top speed. Obviously, there are portions of HS lines where speed is limited because of punctual problems (tunnels, for instance); but I cannot understand the reason why a whole line whose speed is under 250Km/h should be included if it is not meant to. I was thinking about the possibility of keeping the UIC figures (updating them when new lines open), but removing those few lines not responding to the common criteria. It seems quite easy since the UIC provides each line's speed in its article. What do you think?--Antschaser (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Support Python eggs (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This would be my proposal to handle UIC figures for those exceptions under 250Km/h:

Germany:

Not to be counted: the 253 km Hamburg-Berlin line that runs at a top speed of 230km/h.

So, total lenth in service in Germany: 1032 Km

Spain:

Not to be counted: the 79 km Zaragoza-Huesca line that runs at a top speed of 200Km/h.

To be counted (as it is): the 4 Km by pass through Madrid (which is not a line but a portion of line with limited speed as it goes under the city.

So, total length in Spain: 1525 Km

adding 438 Km of Madrid-Cuenca-Albacete-Valencia new line put in service today.312Design speed:350Km/h--Antschaser (talk) 08:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

adding 20Km figueres-french border open today.1--Antschaser (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

So, total length in Spain: 1983 Km

France:1897 + 25Km of Perpignan-Spanish border (open today)1--Antschaser (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

So, total length in France: 1897 Km

Japan: 438

Not to be counted: the 276 Km MINI-shinkansen lines that run at top speeds of 130km/h.

To be counted (as it is): the 4 km Tokyo–Ueno and the 27 Km Ueno–Omiya, although their speed is limited to 110 Km/h as they are in fact portions of lines whose speed slows down as they arrive to Tokyo.12

To be counted (as it is): the Omiya – Niigata 270Km line with a top speed of 240 Km/h, because of historical reasons: it was built in 1982, it is one of the first lines in the world and uses top high speed technology (of that time). I would make of it the only exception in the whole list. It is not the same case as the Acela Express: same speed, but built almost 20 years later.

So, total length in Japan: 2176 Km

May I confess I have my doubts about the japanese exception even if I proposed it. I'd like to know what you think about it--Antschaser (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

No opinions about the japanese exception? I guess in that case I should stick to the facts: Omiya – Niigata 270Km line with a top speed of 240 Km/h is under 250 Km/h so, it should not be counted in the table: so, total length in Japan(over 250Km/h)= 2176-270= 1906Km--Antschaser (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why the Omiya to Niigata line should be included. The Tōkaidō Shinkansen is faster than 250km/h and older. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

quite right--Antschaser (talk) 12:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Tohoku and Kyushu Shinkansen fully opened. 2118(operation)+377(Under construction)=2495km --60.46.232.228 (talk) 10:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

China:

Three lines (Jinan – Qingdao, Hefei – Wuhan, and Shijiazhuang – Taiyuan) are described as 200 Km/h top speed lines on the UIC article (although their length is counted to stablish the total length).I have looked for information from other sources and they appear to be 250 Km/h, so UIC info contains probably a mistake.12.

So, total length in China: well, this is more complex, let's say..the result of the previous discussion, hehe.

Not "appear" to be, but they are, together with Qinhuangdao–Shenyang, which is included in the 846-km existing lines announced in 2007. Here is my GPS record on Hefei–Wuhan line, the maximum speed was 253 km/h (in commercial operation) . Also on the old Beijing–Shanghai, Anting–Shanghai section is capable for 250 km/h running, Some sections of Beijing–Guangzhou line in Henan is capable for 250 km/h running, and etc. I have a list, I will paste it here when I have time. Python eggs (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Opinions?--Antschaser (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Include the ones UIC made a mistake with - but don't double count them unless we are sure that is done elsewhere. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about HSR in China is being updated two sections above.--Antschaser (talk) 09:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

RENFE website gives the figures for Spain HSR network at 2200km. Where does the one on the article comes from? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.226.106 (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It comes from UIC. Renfe's figures include lines with speeds 200 to 250 Km/h wich technically is considered HSR, but is not the criteria originally used in this article's table to compare countries' networks. The use of this criteria (lines over 250Km/h) is due to the fact that the only homogeneous worldwide information found on the subjet until now is the information provided by the UIC.--Antschaser (talk) 11:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Updates and Dangers

The United States area could use some updating with Amtrak's new high speed rail going into effect soon. Also a section on the dangers and controversy of high speed rail should be included.--Cooly123 02:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Insufficient history

Shouldn't historical efforts such as the Flying Scotsman (train) be mentioned in the History section of this article? That run was reduced from 10½ hours in 1862 down to 4½ hours in the present day.--Rfsmit (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

=======================

The history of the interurbans seems to imply something that I, too, had thought was true for many, many years, specifically, that all the interurbans in the U. S. had been destroyed. Actually, there is one line that has survived. It is like finding a Passenger pigeon alive. It should be celebrated.

