Talk:High-speed rail/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Original Research Images

• 
  Density of High-speed railway in Europe. km per million inhabitants.
• 
  Density of High-speed railway in East-Asia. km per million inhabitants.

Hi! I think that the two images above currently placed under the section "Major markets" are the result of original research and should be removed from this and other articles. I lack knowledge in this area, however personally I have never seen any reputable transportation study to calculate the density of railways as kilometres per million inhabitants, it also goes against common sense. Transportation studies on railways are generally done with Rail Capacity, which for passengers would be calculated as annual "passenger-trips", which takes into account the number of services run annually, the number of passengers, and the number of trips. The map purports to depict the "density" of high-speed railway coverage, however it is seems to provide only a simple kilometre per population calculation, which I presume is made by individual Wikipedians since neither image cites a source for the km/million pop. figures. Common sense would say that this is highly misleading, as it does not take into account ridership and service figures (i.e., the capacity). A railway may run many dozens of services daily on a single line depicted on this map. Unless the creator of these maps or someone else can provide a reliable source for the maps, I think that these two maps should be removed from the article. Thanks for reading! --Shibo77 (talk) 09:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if a simple calculation--in this case population divided by km of HSR--counts as original research. If we know the area of a country, and the population, do we have to cite a source to have a population per square kilometre figure? I don't think so, as no research was done, just a simple calculation that any reader could verify independently.

Despite this, I think there are real questions about the value of these graphics. First, the graphic doesn't have any exact figures, just ranges and colours. It's not clear where the data came from that was used to calculate km of HSR per population. Secondly, as Shibo77 has pointed out, is there much value in comparing the these two figures? Wouldn't data like ridership, length of trips, or frequency of service, be more informative? The problem we want to avoid is creating a graphic which suggests conclusions which are misleading. If the map is to show us the density of high-speed rail, then shouldn't we compare to area, not population? If the map is to show us capacity compared to population, then the number and frequency of services compared to population would be better, or perhaps number of trips compared to population.

Overall, I agree with Shibo77's idea that these graphics purport too much, and carry too much weight. The graphic is a very simple mathematical comparison, which does not provide good insight into how HSR differs country-to-country. —fudoreaper (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

As usually, High-Speed rail have an important nationalist value. There is a lot of nationalist propaganda through all high-speed rail articles (especially from China : I made serious cut by the past).

These two images are crude propaganda for/from Spanish High-Speed rail.

--FlyAkwa (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Responding to fundoreaper: I think it is original research or at least a misleading misnomer. There are certainly reliable numbers for track length, and reliable numbers for population, and dividing the two would yield "railway length per person", and if it were written as such it would be fine though a bit strange. But a Wikipedian (without citing a reliable source) cannot say that this figure is the "density of railway". For the "density of railway" is calculated in reliable transportation studies as track length per area (km/km^2). And there are plenty of reliable data showing the density of high speed rail in different countries. In other words, we do not need a Wikipedian to calculate it. Another, probably more appropriate number in the spirit of these images, would be "density of railway traffic" as calibrated by passengers, (NOTE: not population). If I am a Parisian French, I ride the TGV from Paris to Strasbourg in the morning, and back from Strasbourg to Paris in the evening, I would count as 2 passenger-trips not 1 person on the French population census, and over the course of one year I would log in hundreds of passenger-trips, but this image counts it as 1, the error is obvious. This seems commonsense to me. Here are two examples of reliable "density" data: km/km^2, traffic density . Again, while I admit I lack expertise in this subject, I have never seen a "density of railway" calculation as a kilometre per population calculation, that is why I said this is a piece of original research. Of course if I am mistaken, then I would encourage the uploader to add citations to the two images. --Shibo77 (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Cumulative Ridership

This chapter may be interesting, but unfortunately, it's incoherent (total calculated on various periods), and is essentially (again !) a propaganda attempt, as the main "source" is an unreadable Korean page about the KTX vs other high-speed rail. By the way, the current article is already too long, and I'm not sure it's a good idea to expand it again. It's why I moved it here for the moment.

Lastest cumulative ridership of all HSR networks worldwide is over 15 billion passengers (5.36 times the 2.8 billion passengers all airlines worldwide carried in 2011.) with latest available data (cumulative and annual) is as of follows:

• Korea KTX: 318.7 million, 2Q 2012.
• Taiwan HSR: 200 million, December 2012.
• Japan Shinkansen: 9.95 billion, calendar year end, 2011. 307 million in 2011 only (first year ridership is 2nd place worldwide)
• France TGV: 1.572 billion, calendar year end, 2009 114.45 million including Thalys/Eurostar for 2010.
• Trenitalia HSR: 254.3 million, calendar year end, 2009.
• Spain AVE: 319.7 million, calendar year end, 2010.
• Germany ICE: 968.9 million, calendar year end, 2011.
• China Beijing-Tianjin line, 40.6 million, August 2010, 2nd anniversary.
• China HSR ridership, calendar year 2011 only, 370 million (1st place worldwide, first year ridership is first place worldwide) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlyAkwa (talk • contribs) 10:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The comparuson of cumulative HSR journeys vs yearly airline journeys doesn't make sense either, it's not comparing the same things. —fudoreaper (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You're right ! --FlyAkwa (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Aha yes its comparing apples and oranges, because the airline industry also published stats! This rail link page is a list of ridership/rider km/service (as in runs)/cost analysisd/railcar comparison analyses of all HSR lines worldwide. If you cant read Japanese of course its incomprehensible (esp. since u thought it was in Korean)!!! However, on the first hyperlink on the site it goes to a ridership table (yes i should have appended #ridership on the url) by broken down by lines/companies in Japan, with ridership stats for all other countries worldwide by year. Of course the year is "various periods" not all HSR lines worldwide opened the same date! Some countries have reported recent data before others ...

I do not know who made this site, but I can read Japanese, it seems to be some sort of rail enthusiast page in Japan with 500k+ hits. Whats interesting is air travel industry also publishes rider stats, and deaths by year. I posted this info to show total HSR ridership by country cumulatively, but now I kinda want to post a per year comparison with airplane industry. I don't understand how data is propaganda, if it doesn't fit your mental image its automatically propaganda?!! its just statistical info, although different datasets highlight different things. Doseiai2 (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Btw crossed out words in Japanese doesnt mean "I messed up", it means no longer applicable, this site has many crossouts making it look like a rough draft of sorts but that is easily misinterpreted Doseiai2 (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

A heavy nationalist pride is attached to high-speed rail. Lately, China used and abused propaganda with its high-speed network (until Wenzhou disaster).

You Japanese (?) page, named "KTX vs other high-speed rail" can't be a reliable source, or at least a unique source : for a start, its title supports KTX pointedly; then, the page is unreadable by 99% of Wikipedia readers (including me); finally, a coherent unit must be used in a serious table, such as passengers/years, passengers during the first year of service, passengers/km, etc.

If you find reliable sources (such as UIC website), you can complete, correct, and lay-out the table.