South Shore Line http://www.nictd.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.22.233 (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

A few interurbans or sections of them have survived in the U.S. (see the paragraph Remaining and new lines). In Europe, there are several both old and new interurbans. E.g. Tram-Trains in reality are interurbans (they run like trams/streecars in the streets, and on ordinary railway tracks between the cities, but they are not called interurbans. And I think neither the U.S. nor the European interurbans do have any signficance for the high-speed rail development today. Probably it is possible to construct a 250 km/h railcar or train and run it both as a tram/streetcar thorough the streets, and as a high/speed train on dedicated tracks. The idea is exciting, but i think such a Tram-HSTrain concept may have som weaknesses. Pål Jensen, 28 April, 2011

The Mountain Top Road

I cannot find any other information about this than the article referred to, the paragraph here in Wikipedia, and derivatives of the latter. Did it ever be constructed? I did also move it to the next paragraph, because it - if it really has existed - was no interurban. Pål Jensen (talk) 12:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Pål Jensen, March 19, 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pål Jensen (talk • contribs) 10:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The railway was built and is referred to at the Keddie Wye article. You are correct in saying that it was no interrurban, which is why I had given it a sub-section heading, but omitted to move it out of "The high-speed interurbans" section. I'm still not sure that its location is correct, but note the other comments about tidying up the History and splitting it out at #History section too focused on the United States and #History section split. Tim PF (talk) 10:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The railway was built, but I cannot find any source which states any train really did run at 110 mph at that line. Pål Jensen, 28 April, 2011.

Shinkansen

Corrected "the idea of a dedicated high-speed line..." The idea was older. Pål Jensen (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

History section split

I've placed a tag for the history section to be split into a new History of ever-faster passenger trains article (or something with a better title).

The rationale is that much of the history section is only incidental on the main article subject (ie [passenger] train services running at 200 km/h (124 mph) or more on legacy tracks or 250 km/h (155 mph) or more on new tracks). Yes, it is good background, but much is missed out (eg the Race to the North), and I think that even the Rainhill trials were a significant part of the history of rail transport increasing the speed of passenger journeys.

I've looked for another article which covers this subject area, but cannot easily find one. If there is, I'll change the {{Split section}} tag to something else. Tim PF (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Support The section is too long. Python eggs (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Support Fill your boots! bobrayner (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, but it really needs a better title; anyone any ideas? Tim PF (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

History of high-speed rail perhaps? Let's keep it simple. (What counts as "high speed" has changed over time, that's fine) bobrayner (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I think what it needs to be split into 3 or perhaps 4 broad chronological spans, roughly:

1. Before c1955 — Scheduled passenger train speeds increase to about 150–160 km/h (93–99 mph).
2. c1955–1985 — Modern high-speed rail is born, with first regular trains meeting the modern definitions.
3. Post c1985 — High-speed rail is well established, and spreads around the world.

If so, the first section must be moved into the new article, and the third out of "History" (once I can think of a section heading). That leaves the problem of the middle section, which is really the History of high-speed rail. Should it stay here, with just a hatnote pointing to the pre-1955 history article, or should the entire history be moved out? Tim PF (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Early high-speed trains

Should trains and railcars like Brill's Bullet, Fliegender Hamburger and Pioneer Zephyr be called high-speed trains, or e.g. proto-high-speed trains? They are not high-speed trains according to today's standard, but in realtion to most trains of that time, they were very high-speed. Pål Jensen, 14. May, 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pål Jensen (talk • contribs) 13:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

See the #History section split above, which would keep these trains that were high-speed for their time, even though they do not meet modern High-speed rail definitions. Tim PF (talk) 10:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Diversity of images

Currently, this article has:

• 22 photos of the noses of trains
• 6 maps

And that's it. We don't show any photos of high speed tracks, passenger flow in busy stations, bogies, ticketing, fancy tunnels or viaducts, construction or maintenance work, passenger seating, crashes, pantographs, diagrams of cant deficiency or flying junctions or dynamic envelope ... nothing. Surely we can get a more informative range of photographs? bobrayner (talk) 08:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Unmodified claimed record

Maximum speed for a train is limited by power/weight and Gear-Ratio.
It's known that maximum speed of commercial train without modifications (with original power, original voltage, original gear ratio) with about 25KW/T is about 400 Km/h (ICE 3, TGV, etc).
All French records (1955, 1981, 1989, 2007) have been made with tuned Gear-Ratio, higher electric power, especially balanced wheels of higher diameter.

Then it's inconceivable that CRH380 with a 25 KW/T power and standard Gear ratio could reach 480 km/h, without destruction of motors, and destructive vibrations caused by unbalanced wheels.
This claimed record was made without independent witness, as an advertisement.

As we can see in second entry, a tuned CRH380BL sustained only 487.3 Km/h (1 km/h higher !).
It's highly probable that heavy modifications was made on the CRH380AL (probably higher electric power, especially balanced wheels). --FlyAkwa (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Line transformed from "Record holder for unmodified trainset" to "Claimed record of unmodified trainset" FlyAkwa (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

History USA centred

The "History" section is fully USA centred, whereas USA has never been major country for high speed rail (unlike Japan or France).

All US "high speed" train described where not so "high speed" (140 or 160 km/h), where same speed were used in Europe since beginning of 20th century.

I propose to rewrite this section, and delete most of US "high speed train", to keep only really fast train (relative to the rest of the world) and to expand sections about Germany, Japan, Great Britain and France.

--FlyAkwa (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

First International HSR

In combination with the Belgian and British lines, the Paris-Lille-Calais line allowed the opening of the first HSR international services: Paris-London (1994), London-Brussels (1994), both via the Channel Tunnel, and Brussels-Paris (1995).

This is wrong, there have been TGV running from Paris (France) to Geneva (Switzerland) since 1981:

Reference: http://www.tdg.ch/tgv-suisse-rapproche-paris-2011-04-15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiesmann (talk • contribs) 08:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. There is no high-speed line between France and Switzerland : TGV uses the Paris-Lyon HSL, and then the classic network to Geneva. The Paris-Brussels is a real High Speed Line, continuous from Paris to Brussels. It's true that the sentence is not clear, and must be rewritten. --FlyAkwa (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the coloring system on the map

Hi. I think the colors are not very explanatory....... for example purple orange , yellow , pink, my mind gets confused and I re-check all the time which color means higher speed. ...... Can the person responsible for the map update the colors in an order of variances of single color (for example: variances of red) and not pick different irrelevant colors? what do you guys think ? --88.244.86.71 (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

USA missing in the list

I realized the USA is missing on the world rank. why is that?--88.244.86.71 (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

If you think about "Records in trial runs", US never broke any record in high speed train.
More generally, US have never been a major country for (high) speed train, early looking to airplanes. Actually, the fastest US train is a far-TGV-derived, built by Alstom and Bombardier, and able to reach (on some little sections) 240 km/h (lightly better than Japan Shinkansen in 1964). This speed remains 80 km/h slower than french TGV POS (320 km/h on LGV Est).
Article about high speed rail (in project) in the USA : High-speed rail in the United States --FlyAkwa (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Moscow-Nizhny Novgorod route

The route Moscow - Nizhny Novgorod in Russia is not high. Travel between the cities are at an average speed of 100 km / h. Schedule for Railways website: http://pass.rzd.ru/isvp/public/pass/isvp/public/rzd/express?schd_id=1&action=submit&layer_id=4922&STRUCTURE_ID=735&src=%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B2%D0%B0&dst=%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B9+%D0%9D%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4&date=30.11 Distance of 400 km Peregrine runs for 3 hours and 55 minutes. Please edit the High Speed ​​Railroad Map Europe 2011. See also: http://www.sapsaninfo.ru/index.php?mn=otd&mns=t48e84cp2gj4x

It seems that Nizhny Novgorod is linked with Moscow by the Sapsan train/service (Velaro Rus), able to reach 250 km/h, but running only at 160 km/h on this relation [6]. If it's confirmed, the line Moscow-Nizhny Novgorod will be deleted from the map. --FlyAkwa (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Here it is confirmed: http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/sapsan-reaches-nizhny-novgorod.html Reference is given in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.118.66.14 (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. --FlyAkwa (talk) 18:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Images again

Alas, nobody answered this: Talk:High-speed rail/Archive 2#Diversity of images Just now, somebody reverted my attempt at mitigating this problem. What can be done?
I realise there may be people who really want a photo of their favourite train's nose, but that's no way to write an encyclopædic article. Can't we trim out some of the superfluous samey photos of the noses of trains, and replace some of them with images of other aspects of high-speed rail? My previous concern still stands: "We don't show any photos of high speed tracks, passenger flow in busy stations, bogies, ticketing, fancy tunnels or viaducts, construction or maintenance work, passenger seating, crashes, pantographs, diagrams of cant deficiency or flying junctions or dynamic envelope ... nothing." It's a disgrace. Surely we can work towards a more informative, less repetitive selection of photographs? bobrayner (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. I didn't agree with the choice you made of trains to be deleted. It is not really a matter of what is one's favorite trains, but if you delete the only image of the most commonly used HS train (talgo) in the second largest network in the world (Spain), this doesn't look a reasonable choice. We don't need several siemens photos, since they show the same type of train, or several versions of the TGV: that's a point where we can agree easily. Apart from this, no photos of the aspects you mentioned have been proposed until now. Some of the types you proposed don't look very specific of HSR (passenger flow in busy stations, ticketing and they wouldn't show any difference from conventional rail) so I am not quite sure about them, but other ones (the most technical ones) could surely improve the article.Antschaser (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it will be also better to avoid duplicate views of same trains (e.g. multiple views of ICE-3), or views of not-HST. For a view of all HST, I have expanded the page "List of high speed trains" with picture for each train. --FlyAkwa (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You mean "modern" non-HS trains? Actually, I think the only one in that category would be the "allegro".Antschaser (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm note sure that ETR200 and narrow-gauge trains could be considered as HST.
The Allegro is a Pendolino, and seems to be accepted as HST (because it's an EMU able to reach over 200km/h). In the "List of high speed trains", Pendolino are included, but are borderline cases.
The 200 km/h speed-limit for HST is problematic, because there is lot of conventional trains (like French Capitol in 1967) reaching 200 km/h in commercial service. --FlyAkwa (talk) 13:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the number of trains until 250Km/h is nowadays too high to include any photos in the article, even if they are technically HS trains. About narrow gauge trains.. I consider them quite exotic and I'm personally interested, but I agree technically they are not HS 212.166.204.229 (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Japan's information incorrect?