--FlyAkwa (talk) 11:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the main point here for Doseiai2 is that this information could be very interesting, but the presentation of the data, and the verifiability of the data should be better than what was presented in the previous version on the article. If we are presenting cumulative ridership figures, then the time period should be the same. Yearly ridership stats would also be useful, per system, and globally, but we'd need a reliable source for this. As for formatting, presenting it in a table, sortable, seems better than just a bulleted list. Do you have any data sources we could look at to compile this data? Cheers —fudoreaper (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2013 (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 : [1]

--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)

As I'm always (slowly) working on the reediting of the entire article, I recall this archived discussion. --FlyAkwa (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

As proposed, the article has been heavily reordered (but not really rewritten). Some parts still must be completed or rewritten. Don't hesitate to help me. --FlyAkwa (talk) 12:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi FlyAkwa. So far this looks pretty good. I skimmed through the article and the ordering of sections makes sense, and the big ideas are there. There is still much work to be done. A lot of the prose is poor, and fragmented. I did a few fixes just now reading through it. But you have certainly improved the article. Do you have an idea for what you'll do next? —fudoreaper (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fudoreaper ! Thank you very much for your comment and your help.

I like your new introduction. I just think information about "the longest network" (still Chinese propaganda) is not relevant here : we will not mention all records in intro, and this one is really without interest about high-speed.

I think the major task now is to expand the Rolling Stock chapter and then source correctly the article (and even me, I have written some parts without sourcing).

The History chapter is now, I think, nearly complete. I have completed the Network chapter, but without citing sources.

The Comparison with other modes of transport is a compilation of various parts of previous article : I don't have verified the coherence of this chapter.

Advantages is nearly empty, and perhaps must be merged with Rolling Stock.

Market Share is currently "in comment", because it is partly redundant with other chapter, and is partly empty.

The objective is also to avoid redundant information, and to avoid a too-long article.

What is your opinion ? --FlyAkwa (talk) 10:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi FlyAkwa. Yes, the fact about longest line in the lead was to add some kind of sense of proportion. It would be cool if we had overall stats about HSR usage: total trackage, total trains, total services, global passenger totals. So we could say something like "Today, 500 trains operate on 20,000 km of track in 12 countries, providing 10,000,000 passenger trips per day." I don't know if global total numbers are available.

To me, advantages and market share should be included in the Comparison to other modes of transport section. Advantages would also appear in the general description of what HSR is, as a good description will compare and contrast with similar things, talking about how HSR is different than conventional rail. —fudoreaper (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I have made this change an removed the 'advantages' section. All content was moved to 'comparason' section. —fudoreaper (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Fudoreaper, thank you very much for your great help. But I'm afraid about the big work we have to do about the empty "Rolling Stock" chapter... --FlyAkwa (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

SPAIN

Apart from the highest High Speed Rail density in the World, Spain was among the first countries in the World developing high speed technology in the early 90s...So I wonder why there are specific sections in the article about countries like Italy, Mexico or Taiwan, and not about SPAIN which is one of the leading markets. In fact, Saudi Arabia´s first high speed rail is being developed by Spanish companies, for example.--83.53.170.68 (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You refer to the chapter "Major markets" : In fact, the article must be reordered and rewritten (as exposed above), and this chapter is one that will be reedited.

But otherwise, the article can't talk about all country that have developed real or pseudo high-speed rail. Spain has not made major improvement in high-speed rail.

One remarkable element is that Spain has for the moment the longest network in Europe.

Finally, Spain is mentioned in History chapter (Rise of high speed in Europe and USA), but this part must be expanded : you can participate.

--FlyAkwa (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I expanded the Spain section, but it's a bit boring. I certainly didn't talk about any major Innovation from Spain; but I'm not aware of their contributions. As always, more contributions are welcomed. —fudoreaper (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Spain section needs enlarging as it has the longest real HST network in the world. China's max 200kph is just pitiful in comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.8.63 (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

If I assume good faith, I must say that China's speed limit is 300 km/h on many lines, and it undoubtedly has the longest HSR network in the world. The Spain section should be improved, but not given undue weight. —fudoreaper (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Speed limit? How about real average speed? BTW, calling newbies a "troll" is a great way to make new friends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.8.63 (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

What's with this giant image in the middle?

I dont know if its just me but when i went to this article a giant image apperared in the middle. Any fix for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sqall2 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a 'giant image', but there is a map of Europe and another of Asia in the centre. What image did you see? —fudoreaper (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Advocacy or Information?

Too many of the sections lean dangerously close toward advocacy. I question especially the presentation of the section Comparisons to other modes of transport. I don't believe it is necessary for an encyclopedia article to explain why HSR is competitive or better than other modes of transport. Perhaps a balanced pros and cons section might belong, but so much of the article, as it stands, is almost blatantly an advocacy piece. Pensiveneko (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Pensiveneko. As you can see in this discussion page (and in the history), the article has been heavily reordered in the past months. And for the truth, the "Comparison to other mode of transport" collects all the various parts of the old article that we didn't know what to do with. This chapter would be probably rewritten...

Personaly, I think also that "Major market" is a full mess, totally inadequate, incomplete, etc.

--FlyAkwa (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The text directly under chapter "Comparison with other modes of transport" and the "Advantages over air travel" section should be either referenced or deleted as they lack citations. AadaamS (talk) 07:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

Removing unsourced original research is not vandalism. Adding new content based on reliable sources is not vandalism. Think twice before using that word just because you disagree with attempts to clean up the article and bring it in line with what sources say. bobrayner (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Lack of source is not original research, even if you don't agree with the content. I'm tired to be always in "edition war" with you.

--FlyAkwa (talk) 08:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Any content that is not properly sourced can be challenged and removed. And doing so is NOT vandalism. And since this article is both badly sourced/unsourced and incoherent it is in desperate need of a cleanup. Thomas.W (talk) 08:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

FlyAkwa, instead of attacking Bobrayiner you should provide arguments as to why this content should stay despite it violating WP:RS. So find sources so you can re-add it with citations or it will stay deleted. AadaamS (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I assume you mean WP:RS (reliable sources), and not "WP:R" (redirects). Thomas.W (talk) 09:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes I did, thanks. AadaamS (talk) 10:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I copy-paste the chapter sworded here :

There is often discordance between claimed maximum speed and real operated speed. For example, the German ICE 3 is authorized for 330 km/h, while there is no high-speed line at this speed in Germany, nor in Europe (the ICE 3 runs at 320 km/h on French high-speed lines).

Indeed, the maximum speed is often limited by the high-speed line, safety, environmental factors such as noise, and cost considerations, rather than by the performances of the rolling stock.

There is also a commercial aspect : currently, manufacturers announce very high maximum speed that are never used.

So, in China, many trains are theoretically authorized at 350 km/h and even 380 km/h, but run at only 300 km/h.

The last Alstom AGV and Bombardier Zefiro are also announced for 360 and 380 km/h, but will only run at 300 km/h.

All these informations are obvious, and don't need any special sources. We must be honest and intelligent : not all of the sentences of this article (and every other articles in Wikipedia) are sourced.

For example, the Velaro is announced officially for 380 km/h, but there is no 380 km/h HSL in the world : it's not a personal opinion or an original research.

I agree that some source will be better, but I don't know why you persist to sword this chapter.

If you can't explain where there is a lack of source, I will re-insert the chapter.