The table says Japan has 2,118km of rail in operation but the real figure is 2387.7 km. Perhaps this could be due to the fact that it doesn't include the newly completed Kyushu Shinkansen (2011).

Also it says there's 377km of rail U/C but the real figure for Japan is 422.6

So the table should look like 2387.7 ; 422.6 ; 2810.3.

As for sources..Japan has several companies running each line. Simply visit the english or japanese wikipedia pages on Shinkansen and they have basically everysingle source...and length. I'll show you some simple math right here. U/C: Hokkaidō Shinkansen Shin-Aomori – Shin-Hakodate 148.9 km; Hokuriku Shinkansen Nagano – Kanazawa 228.0 km; Nagasaki route Takeo Onsen – Isahaya 45.7 km which is 422.6 km u/c

Not only that right underneath the table the article says "The Shinkansen system has grown to a 2,459 km (1,528 mi) network"...so either way you look at it the table is simply wrong. Also I am not sure where the 2,459km figure comes from (their source is simply a time table, nothing to do with length)...perhaps that user added the mini shinkansen and spur lines to the total..but in that case I don't know if those should be considered true HSR since they run below 150 km/h.

Hello. If you see mistakes in the article, please correct it. In fact, the table you were speaking about is a template, called in the article. It seems that a user deleted it today... --FlyAkwa (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, that's a shame he deleted it. It was pretty good for rail-fans. Well, I couldn't figure out how to edit the table so that's why I made the post. I hope someone else can make another one, I am not skilled enough at wiki yet to do that. I updated the section on Japan anyway with the correct figures. --TheRationalDude (talk) 05:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

History - Early research

(Sorry, I can't edit yet, semi protected article)

I detected a little error in that section :

"In 1945 a Spanish inventor, Alejandoro Goicechen, invented a streamline diesel powered high speed train that while slightly slower than previous high-speed passenger trains, ..."

His real name is Alejandro Goicoechea, he was a Spanish engineer and the father of Talgo train (circa 1941).

That would be nice if someone could correct that, thanks.

--DubScott (talk) 07:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Effectively, this information is really incomplete because it's extracted from a very old newspaper (as we can see in the reference).
In fact, the history section must be entirely rewritten (I already delete all the US centred history). I think a chronology will be also a good thing. --FlyAkwa (talk) 09:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it may be better to develop more "history of high speed rail" content in a separate article. bobrayner (talk) 12:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Did this train come into production? E.g. Fliegender Hamburger did so, and it ran at 160 km/h in 1933. Pål Jensen (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

the map of europe and asia is outdated

russia has a highspeed rail too--Alibaba445 (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Russia has only one high-speed-line, between Moskva and St. Petersbourg, operated at 250 km/h with Siemens Velaro High Speed Train. This line is visible on the European map. None of the Europe and Asian map are outdated.

But if you have sourced informations about new high-speed-lines in Russia, you can add it on the map.

--FlyAkwa (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit

Here are some comments:

• The issue of construction is a gaping hole, especially given the tripling of estimates in California.
• The safety piece needs to include the recent Chinese accident/scandal.
• The Major markets and History sections need real sections on China, which has the most and largest current projects.
• Although I corrected some of this, it still reads more like advocacy than description.

Lfstevens (talk) 02:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Energy Efficiency Paragraph- Misleading part

I believe that the following from the energy efficiency paragraph is actually somewhat misleading. "Even using electricity generated from coal or oil, high speed trains are significantly more fuel-efficient per passenger per kilometer traveled than the typical automobile because of economies of scale in generator technology. For example, on the Eurostar, emissions from travelling by train from London to Paris are 90% lower than by flying." In the context, it implies that Eurostar is an example of an efficient use of fossil fuel generated electricity, whereas in reality it explicitly avoids electricity from fossil fuels and therefore has such low emissions. Globo (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Electricity is fungible. Electrified railways generally get their electricity from a broader national grid, typically dominated by fossil fuels but with some inputs from other sources. Eurostar's figures seem to acknowledge this - "based on actual supplier mix of electricity and actual load factors" - although it's probably worth checking that the supplier mix isn't a sleight of hand. bobrayner (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The generalisation may be true for many national power grids, but that of France primarily runs on nuclear power and only uses about 10% fossil fuels, and I think it would be correct to assume that Eurostar primarily draws its power from that grid. Therefore Eurostar's low emissions may have something to do with a more efficient use of fossil fuels but far more with the peculiar nature of French electricity, which is why I think the paragraph above is misleading. There should be a comparison to a train running primarily on coal for a true statement of greater efficiency in fossil fuel use. Globo (talk) 08:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree; that's a good point. (Although nuclear power isn't carbon neutral, it's very low-carbon) bobrayner (talk) 10:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Article to rewrite and reorder