--FlyAkwa (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

We're not talking of a single unsourced sentence here, it's a whole paragraph. If you in future would delete other sections in Wikipedia that lack sources you come across I could only encourage you with applause. For things that are OK to be unsourced according to WP standards they should be truly obvious, like "France is located in Europe" or "Earth has a moon". The operating and maximum speeds of commercial products like trains are as we are discovering here, disputed. We (you) need to find a WP:RS for this paragraph. It says nowhere in the Wikipedia guidelines that disputed claims can be unsourced or if it does, show me where. AadaamS (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS clearly states that "The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability. This requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations". The rules also clearly state that the burden of proof lies with the editor adding something. So if FlyAkwa wants that text in the article, text that has been challenged, he must provide a reliable source for it. No ifs or buts. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 16:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

High-speed line in Morocco

The ONCF is apparently building the Casablanca—Tangier_high-speed_rail_line due to open in 2015 according to the WP article. Does it deserve a mention here? Or do we keep all future developments in Planned_high-speed_rail_by_country? AadaamS (talk) 03:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

We already have quite a lot of duplication between articles. Maybe a very brief mention but please let's not have a separate heading for every country which is building high speed rail, unless this means we're going to get rid of some other overlapping article which currently does that. bobrayner (talk) 04:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

picture: "A high-speed rail junction, under construction in China" in "Technologies" section

I don't see what this image is meant to portray that isn't already apparent from the other tracks-on-concrete image from Germany somewhere. Users User:Bobrayner and User:FlyAkwa seem to be deleting each others images but I don't see a reason to keep either image. I propose to delete both images and let them stay deleted. AadaamS (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Most high-speed rail systems (often based en German technology), use ballast-less lines (on concrete). The French High-speed lines (and derived, in England and Belgium) are only based on ballast line (but arranged for high-speed). And made the choice to show, with two different pictures, the two major systems of high-speed line.

About Bobrayner, it must be known that we are in conflict for months, or years : he's a French and TGV hater, and a great Chinese supporter. Then a fully non-objective editor.

--FlyAkwa (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I have grasped that you are in conflict with this editor for a long time and I am not impartial to France either - I love to go there for my holidays and I speak the language badly and try to edit some in fr.wikipedia. Still, I try to stick to Wikipedia guidelines on what to include in this article. See my reply to Z22 for the picture discussion. Also, have you given any further thought to renaming the subsections in the "History" chapter according to decades a while ago? AadaamS (talk) 06:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I can see the value of having pictures of both ballast and ballastless tracks right there in that section to help readers visualize what the article is talking about. However, I think that all those three pictures (French, German and Chinese) fail to provide visual details of the different types. I would remove those current German and Chinese ballastless pictures and replace them with this File:Feste Fahrbahn FFBögl.jpg for the ballastless and this File:Toyohashi_Station_001.JPG for ballast tracks. Also the Japanese one is more interesting in that it has mats over ballast. The article should include Japanese as part of the examples for ballast type (not just TGV and its derivatives). Z22 (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the pictures you have linked visualise the difference between the two types really well. Still I was thinking that the conventional type of track maybe doesn't need a picture in this article, couldn't we just wiki-link to the "traditional" section in in the "Track" article? Or is there a difference between normal/high-speed conventional tracks? Except for that sleepers on the HS variant are always made of concrete? AadaamS (talk) 06:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Other editors will surely ignore the personal attack, since it is so obviously absurd; but it would be very helpful if FlyAkwa could read and comply with Wikipedia:No personal attacks. "French and TGV hater, and a great Chinese supporter" indeed... I'll add that to the list bobrayner (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

This article has a serious WP:OWN problem, with FlyAkwa behaving as if it's his article. And it's nothing new but has been so for quite some time. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 21:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

So anyway I deleted the "Chinese line under construction" image and wikilinked to the "traditional track" section. Unless there is an important difference between HSR vs ordinary ballast-and-sleeper tracks, I see no real need for a ballast-and-sleeper image. Feel free to contradict me. According to Wikipedia guidelines, since the whole "Technologies" section is unreferenced, I might as well have deleted the whole lot. AadaamS (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not behaving as if it's my article, but, for a long time, I'm active on it, and I try to keep it clear, organized, logic, and neutral. Most of the text were there before I reordered the article, I just moved/copy-paste lot of sections and my participation is essentially in History Chapter. And very often I use the talk page before any big edit.

About the pictures, there were complains at a time there was too "nose trains pictures" : I then selected some pictures of tracks to illustrate the "Network chapter".

The gallery in "Rolling Stock" would have to be deleted, duplicating the "List of High Speed Train" that already owns a full gallery (that I try also to maintain).

Personally, I think an article is more pleasant to read with picture, rather than a monobloc of text.

I also think that "Rise of high speed in North America" must re-integrate "Rise of High Speed in Europe and America", with sub-sections "Germany", "Spain", "First disaster", "United States".

--FlyAkwa (talk) 09:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that the "Rise of HSR in North America" must reintegrate, I think all of the sections in the "History" chapter should be named for decades. That's what a history is, a chronological series of developments. Naming chapters for countries or continents isn't a logical subdivision of a "History" chapter. AadaamS (talk) 11:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, and, indeed, the History is globally chronological. But it's not either a Chronology (that is at the end of the article).

But you can note that some improvements are made "by waves", and that's the reason of the actual chaptering, grouping some country and/or facts (Early research, Breakthrough: The Shinkansen, Revival in Europe and North America, The French TGV, Rise of high speed in Europe & America, Expansion in East Asia). Because the simultaneity of the rise of High-Speed in Europe and in US, the unique chapter appears to be smarter.

--FlyAkwa (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

If so, I think the chapter name should no longer be "History", but instead named "Development by country and region". It depends on the impression the chapter structure is meant to convey. That is, if it's more important where rather than when (which I think is the distinction between our arguments rather than our relative levels of being smart), we should keep the current structure and change the name from "History", if we want to keep the "History" name of the chapter, I think the subsection material should be arranged chronologically. Just for the sake of consistency. AadaamS (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, the "The Rise of HSR in ..." is not an accurate use of this expression. It's usually means a rise to the top, such as the Rise of the Roman Empire which was undisputedly most powerful empire in the Mediterranean of its era. no such claim could be made for HSR in Europe because lorries and automobiles is the major form of transportation in Europe. I think "Development of HSR in Europe" is a more accurate title. AadaamS (talk) 09:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I think deleting the whole "Rolling Stock" chapter is a good idea and re-pointing it to List of high-speed trains. I'll point that section to the main article and if nobody protests I will delete the whole section shortly. AadaamS (talk) 11:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I would disagree with that; the rolling stock is quite distinctive in various ways, and deserves some discussion - but what we really need is to write intelligent prose (aerodynamics, articulation &c rather than just listing specific trains. bobrayner (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm forced to agree with Bobrayner : the gallery of rolling stock is not needed (and it's impossible to decide what trains must be shown in this gallery), but the chapter Rolling Stock must not be deleted, but... expanded.

Indeed, when this chapter has been created, it was intended to be enhanced as the "Network" chapter. But it's really a huge task to develop (and source) this major part.