I think the article is, actually, begun a real mess.
I tried months ago to reorder the article.
But a lot of editors are gone trough the article, and have added, deleted, reordered in careless way this poor article.

• The "history" chapter is clearly empty, with snatches of utile information. The "Japan breakthrough" summarize all the Japan history, without continuity with history in the rest of the World.
• The major innovation and leader in High Speed Rail, the french TGV, is totally forget.
• The "Rationale" chapter duplicate the History chapter.
• United States, that is really a nation that have absolutely never bring anything in High-Speed train, is excessively present.
• "Technology" is became a real melting-pot, with really portnawak (whatever).
• "Road rail parallel layout" is in "Major market", rather than "Comparison with other modes of transport"
• "Existing operations" is the most absurd title to regroup various old elements of the page...
• "Definition" has been troncated, to keep only 2 sentences.

Etc.

I propose this :

1 Definition
2 Chronology
3 History

3.1 Early research

3.2 Breakthrough: The Japanese Shinkansen

3.3 Revival in Europe

3.4 The French TGV

3.5 Rise of high speed in Europe

3.5 The waking of China and Asia

4 Network

4.1 Maps

4.2 Technologies (Track design)

5 Rolling Stock

5.1 Pictures

5.2 Technologies

5.3 Most famous

5.3.1 Shinkansen

5.3.2 TGV

5.3.3 ICE

5.3.4 CRH

5.4 Construction standards

6 Maximum speed

6.1 Speed record

6.2 Maximum speed in service

6.3 Records in trial runs

7 Existing and future markets

7.1 Japan

7.3 Europe & Middle East

7.4 Asia and China

7.5 America & United States

8 Comparison with other modes of transport

8.1 Automobiles / Road rail parallel layout

8.2 Aircraft

I need your help. --FlyAkwa (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Some random thoughts:

• It's unfair to say that the USA has contributed nothing to high speed rail; certainly it's not centre stage in the current generation of high-speed rail, but the history is worth mentioning. If you'd like to change the emphasis a bit, I could go along with that.
• Why should TGV have a separate section from "Rise of high speed in Europe"?
• I still think the article has too much emphasis on the trains themselves, even though HSR is a complete package of rolling stock, infrastructure, regulation, ticketing, marketing &c. In particular, we still have the same old problem that the article has lots of photos of noses of trains, which are rather cosmetic, and fewer informative images about all the other stuff.
• A separate section for pictures of rolling stock may be unhelpful; I'd rather have them inline. Put a photo of a TGV in a paragraph about French high-speed rolling stock, and so on.
• Be careful about the "future" stuff. It's very difficult to write neutral content about big prestigious projects; lots of newspapers around the world have breathlessly announced some local plan for high-speed rail but we often lack a source ten years later which says "it never happened; the minister decided to build something else instead". Our existing article on this has enough problems already.

Those are my principles; if you don't like them, I have others. bobrayner (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for you answer Bobrayner. I agree your remarks.

About the question "*Why should TGV have a separate section from "Rise of high speed in Europe" : that's because in "Rise of high speed in Europe", I think we must talk about the rising speed of conventional Train, until 200 km/h, such as the French Capitol (launched as answer to the Shinkansen), the spanish Talgo, Italian Pendolino, and then the french turbotrains and prototypes of TGV. The "TGV" himself is a large step beyond (such as the Shinkansen), with a new concept, a very high increase in speed (210 => 270 km/h, then 300 km/h), and is himself an illustration of the High Speed (as the Liberty Statue is an image of NYC) through the multiple speed records.

"Put a photo of a TGV in a paragraph about French high-speed rolling stock, and so on." => I agree fully. I don't like so the actual block of pictures. Additionally, the "List of High-Speed train" I completely remade, has already all the pictures of all HST.

About the "future" chapter, I'm not sure to be able to write this part. I will already begin to work on the chronology and history.

Additionally, I made a few months ago a selection of pictures to illustrate the "Railway" section : [7]

--FlyAkwa (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks FlyAkwa for proposing a major edit. I have some comments though:

The pictures and maps need not to be separate sections. You can use them throughout the article.