--FlyAkwa (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok I agree with both of you (bobrayner and FlyAkwa) that the "Rolling Stock" chapter should stay and be expanded. Preferably with the technology implemented or invented for HSR trains, rather than just examples of trains. So it seems that there is a consensus that the gallery of rolling stock should go then? AadaamS (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I think so. For information, you can find here link (in the archive) the original plan I proposed, with subsequent discussions. --FlyAkwa (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted the gallery now. AadaamS (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The "Evolution in Europe/North America" section

This section has two broblems:

• Why is "Europe" and "U.S." in the same section? If their development had followed similar paths or used similar technology, only then could this grouping make sense. Europe is a "continent", but the U.S. is a country so I propose the section be split into "Rise of HS in Europe" and "Rise of HS in North America" respectively for consistent naming.
• Why is the subsection "Rise of high speed in Europe and the U.S./USA" full of references to U.S. politics? This article is about high-speed rail and details about policy should go into the main article.
• There is a also a general lack of sources in this section and I have tagged this.

Sincerely, AadaamS (talk) 12:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Aadaams. You're right. I'm the writer of most parts of the History Chapter, and I also reordered all the chapters and setup of the Article.

But on this English article, US Americans are numerous, and they always wants add their country, despite it never had any advance or bring innovation in the High Speed Rail domain.

By the past, I made some large cut about USA in this article. But now, I had managed to include some US trains in the history chapter.

Recently, some guys have largely expand the "Rise in US" part, and this chapter must be reduced, but I'm tired to always cut what some guys add to the article about their country (often US American, but also South-Korean, etc).

Don't hesitate to cut, reduce and optimise the article.

--FlyAkwa (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

If they have one HS rail service, it should be mentioned but the inclusion of rail transportation politics would force us to add this to every other part as well. Anyway, thanks for the green light I'm going to make some improvements right away. I'll also re-sectionise with respect to North America. AadaamS (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Aadaams. Thanks for your edits.

However, I'm not sure that US needs or justify a chapter for himself, only about the slow and not innovative Acela. As you can see, Germany or Italy, with far better and advanced HST don't have specific chapter, and fall into the European Chapter.

Equally, the previous chapter include Europe and USA.

I think the "===" chapter is only for important innovations or improvements, like Shinkansen and TGV, or for large section, such as Asia.

--FlyAkwa (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

"that US needs chapter for itself", do you mean the "North America" chapter? I think deleting everything about the Acela "Express" would be a bad idea, if the top speed is high enough it should stay. When I read what you wrote a second time I think that Germany and Italy deserve sections of their own and maybe that's a good idea? The sectionising of the article isn't at all clear. Are we structuring the article chronologically or geographically? AadaamS (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course the US section should never be larger than that of countries that have larger HSR networks, that would violate WP:UNDUE. AadaamS (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. No, I'm not speaking about to delete the US chapter, but reintegrate it in the "Rise in Europe and US", because US don't justify for himself a chapter (no more than Germany or Italy).

Of course, the "History" chapter is sub-divided by main period and/or major improvements, chronologically.

--FlyAkwa (talk) 08:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

To be more precise : it appears that Germany, Italy, Spain then US are reaching about 300 km/h in about the same period, that explains the chapter "Rise of high speed in Europe (and USA)". Indeed, no country own major chapter (even Japan and France dont't have it), then US and Acela aren't enough important to owns their own major chapter, and rather must be put away along Germany and Italy in the major chapter "Rise of speed in Europe (and USA)", as such the previous chapter "Revival in Europe and North America".

--FlyAkwa (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I put "North America" in its own chapter due to geography, not importance, since all the other chapters were named for continents or major regions (not countries). I did not realise that the sectioning was influenced by level of innovation or development. Neither chronologically nor geographically do I think USA and Europe belong in the same chapter because developments in USA were later. Neither on a development/innovation level do they belong in the same chapter as the Acela was later and not innovative (tilting trains having started operation earlier elsewhere). If innovation & development milestones are what guide the sectioning, then the chapters & sections should be named for milestones and not geographical locations as they are now. The name of a section reveals something about how the content is organised. AadaamS (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

On second thought I think that since it is the History chapter all of the sections should be named after decades and not countries or geographical regions at all. AadaamS (talk) 11:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

For a variety of reasons (mostly too many grade crossings) there is no high speed rail in the US, so why do we even have a section for history of high speed rail in the US? Higher-speed rail covers what the US calls high speed rail. Sure in the future the US will have high speed rail, but right now there is no history of HS in North America. Apteva (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Because the Acela is able to run at 240 km/h on fitted line (that fit the UIC condition for HST) and because they have a big pride, they won a section in History --FlyAkwa (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

As per International Union of Railway (UIC) , the US has one HS line in operation. By the way, NYC to Washington DC line is fully grade separated. No grade crossings. We better trust UIC on that than just guessing by ourselves. For the separation between high vs. higher speed rail in the US, it all depends on who you are talking to. As per the US federal law, it can be HSR only if top speeds are more than 201 km/h. So, anywhere between 129 km/h to 201 km/h, they generally call them higher-speed rail. Between 202 and 240 km/h is a bit blurry, the federal law calls it HSR, the legislation branch calls it higher-speed rail, but the executive branch calls it HRS. If 241 km/h and above, most definitions in the US call that HSR. Acela's top speeds are at 241 km/h. Although it does not meet UIC definition for new HSR lines, but it is an upgraded line so it is defined as HSR by the UIC. As to whether there is any justification to have a separate section as "Rise of High Speed in North America" or not, I don't have a comment on that. Trust me, people in the US know that Acela is a really lame HSR service. Beside, Acela use French and Canadian technologies. Not much of a national pride there. Z22 (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

In this main HSR article we should use the UIC definition or any other international standard. If the US definition differs from that in the rest of the world (that is, UIC) we cannot use it in this top-level HSR article as that would violate WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE as would any other national definitions of HRS. It would then belong in the "HS in the US" article (can't be bothered to wikilink). Which leads me to want to delete the US definitions from the "Definitions" chapter in this article. AadaamS (talk) 08:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that for this article we should stick with UIC definitions. One thing to clear it up is that Acela is HSR by UIC definitions. So that's clear. Let's move on to the next topic. You suggested that perhaps the US definitions should be removed. I think the current presentation is framed as there are issues with multiple definitions worldwide and the three different sets of definitions are to highlight the inconsistency. If that is actually not needed to demonstrate the point of inconsistency, then we can reorder that section. We should put UIC definitions first. Since UIC has a reference to European EC Directive 96/48, then we can add highlights of European EC Directive 96/48 as bullet points inside UIC definitions. Note that in Europe, they don't totally follow the UIC definitions because UIC took European EC Directive 96/48 as a reference and add some exceptions to it. So the European EC Directive 96/48 should be in that section as the role of a reference point of UIC definitions, but not in the role of another international standard. Then we can end the section with an explanation that different countries may have their own definitions of HSR. With that I think it is safe to remove US definitions because in the HSR in the US article already have details of US-specific definitions. Z22 (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

When I began to maintain and restructure the article, it was largely "US centric". I sworded most of parts about US, but when I rewrote the "definition", I kept the US definition that was here. Even if this information is not required (and redundant with specific article), I think a large part of readers are US people, and the US definition may be useful ? --FlyAkwa (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

If we want we can mention at the end of the section that US is an example of having US-specific definitions and include that wikilink for US readers to get more info instead of retaining the whole thing there? Good compromise? Z22 (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi User:Z22 I would rather see that the US-specific definitions should be moved from the "Definitions" to the US subsection in the article. I also think it is enough to say that some countries have national definitions in the "Definitions". The US is not a good example of a country having a national definition because it's only a minor player in the HSR world. AadaamS (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You have a valid point. Also having those US-specific defintitions somewhere else in the same article also helps other editors who may not be part of this discussion to know that other editors have already considered making those details available in the same article but they are just in a different subsection. Z22 (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I went ahead and did edits as we seemed to have a consensus. Thanks for a constructive discussion, Z22! I understand what you mean about leaving the definitions in that subsection for the sake of other Wiki editors and I think they belong there. Those definitions are definitely notable in the US domestic context and should not be deleted. AadaamS (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok with your edit. But now, I'm not sure that the "United States" sub-section in the "Major Market" section is the right place.

Or, rather, I'm not sure that "Major market" is the good title for this section. May be "Specific country case" will be better, no ? --FlyAkwa (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The title could be better, I agree there. How about "Markets"? AadaamS (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for recent change in subsection names. One small suggestion. I think "Evolution in ..." might be better than "Evolution of high-speed rail in ..." Readers already know what topic it is about, so we can keep section names short and sweet. Also, the shorter form matches to the style of other subsections there. Z22 (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Z22 yes, it makes sense the section names are already scoped by the name of the article. I agree with your suggested change and will go ahead and change the section names to match your idea. AadaamS (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Having read through the "North America" section I think it's too big which I think violates WP:BALASPS. It's as as long as the Europe section but contains a lot of finer detail which I think better belongs in the dedicated US HSR article. Particularly the Amtrak proposal in the end paragraph and small details on trains that were not chosen for the Acela service. It should be enough to say which train was actually chosen for the service. The Europe section would be ridiculously long if every future plan for a HSR line was mentioned in that section. AadaamS (talk) 01:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I did not expand it. You can compare to the original in term of the contents. I was trying to piece existing contents together and to change to use secondary sources. I actually cut one content out (about % of overall profit) as I couldn't find non-primary source. I might have added some extra explanations as bridges between existing sentences to not leave readers wonder why and what happened (as I was too when reading the original text). That actually prompted me to find the answer from NY Times.

I think the last paragraph about the future plan can be cut out. This is the history section so it should not be there anyway. Also, the whole paragraph that mentioned some equipment issues and details of profitability and ridership can be cut out. Not sure if many worldwide readers care whether a US train is profitable. However, I would leave the whole history of X2000 and ICE1 and why they ended up TGV as it is an important content. It shows a few interesting things: Even when US tried to evolve in HSR, but it had no expertist; It was international bidding rather the usual HSR development by that nation for its own nation; The US antiquated regulations was unable to support modern standard-built trains. These are things of interest to laypersons (not HSR gurus) when reading this entire article from the beginning to get a peek into why the US had an older history of HSR but could not evolve itself fast enough when come to the modern time revival. Z22 (talk) 04:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Z22, I never meant to imply that you were behind the size of the section and I try to look for solutions, not scapegoats. I agree that the "proposal" and "ridership & profitability" paragraphs can go so I went ahead and deleted them, plus I reworded some in an earlier paragraph. AadaamS (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Your edit looks great. I only made minor edits to smooth things out. Now, let's convince other editors to put our heads together to work on the technology of the rolling stocks? Z22 (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, let's work on the rolling stock. I don't have any reference works on my bookshelf, but I was thinking that if we go to WP articles of those technologies that already have articles of their own, we can probably find references there. AadaamS (talk) 05:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Chinese max high speed / railwaygazette

Unfortunately, the railwaygazette does a big mistake about average and maximum speed on Leiyang Shaoguan HSL.

They (wrongly) had used the "tariff kilometers" in place of "physical kilometers". For the Leiyang-Shaoguan line, there is an official "tariff distance" of 248km. But only physically 206km (Leiyang W PK 552, Shaoguan PK 758) [link].

Then, with 47 min of travel, the mean speed is not 316 km/h, but only 264 km/h (far less than then 304 km/h of Champagne-Ardenne - Lorraine TGV).

More explanation here (in French, official SNCF railroaders forum) :
- http://www.cheminots.net/forum/topic/22286-la-grande-vitesse-en-chine/?p=558153
- http://www.cheminots.net/forum/topic/22286-la-grande-vitesse-en-chine/?p=557954

Officially, the maximum speed is always 300 km/h in China, with a tolerance of about 10 km/h.

--FlyAkwa (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. Please. Railway Gazette is a reliable source; your forum is not. bobrayner (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Your (usually reliable) source has made a mistake (it's not impossible), and their information is impossible to confirm elsewhere.

I explained the origin and the reasons of the mistake. --FlyAkwa (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the French forum is not a reliable source, but it is used here as an explanation, not a source. The source used by FlyAkwa is the wiki article about this HSL. If you consider the Railway Gazette article right, you should correct the distance between the stations Leiyang and Shaoguan on the wiki page dedicated to this HSL. Otherwise, it's simply not coherent ! And then, with a top speed of 300, maybe 310, or even 320 km/h, averaging 316km/h is ... strange. 92.141.141.49 (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Shinkansen power frequency

"JNR engineers came back to Japan with many ideas and technologies they would use on their future trains: 50 Hz alternating current for rail traction, international standard gauge, and others." Why would the use of 50 hertz power be of any particular advantage for traction? The use of commercial-frequency AC instead of DC might be significant. Perhaps that is what the original author was thinking about and assumed that the Japanese used the same frequency as the French. But Japan as a whole and the Shinkansen lines in particular use both 50 and 60 hertz, as this abstract documents: http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200614/000020061406A0445301.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.195.38 (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not the frequency that is important, but the use of alternative current rather than continuous current, I think. In the 1920', France began electrification of its rail network with 1500V CC, but just after the WWII, they began to work on high voltage mono-phased current (25000V 50Hz). I think Japanese engineer have been inspired by these researches on industrial current, and prefer it rather than "easier" continuous current for their new high-speed network (at 50Hz and 60Hz).

--FlyAkwa (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The same old problem has reared its head on a new topic. Reliable sources discuss AC electrification being pioneered in Germany and Switzerland. SNCF then imitated the Höllentalbahn. Yet FlyAkwa somehow manages to retell the story as though the French were the leaders in yet another railway technology.