Also, some part of "History", "Most Famous" and "Maximum Speed" would repeat same info again and again. So I suggest "Maximum Speed" be a sub-section of "History" and spreading "Most Famous" throughout the "History" again. Right now the article is disturbingly looong. Try to keep it short and refer "main articles" as much as you can. Best! Yakamoz51 (talk) 07:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your ideas. I will try to edit the article keeping in mind your remarks.

--FlyAkwa (talk) 10:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism on 16 june

Be carefull : a major edit has been done on June 16th, that reverted the article to a previous very old version.

I have reverted the vandalism today (25 June).

All edits following this vandalism have been deleted. Please reedit the article to put again your edits.

--FlyAkwa (talk) 10:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Definitions

>> Some features are unique to high-speed rail: many conventionally-hauled trains – beginning with the French "Capitole", launched in 1967 – reach 200 km/h in commercial service, but are not considered to be high-speed trains. <<

A listing/explanation of the features "unique to high-speed rail" lacked by such trains as the Capitole and preventing their being considered to be high-speed would be a useful addition to this section. Also, in what respect(s) are high-speed trains not "conventionally-hauled"? -- Picapica (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be slight confusion in the article, high-speed trains can be either conventionally hauled, i e with all traction motors in special power cars, even though they don't need to look like traditional locomotives, or multiple-unit trains, with the traction motors distributed among all, or almost all, cars in the set. Both the Acela Express and the Swedish X2 are examples of high-speed trains (by the most common definition, that is capable of operating at speeds in excess of 200kph/124mph) with special power cars pulling/pushing unpowered rolling stock. Thomas.W (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello. No, there is no confusion.

Despite the official (but really strange) definition of HSR by UIC, surely, if you say to somebody that the "Capitol" is a HST (Le Capitole est un TGV en français), or the "Corail Teoz" is a HST (Le Corail Teoz est un TGV), you will be considered as fool.

I think we can say that, traditionally, at least in the countries where HSR is born (Japan, France, Germany, Italy), conventional hauled trains, even able to reach 200 or 220 km/h, are absolutely not considered as HST.

In these countries, HST are really faster than conventional hauled trains. They are also very different in design and performances. And they have prestigious, or national, long distance, services.

Recently, some countries, with high ambitions but no means, have wanted to join the "HSR Club" with some pseudo high-speed services, and I presume this is the cause of the definition of HSR "above 200 km/h".

--FlyAkwa (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

That may be the definition commonly used in France, but as stated in the article "The International Union of Railways (UIC) and EC Directive 96/58 define high-speed rail as systems of rolling stock and infrastructure which regularly operate at or above 250 km/h (155 mph) on new tracks, or 200 km/h (125 mph) on existing tracks."' And "systems of rolling stock" can also mean locomotive-hauled trains.

I could add that I dislike your attitude, as exemplified in "some countries, with high ambitions but no means, have wanted to join the "HSR Club" with some pseudo high-speed services". This is an encyclopaedia, not a p*ssing contest. The article should stick to the official definition of high-speed rail, nothing else. Meaning that any system of rolling stock, including locomotive-hauled trains, that "regularly operates at or above 200 km/h (125 mph) on existing track" is a high-speed train. Which in turn means that parts of the article need to be rewritten in order to reflect that. Thomas.W (talk) 11:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Thomas. W on this one. Let's stick to the official definition here. The waters are muddied by ambiguous use of terms. TGV is simultaneously a specific product and also a general term; but that's not a unique case, there's also a slight overlap with UK usage of "HST" and so on. There's even a class of "superfast" trains in India which we might charitably say are fast by IR's standards. The best way to avoid this is to focus on a definition which is widely accepted and which is not specific to one parastatal out of hundreds. bobrayner (talk) 11:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

To be simple : there is a great difference between the "official definition" (recognized by who ?) and the reality. And NO, the actual Corail Teoz Paris-Toulouse IS NOT an High-Speed train, despite the "official definition" and it's top speed of 200 km/h. None of the elements defining an HST and an High Speed Service are present (no dedicated track, no specific protection of the line, presence of grade crossing, stations directly on the line, presence of fret trains, etc).

Then, the official definition is written in the "definition chapter", but, of course, for every people, an High Speed Train is not a standard low speed hauled train.

As you say that Wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia, I add that it's an Encyclopaedia for all, not only for specialist of fussy people. --FlyAkwa (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The definition that I quoted comes from the International Union of Railways/Union Internationale des Chemins de fer, and that's about as official as it gets. As for the rest you seem to have totally misunderstood just about everything. This article is not about the French TGV, Japanese Shinkansen, German ICE and so on, it's about high-speed trains in general. The TGV/Shinkansen/ICE and so on have their own articles, so if that is what you're interested in then go edit those articles instead of trying to turn this more general article into an article about the TGV. Thomas.W (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Thomas.W, at first, you don't have to say what I must do, and what I must edit. And I'm not the owner and official writer of this article.

Your own opinion is yours, and not that of majority.

Despite the official definitions, majority people that consults this article understand High-Speed trains as TGV, Shinkansen, ICE, etc. I really doubt that somebody, somewhere, could consider that a classic Corail train (or IC) is an High-Speed train.

I don't deny that, officially, over 200 km/h, a train is an HST (and that is the reason, on the "List of High Speed Trains" page, I have included all EMU as fast as 200 km/h, including the french TER "Z-TER", that is far to be an HST).

But, it's strictly impossible to deal with "high-speed trains in general", because there is really too trains and configuration able to reach 200 km/h. And that are not considered by majority as HST.

And the article is already too long.

Then, the official definition is there, but the Wikipedia article is more precise.

--FlyAkwa (talk) 11:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said, you seem to have misunderstood just about everything. It doesn't matter what the majority of people think when they hear "high-speed train" (or rather what you think that the majority of people think), or what is considered as a high-speed train by the majority of people, the only thing that matters in an encyclopaedia is what the official definition of a high-speed train is. And according to the official definition any system of rolling stock that is capable of regularly operating at or above 200 km/h (125 mph) on existing track is a high-speed train. Including locomotive-hauled trains. Which should be reflected in the article. All claims that high-speed trains need dedicated tracks, separation from freight and so on are also, by the official definition of it, patently false, and should not be included in the article.

And when judging what people think when they hear the term "high-speed train" don't forget that this is the English language Wikipedia, not the French language Wikipedia. Because native English speakers don't interpret the term "high-speed train" as narrowly as native French speakers interpret the term "train à grande vitesse", in spite of the two terms being literal translations of each other. Thomas.W (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Thomas.W, I don't have misunderstood anything, I really well understand what you think.

But your opinion is not mine.

About the "TGV" and "Train à Grande Vitesse" : "TGV" is a trademark of SNCF company, and theoretically, in French, we don't have to use the brand-name TGV to designate other High Speed Trains. But, in informal language, TGV or "Train à grande vitesse" is used to designate any high speed transportation system (even maglev).

Actually, the article is incomplete, must be reordered (as I proposed below), and, for example, the TGV chapter in History must be written : instead of looking for problems, you could help us to write empty chapters.

--FlyAkwa (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

In addition, Thomas.W, you can read the official definitionS on the UIC website :

General definitions of highspeed in your native language

and you will see that you are wrong.

Citations : We have deliberately used the word “definition” in the plural because there is no single standard definition of high speed rail (nor even a standard usage of the term: sometimes it is called “high speed” and sometimes “very high speed”).

At all events, high speed is a combination of all the elements which constitute the “system”: infrastructure (new lines designed for speeds above 250 km/h and upgraded lines for speeds up to 200 or even 220 km/h, some worked with tilting trains, some not)

--FlyAkwa (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

First you complain about the article already being too long and then you want me to add more chapters to it. Make up your mind. The real problem with the article, in addition to it already being too long, is that there is a lot of stuff in it that is quite simply not true, so what I'm going to do, whenever I get the time for it, is to remove current content that is inconsistent with the current UIC/EU definition of "high-speed train" (a definition that just happens to be what most native English speakers think of when they hear the term "high-speed train", and this is, after all, the English language Wikipedia). I know that English isn't your first language, but FYI there's nothing in the link you provided that contradicts what I've written here, i e that according to both the UIC and the EU high-speed trains can also be locomotive-hauled (which technically speaking is what trains with separate power cars pulling/pushing unpowered rolling stock, such as Acela, X2 and KTX II, are), dedicated tracks or separation from freight is not necessary for a rail line to be considered a high-speed line, and that the threshold a train must pass in order to be considered a "high-speed train" is to be able to regularly operate at or above 200 km/h (125 mph) on existing track. Which are facts that readers want to know and therefore should be clearly stated in the article. Thomas.W (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

South Korea & Jeromesandilanico

Thank you Jeromesandilanico for your attempt of editing the article.

But:
1. This article is not an advertisement page for Korean KTX. One year ago, I have, with some other editors, cleaned some articles with Chinese propaganda, and I prefer to avoid to do over again that.

2. In this talk page, there is a discussion about a new plan to reorder, clean and rewrite this article. I began the job, but I have not still finished it. I will enjoy that you make propositions in the talk page, but please don't reorder and rewrite chapters directly, following your own opinion.

3. The History chapter is chronologically written : it's not a listing of all High-Speed trains, it's an history.

4. Please make one edit, and not 15. Please use "preview" button when editing if you want to verify your edits.

5. This article is a general article about High-Speed rail, and it's already too long. We can't expand it with large mentions of all high-speed trains or pseudo-high-speed trains, and of course very doubtful claims (such as KTX-350 eccentric claims or Japanese maglev future line). Unfortunately, the Korea and the KTX are insignificant in High-Speed rail history and technology, keeping in mind, moreover, that the first "Korean made" KTX2 is an infringement of french TGV/KTX1.