Back to the original point: The 50/60 Hz mix actually corresponds to the bizarre split in Japan's national electricity grid - one half of the country is wired up at 50Hz and the other half is wired up at 60Hz. So, if it's commercially attractive for railways to pull power from the national grid without frequency converters &c., then there's commercial pressure to have local rail networks using different frequencies in each half of the country. bobrayner (talk) 22:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Bobrayner is right about Germany and Switzerland. But because of technology limitation in the 1920', they choose a mongrel solution, using 15000V 16Hz1/3, that is not satisfactory today, opposite to the 25000V 50Hz. After WWII, technology was mature to use directly industrial current without converters. It's that technology that permits to reach 300 km/h with the TGV. --00:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlyAkwa (talk • contribs)

Speed reductions in Chinese trains

In the 2011 Wenzhou accident section, it notes that due to the accident which occurred on 23 July 2011, maximum speeds were reduced by 50 km/h. However, in the Maxiumum speed section, it notes that speeds were reduced on 1 July 2011 due to high costs and safety concerns. Both seem to imply a reduction from 350 km/h to 300 km/h so it doesn't seem like both could be true. I checked both citations and they seem to conflict (rather than a misinterpretation of the material). Any thoughts? Drewbo19 (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no only one reason for the reduction of speed. Multiple reasons are : lack of safety margin on High-Speed lines (designed for 350 km/h and used at the same speed), high tear and wear, excessive exploitation costs, too high fares, etc. --FlyAkwa (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Right but it reads as though it happened on two different dates for two different reasons. Were the speeds changed prior to or in response to the accident? Drewbo19 (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

If I remember well, the reduction speed was in two phases.

Original decision to decrease speed was linked to the arrest of Liu Zhijun, the Ministry of Railways, who had initiated and developed the Chinese high-speed network. This first decision was to limit to 300 km/h all new high-speed line since the 1st July, except certain HSL (such as Wuhan-Canton).

But after the Wenzhou disaster, the new Ministry of Railways decided to decrease the speed of all the HSL in China, by 50 km/h, officially for economic reasons.

--FlyAkwa (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

A recurrent problem

I just noticed that whilst "moving" some paragraphs, FlyAkwa sneakily removed some sourced content, again. That is bad. I have restored it. Please stop POV-pushing. bobrayner (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

And I just deleted it again. There is already a chapter in this talk page about this erroneous information. --FlyAkwa (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes; read that chapter and see what other editors thought.

You might disagree with what sources say, but this article should be based on the sources, not on your ideology.

Your ownership of this article will end; the only question is how soon you will stop reverting. (The longer it persists, the more likely that the solution will be... involuntary). bobrayner (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Reverted now. And please don't speak about ideology : it's really you that, for 2 years, do an heavy Chinese propaganda I'm forced to fight !! Your information is false, that's all. And I'm not concerned by your threats. --FlyAkwa (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I would welcome input from other editors. Does anybody else feel that multiple Railway Gazette articles are false information and "heavy Chinese propaganda"? I would point out that attempts to bring FlyAkwa's other pet article in line with soures have also been reverted. Strangely, FlyAkwa is happy to leave other content sourced to Railway Gazette where it says that French trains are fast. Apparently Railway Gazette is only "false information" and "heavy Chinese propaganda" when it discusses fast trains in China. bobrayner (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nope, it is IMHO OK as a source. And I'm sure FlyAkwa would have thought so too if they had written something positive about the French TGV. The biggest problem with this article is that we have a massiveownership problem here, with FlyAkwa acting as if he owns it. He's also clearly on a mission to present the TGV in as good a light as possible, while at the same time removing every mention of China.Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 20:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the history of this article's problem on ownership as I just have been watching this page recently. So I'm not going to comment on that. However, for this particular instance, the source which seems very reliable clearly stated the objective of their research and concluded that the average on that particular line is the highest at the time of publication of the research. If their research is wrong, we should find an equally reliable source, or multiple independent but less reliable sources to dispute that. Using an Internet forum as a source seems to risk the information (or absence of information) on Wikipedia to be more like an original research. As it is presented at the moment, it looks to me like that content should stay. I don't know if it makes sense to have that information at the conclusion of the section on accident in China. It may need to be just general information in the China-specific section. Z22 (talk) 05:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

This information is false. The demonstration is obvious (anybody can verify my demonstration). And the article of Railway Gazette is not cross-checkable with other sources. Then this information (they have been probably fooled by Chinese propaganda) must not be present on Wikipedia.

And if there was any debate for an information about the TGV, I will be the first to search and find any other reliables sources.

--FlyAkwa (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a big problem of "good faith" from Bobrayner and Thomas.W, who are always in accord together, for a long time. Of course always against me, and always about Chinese trains.

I never said that Railway Gazette is unreliable, I only said they made a (involuntary) mistake. It may be a good thing to begin to consider and verify my assertion and demonstration that the Railway Gazette article is false.

--FlyAkwa (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Same problem on TGV; the source says TGVs are slower than Chinese trains, FlyAkwa repeatedly removes content based on this source. And more ad hominems. Make up your mind, FlyAkwa; when you disagree with a source, does that mean that edits based on the source are "Chinese propaganda", or vandalism, or false information or should you just sneakily delete it with a deceptive edit summary...?

By the way, FlyAkwa, here you said "I will be the first to search and find any other reliables sources" but here you removed sourced content with an edit summary instructing others to "Find another source". Can you explain this apparent contradiction? bobrayner (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, let's try to get back on track. What do other editors think - should TGV reflect what the recent Railway Gazette report says, or not? bobrayner (talk) 08:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't try to fool me. I gave the demonstration that Railway Gazette made a mistake. If this information was true, it would be easy to verify and confirm it.

Until this information could be confirmed, this information wouldn't be on Wikipedia.

And there is no consensus. And you will not stop me with you repeated threats.

--FlyAkwa (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I think this whole debate is much less urgent than updating the "Rolling Stock" section which is empty. It's fun with a contest about whose trains are the fastest, but it doesn't make a lot of difference if one train is 20 km/h faster than another on some routes. This is an encyclopedia, not Guinness World Records. We're supposed to be informative, not keeping scores. AadaamS (talk) 07:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Did a search through the article for the phrase "in the world", it occurs no less than 10 times in various sections for claims of fastest/largest,speediest,smelliest and so forth railway networks/trains/services. Do all of these "records" have WP:NOTABILITY? Clearly there are many editors out there with agenda wanting to prove how their country is the best in the world. (I'm from Sweden and our railways can't even handle winter) AadaamS (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. But if there is an heavy doubt about an information (with only one source claimed it), the rule on Wikipedia is to not keep it in the article.

Until this information can be clearly proved (that is impossible, as I demonstrated it) with multiples other sources, this information must not be present in this article, as we risk to misinform readers.

Since a long time, Chinese propagandist or aficionados (and only Chinese, not French, German, Japanese or Korean) are very active on Wikipedia about High-Speed rail, in many articles (but since Wenzhou disaster, they are less active). One year ago, I deleted most of there doubtfull/not relevant/not sources claimed, in many articles. But as you can seen, they are always active, and always with very bad faith.

--FlyAkwa (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

At the very least, we should stop the edit war on both sides. Do not add this info AND do not remove it if it is there already. There is no clear evidence from reliable sources to contradict that info. So I'm not sure if it should absolutely be removed. Again edit war is not constructive on either side. Let's get consensus from other editors before we make another edit on this particular paragraph. Z22 (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth

I've been looking over the above discussion, and I think it would be helpful to reflect on Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. In most cases, we follow the reliable sources; if a substantial number of reliable sources propound a position, then the article should mention that position. If a substantial number of reliable sources propound contradictory position the article should mention that as well. In such circumstances, it is not our role to determine which side is right. But that is not really whats going on here. FlyAkwa has provided a plausible sounding explanation for how the reliable source, Railway Gazette, may have made an error in its reporting. If that is true, then its not a case of a dispute between reliable sources, but a reliable source making a mistake, in which case we shouldn't spread that mistake further.