Thank you. --FlyAkwa (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Comparison with other modes of transport

I'd like to remove the phrase "and reduced land use". First, it's not cited. Second, it's not a rational argument. How is a dedicated high speed rail route reduced land use? Reduced from what? It's much more land use than an airport or a ship dock. Perhaps less land than a highway, but the utilization of a highway is much higher. Unless there are objections, I'd like to make this change by 8/31/2012.Tiktok4321 (talk) 11:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You are probably right. The article must be rewritten. I actually (slowly) work on the History chapter, and all other parts must be reordered and cleaned. As you can see above, I have proposed a new arrangement of the article. --FlyAkwa (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

While a railway obviously takes up more land than something which is flying or floating, I've seen claims that high speed rail land use can be less than for an airport. IIRC it was a comparison of the area of Charles de Gaulle airport and LGV Med. I can't remember where it was published, and it's perhaps open to question how meaningful this comparison really is (it isn't as if Heathrow is going to become meadow any time soon!). Are there really many places where a ship is a serious alternative to high speed rail - and even then, a railway tunnel doesn't take up much land on the surface (the facilities at the Channel Tunnel terminals are for the Shuttle traffic rather than Eurostar). Motorways are generally wider than railways. Wheeltapper (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I dont have a citation to hand but it is pretty well known in planning circles that the throughput of a road (people transported/land take) is higher for a rail line than a road. WatcherZero (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Surely it depends on circumstances? A busy railway against a lightly-used road? Not many roads are suitable for 300 km/h. Wheeltapper (talk) 08:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It must. Surely in dense urban areas, railways use less land than automobile roads, assuming the same throughput. A citation on the use of land comparing different modes of transport would be very interesting to read, if something can be found. —fudoreaper (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It should be specified if the data is at maximum theoretical capacity or at current service level. Enalung (talk) 05:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The Beijing–Guangzhou HSR Line is NOT 2298 km long.

The news reports were WRONG. 2,298 km is the "rate-making distance" which is used to work out the ticket price. Chinese trains have a fixed pricing system which is based on the distance by a set of formula. While the real distance the Ministry of Railways do not want to disclose to the public it is only about 2,100 km long and verifiable by satellite images and independent GPS record. Python eggs (talk) 10:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source which makes that point? Sources like Railway Gazette mention 2298km in terms of length of physical infrastructure rather than ticketing. If user contributions on openstreetmap do not match what reliable sources say, I think there may be an alternative explanation which does not involve the government lying about the length of a railway. bobrayner (talk) 11:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It's like one news source quote another. I have no official source to say the length is exactly 2100 km, but it cannot be 2298 km anyway, note that this is almost 10%, not a small error. In fact the old railway, despite of the far smaller curve radius, is only 2294 km long from Beijing West to Guangzhou's main station. Three years ago, when the Wuhan–Guangzhou section opened, the same Ministry of Railways had claimed the section was 1069 km long, but according to engineering documents, it is only 968 km long. This has been their "tradition". Python eggs (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

We had a similar discussion three years ago. Python eggs (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source? bobrayner (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Please define "reliable source". Note that OpenStreetMap is verifiable primary source here. We have enough first hand evidence to support our claim. While what on Railway Gazette is simply a number. Railway Gazette does not and cannot explain how that number came from. Do you choose to "believe" a simple 4-digit number given by Railway Gazette, or do you choose to believe thousands of satellite images and GPS control points that is independently verifiable by anyone with basic knowledge of mathematics and geography? Python eggs (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Using the satellite images and GPS control points (not sure what these are exactly) is original research, so we can't adopt that for the article, whether we choose to believe it or not. What is a reliable source is defined in WP:RS. siafu (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculous. It is like to say we can write "1+1=2" into Wikipedia as it can be found in a text book ("reliable source"), but we cannot have "22052660+18545826=40598486", because no text books have such an equation. Python eggs (talk) 06:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

And to clarify my point: I am not saying OpenStreetMap is reliable source. I am saying Railway Gazette and others are NOT reliable source. We must not include false data, despite everyone believes it was true. Python eggs (talk) 06:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Please stop fighting about this irrelevant and uninteresting information. The introduction is not here to record every "news" of the high-speed trains. The absolute speed record of the TGV is widely sufficient; else why not also notify the "longest line", the "highest line", the "shortest line", the "fastest line", etc.

I have, a year ago, with other participants, delete all the Chinese propaganda in the various high-speed train articles. I will do it over again.

--FlyAkwa (talk) 11:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Python eggs, I am not suggesting that this information may be untrue, merely that wikipedia is not the venue for it. You are more than welcome to take this fact to a railway publication, write an article or even a short blurb on it, and have them publish it, and then use that as a source here. But wikipedia really isn't structurally designed or equipped to evaluate novel claims, largely because anonymity/pseudonymity makes expertise and credentials meaningless, hence the OR rule. If you think it's ridiculous, you have the right to fork and create a new wiki encyclopedia with different rules, but so long as you're working on wikipedia, you are bound (as we all are) to follow its policies. siafu (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)