Now I've looked at the machine translated forum posts referenced, it doesn't provide reliable sourcing for the information upon which its conclusion is based. I would say that if a reliable source can be found for the actual distance traveled on that line, and it turns out using that distance, and simple math, shows that the Gazette is in error, then we should not include the information, even though it is from a reliable source. (Yes this is technically OR, but its OR only to support removal of a claim, not inclusion) Until then though, the claim should be allowed to remain in. Deciding that a reliable source is wrong and thus should not be included needs to be based on a consensus, and absent that consensus, there is a strong presumption that a claim from a reliable source that is noteworthy should be included. Monty₈₄₅ 03:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I have tried to use Google Maps but they only give the distance for road traffic, they only provide timetables for public transport. AadaamS (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Try Google Map Measurement Tool [2] by yourselves. When I carefully tried to click along the side of the line plotted by Google Map from Leiyang West station to Shaoguan station (took me a while), it came up with 228 km. Although, it is not in a perfect alignment, my judgement is that it would have an error of a few kilometers at the most. If it would have run max speed the whole time given that length for 47 minutes, it would be 291 km/h. In reality, it needs acceleration and deceleration. Also, location that cut through the mountain is curvy and would need to run at lower speeds. Those factors will bring the max speeds on the straight portion in the middle to be higher than 291 km/h. However, we rely on the assumption that Google Map plot the line correctly. My observation is the followings:

• The UK’s Railway Performance Society uses 248 km (475 - 227) from which I believe it is from the provided fare schedule ([3][4][5]) which could have been from the same primary source. The ticket price goes by distance so the distances on the fare schedule could be in doubt of inflation.
• The internet forum that discussed the issue used source from the "Route map" in the infobox of Wuhan–Guangzhou High-Speed Railway to derive the 206 km distance (758 - 552). However, I could not find the source of that the information in the infobox. I have placed Citation needed template in that box. If someone know the source of this, we could then put that into consideration.
• The line that Google Map plots is not that accurate. You can see that the line is about 400 meters to the east of the actual rail line. The curvature are not in the same shape as in the actual rail line. Also, in the mountain area in the middle where the line is not that straight, there is no visible rail line to compare with Google Map plotting. Either the image was old where the line has not been fully constructed or the rail line goes inside tunnels. Either way, there is not way to visually confirm Google Map accuracy. So, in reality, it could have been 248 km or it could have been 206 km.

Given the doubt in all of the claims, I would think that the information may stay (with some changes) because it is based from more reliable sources. However, I would not think it is a good idea to have the text say as it is now. This is in the accident section with just a follow up on whether the top speeds are now faster than the 300 km/h now after speed reduction by the accident. My thought is this, the ".. new high-speed railways have been built in China, and speeds have increased" part has to be removed. The source indicates design top speeds of 350 km/h, but it does not say the actual operating speeds in China have increased. Those trains running in China now at 300 km/h have original design top speeds of 350 km/h. Secondly, the claim for the fastest railways in the world is out of the context in that section. So it has to change as well. I would suggest changing the text to match the context as this:

• "Despite the fact that high speed was not a factor in the accident, one of the major changes was the lowering by 50 km/h of all maximum speeds in China HST, 350 km/h becoming 300, 250 km/h becoming 200, and 200 km/h becoming 160. However, there was a report from the UK’s Railway Performance Society in 2013 that a section between Shaoguan and Leiyang Xi stations has average operating speeds of 316 km/h."

-- Z22 (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Stating who has the fastest railways in the world is as you point out, out of context for that section. I have also been toying with the idea of writing "in the world according to Railway Gazette" in order to convey the meaning to readers that there is no "official" record for this (or else I assume any such record keeping entity would of course have been sourced as a reference long before this debate started) and that this claim is based upon a magazine article. AadaamS (talk) 01:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Leiyang - Shaoguan.png

Distance between Leiyang and Shaoguan

With Google Earth, and the integrated "journey rule", it's really obvious to verify precisely the distance between Leiyang and Shaoguan stations on the High-Speed line.

I prove it here : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Leiyang_-_Shaoguan.png

I precisely followed the drawing of the high-speed line (easily visible on the satellites pictures). Everybody can do it himself.

The exact distance is 206.16 km (+/- 1km).

The Railway Gazette information is false, and everybody can see it.

--FlyAkwa (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

We already established that your forum posts are not a more reliable source than Railway Gazette; that doesn't change by uploading your work to Commons.
And, please, FlyAkwa, could you stop the attacks and ad hominems? Please? You have already made it abundantly, repeatedly clear that you feel RG is spreading Chinese propaganda and that the multiple editors who revert you are a cabal of biased Chinese pov-pushers &c.; you've made your point, and nobody else takes it seriously, now stop it. bobrayner (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Your information is false, whatever you think. You are in bad faith. And everybody know it now. --FlyAkwa (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I have tried again using Google Earth to follow the visible rail line. The measurement I came up with is 205.97 km. Again, with some error of about a few kilometers at most. However, there is a questionable part that cannot be confirmed. It is from 25°22′27.28″N 113°11′0.97″E to 25°12′31.17″N 113°20′50.08″E with absolute distance of 25 km. Now, the common sense would tell us that with HSR line, they will need to make the line straight as possible with largest radius curves possible. This section cuts through a pretty bad terrain so not sure if they tunnel through the whole thing and how many curves they have to make it go around that or cross that river and other obstetrical. It is still possible that they cut through the whole 25 km straight and that would make the whole distance for the two stations around 206 km. We may argue that it is possible that they zigzag through the mountain. The whole distance as reported is 248 km. That's additional 42 kilometers that need to be added between those 25 km points. It's highly unlikely for that to happen. So, the total distance should be closer to 206 km than 248 km as reported. Now, let's Monty, AadaamS and other editors chime in on how to handle this specific situation. Z22 (talk) 03:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it's clear that the accuracy of Railway Gazette in this instance has been disputed. bobrayner could easily prevail in this discussion by providing better sources instead of attacking FlyAkwa and reverting. Notable and verifiable claims usually come with a plethora of sources, not just one. If he can't find more than one WP:RS for this then it should stay off this article. Also it's strange to write about a network being the fastest in the world without giving a precise figure on what that speed actually is. That's suspect imho It's like writing that a building is the tallest in the world but not writing what its height is. It's incomplete. That paragraph has quality problems and I think it should stay off the article until more sources can be found (this is a simple thing to do for notable claims). It is the editor who wants to include something that has the burden of proof. In other similar discussions, I have never seen the editor who keeps defending one single source instead of providing more WP:RS prevail. AadaamS (talk) 05:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Wait, what? Does anybody have any other more reliable source on rail-industry news than Railway Gazette? If so, I would love to see what it says on this topic. Until then, we have a reliable source in one corner, and in the other corner we have some original research and posts from FlyAkwa's forum. If anybody seriously believes that the latter should determine article content, good luck at the reliable sources noticeboard... As for attacks, perhaps I should clarify: Calling out original research is not an attack; identifying a series of problematic edits is not an attack; expecting articles to reflect sources is not an attack. This is a personal attack, and we need to stop edits like that; there have been too many. bobrayner (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The lack of further sources indicates lack of WP:NOTABILITY imho. So, the question is whether Google Maps is a reliable source because in this case it has been used to falsify Railway Gazette. It's not a reliable source on railways, but is it a reliable source on geography? That's the discussion we ought to have. Also, I have tagged the statements on "fastest in the world" as vague, that's still an incomplete statement. Also, why not have a whole new section with a list of highest service speeds? Or maybe record service speeds (and other "records") should go into the "Chronology" section and be left out of the rest of the article. As I have pointed out elsewhere on the talk page, the phrase "fastest/smelliest/most unshaven/noisiest in the world" appears 10 times in various places in the article and serious readers must have a good laugh at the expense of all of us. Also I like your suggestion of bringing in outside arbitration, as the WP:3RR rule has been broken long ago. Does anyone else agree that we need outside arbitration? AadaamS (talk) 06:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Definitely an outside arbitration. This has become very counterproductive. All of us should spend our efforts to improve the article, especially in other sections. All we have here is an edit war on the two sentences. This will go on forever if this dose not stop. I think other editors will get tired of this and refrain from having positive contributions to the contents of this page. Z22 (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

AadaamS: I agree that record seems to fail the general notability guideline. That's why we don't have an article on it. Our notability guideline decides whether or not we should have an article on a topic. However, high speed rail is notable, and we have an article on high speed rail, so the status quo is good and compliant. The threshold for whether to put an individual piece of sourced content in an article is, rightly, lower than the GNG. Personally, I have no great interest in the fastest-train stuff, but it does seem to be popular with readers (look at the pageview stats) so it's important to get it right. However, I'd agree that we need to broaden out the article a bit and improve our coverage of technology, history, infrastructure, industry &c which will be better for readers than just a list of fast trains (and pictures of the noses of trains). bobrayner (talk) 09:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I buy your argument that the WP:GNG applies to articles as a whole, not individual statements. I did not mean to imply that the whole article lacks notability, even if I think it has too much text on the history of trains slower than 250 km/h. In this case we have a dispute, Railway Gazette states that the distance between the stations is 248 km and Google Maps seems to dispute this. So I think we still have a case for arbitration. I would much prefer that all interested parties agree to abide by whatever outside arbiters have to say so we can have an end to this war and move on. FlyAkwa too, of course. So myself and Z22 are in favour of arbitration. Any others? AadaamS (talk) 09:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Considering that there is no source proving that Chinese Railways have raised their top speed to 350km/h again, the Railway Gazette information is not verifiable. So, I hope arbitration will take us out of this stupid war. Le68 (talk) 10:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Railway Gazette's information is verifiable, because Railway Gazette is a source. If there's another source which contradicts the Railway Gazette articles, I would love to read it.
May I express surprise that a new account finds this talkpage and, in their first edit, makes the same point as a recently-blocked editor? Or would that surprise be considered an attack? Unfortunately that editor has barred des fauteurs de troubles such as Thomas.W, DAJF, Aaron-Tripel, WDGraham &c from their talkpage so I am unable to ask them directly. bobrayner (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I will not hide you I learned about this debate somewhere else. I just hate wrong information. Le68 (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources can be wrong... and recognize their errors. Railway Gazette changed its article, the new fastest average is coherent (still in china, with 283.7 km/h). Debate is over for me. Le68 (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Reliable source was not reliable. --FlyAkwa (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a suggestion.

I suggest that you stop edit warring this and wait for the RfC to finish. Arbcom seem to getting ridiculously stroppy about this kind of thing. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

It's very frustrating to see FlyAkwa continue to revert, now using the summary "Information proved as false, in talk page. And not relevant here".

• "Proved as false" - in reality, it's been validated by a reliable source.
• "not relevant here" is difficult to reconcile with FlyAkwa's many previous edits on French rail speed records.

That edit summary is doubly mendacious. When will the pov-pushing stop? How long are we supposed to tolerate the rants about "false information", "chinese propaganda" etc? bobrayner (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Your initial information was obviously false, despite the "source". And the "Source" has clearly recognized the error, and corrected their article.

Now, as Z22 and Aadaams already said, this information is not relevant in the chapter "Wenzhou disaster".

At least, your first sentence is totally false, and the citation doesn't support the sentence (no mention of "speed increase").

This sentence must be deleted (and maybe rewritten in another section, as Z22 proposed it).

--FlyAkwa (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The source says 350. Which is greater than the 300 figure which FlyAkwa keeps on reverting back to. Sooner or later - when FlyAkwa stops hammering the revert button, or that button is forcibly removed - the article will again reflect what sources say. WP:V is quite simple, and misleading readers is a Bad Thing. bobrayner (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The source (a Railway Gazette article here) only indicates that "[t]he line is designed for 350 km/h running." It simply means it is capable of operating at top speeds of 350 km/h, but it does not mean that the line actually has operating speeds of 350 km/h. This Railway Gazette article was published online in July with a note that the details would be in the August issue. Now, the most recent updated article of Railway Gazette here said that there were updated entries for Chinese lines. The list with the updated entries was also published in the August print issue. Although China has the fastest average operating speeds between stations as reported in the August print issue, but the article confirmed that no trains have average above 300 km/h, with first entry as 283.7 km/h. If the Nanjing - Hangzhou line truly runs at 350 km/h, it would have been on that list. As a simple analogy, the flat and straight highway near my house and my car are designed for 130 mph running, but I drive only up to 65 mph because the state law has the 65 mph limit. As simple as this. Nothing more to read into that article. That article does not say any trains operate at 350 km/h. Design speeds are not the same as operating speeds. Period. Z22 (talk) 04:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

You proposed this above, '...the trains between Shijiazhuang and Zhengzhou Dong have the fastest average operating speed in the world at 283.7 km/h as of August 2013' [my emphasis]. This seems to me to be a very clear statement, supported by a reliable source, that requires no interpretation or OR. Are you still proposing this? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I still propose that which is the second bullet point in my proposal. That Railway Gazette article clearly talked about average operating speeds. Whether we should include "According to Railway Gazette" or not, we should get more opinions from other editors. I'm leading toward including that but if the consensus has that it should not be included, I'm fine with that too.

The reason I talked about 350 km/h here was related to my first bullet point in my proposal. I proposed to remove the sentence that says, "Since then, new high-speed railways have been built in China, and speeds have increased." This is because no sources have indicated that the top speeds in China have ever increased to above 300 km/h since the accident. Bobrayner's interpretation of the inline citation (another Railway Gazette article) was that the article talked about the operating speeds of 350 km/h which was higher than 300 km/h, hence, the sentence should be preserved. I just wanted to point out that the article in that inline citation talked about design speeds, not operating speeds. So, there is no evidence that speeds have increased and that sentence should still be removed as indicated in the first bullet point of my proposal. Z22 (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)