Jump to content

Talk:Railway speed record/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Diesel speed record

I think the diesel speed record is held by a russian train, which did 264km/h. 195.70.32.136 18:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

If you have documented proof (e.g. an entry in the Guinness Book of Records) to back this up, then please edit the main page to show this. Dave F 00:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
In my humble opinion, Talgo and TEP-80 are, for a reason I don't know, in two different record catagories because I see a lot of sources saying that Talgo is the owner of the record although Talgo run is dated 10 years after TEP. I found also a photo of the record train: http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/es/work/GIF/Talgo_XXI/Eurailspeed-11.jpg. Anyway it should be checked if TEP speed is 271 or 273 km/h (http://www.railfaneurope.net/tgv/background.html). Armando82 19 January 2006
I finally got round to checking the latest issue (2006) of the Guinness Book of Records, and have amended the diesel speed record section accordingly. While the Russian and Spanish record claims are widely quoted on the Web, they are not mentioned in Guinness, so should be treated as unofficial. DAJF 06:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Nice work! Armando82 14:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Here is Russian record disel. Text on board says - setted record of speed for disel train 271kmph. And usually Russian tests are protocolled. So I think this record should be protocolled by Russian officials as well. Guinness, afaik, approve only records that was setted with attendance of their representative...
http://www.parovoz.com/newgallery/index.php?ID=26555&LNG=EN
http://www.railphoto.ru/teplo/html/tep80-0002.htm
Elk Salmon 12:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Train speeds

You have omitted certain lines in the TGV section of the last table Booksworm 15:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 15:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Top Speed for Scheduled Trains

This section seems very incomplete (e.g. TGV 270 km/h 1981, other Japanese ones) and the from/to seems pretty irrelevant to the top speed... Is this section worth having? Willkm 13:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

When I started this section I added only the first really high-speed record (Shinkansen 1964) and the last record. If You know exact data about TGV 1981 and other Shinkansen feel free to add them. About from/to, altough this doesn't add nothing to the top speed, but anyway I think it's useful. If You don't know the value of these fields for TGV 1981 (Paris - Lyon I suppose) or Shinkansen You can leave them blank. Armando82 14:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I think this section is valuable and worth keeping. I have added basic details for the TGV top service speeds of 270 and 300 km/h, but these entries are still incomplete. I don't think there was any speed increase between 1964 and 1981, but we need to add details of the first scheduled train to run at 160 km/h (French Mistral?). DAJF 02:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Unbelievable as it sounds, but the first scheduled train to reach 160km/h ran in 1934! It was a German built diesel-electric passenger train, known as the "flying hamburger" (which is a citizen of Hamburg, not a piece of meat). Three were built, all called "flying something". I'll try to find some details, that machine is exhibited just 2 miles away, and it could still outrun the RegioSprinters in common service. 88.73.238.146 22:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Shanghai Maglev

I have removed the entry for the Shanghai Maglev recently added to the Average Speed table, since the average speed is lower than for previous/existing services. I have left the entry in the Top Speed table, but I don't really think it should be listed alongside conventional steel wheel-on-rail trains. DAJF 14:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


I was looking at the Scheduled Trains/Top speed table just now and am a little confused...Are we listing trains in order of their highest average speed, or their highest maximum speed? If the latter applies, then I would suggest that the Shanghai Transrapid be moved to the end (Top?) of the list as not even the TGV can beat 430Km/h! :-)

As the Shanghai Transrapid normally covers the 30Km journey in about eight minutes, that would make the average speed about 62.5Km/h I think. (Although I'm not sure how to apply S=D/T when comparing metric distances with non-metric time! :-)

30km/8min*60min/h = 225km/h. Disturbingly easy with metric units, don't you think?

I've edited the list to sort entries by maximum speed as that makes more sense, considering that we do not have a complete list of average speeds. As a final thought though: Can a Maglev really be considered a "railed" vehicle? :-)

Hyperspeed 12th May 2006CR at 03:15 GMT

I would say yes: it requires a track to run, and that seems to be the definition of "railed" we are using here, given the rocket sled entries. --67.188.22.107 01:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

ETR Guinness

On Novara-Milan (Italy) TAV (High speed trains) Lines, new speed guinness: 350,8 km/h by an ETR 500 while testing new high speed lines. Date: 5 october 2005


Attention Americans

Please put facts and not US nationalist propaganda on this page the Empire State Express No. 999 Official record was 132 kmh (82mph) All claims of higher speeds can be put down to US nationalist propaganda and are not given any credibility outside the USA.Oxyman 01:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Tool for Education or American propaganda

Is Wikipedia a resource for education and carrying FACTS or a tool for American propaganda? I have edited out reticules claims by Americans in the Land speed record for railed vehicles and Empire State Express only to have arrogant Americans delete them and accuse me of pov can we have a neutral observer look at these sections Oxyman 02:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

First, calm down. Personal insults are not welcome on Wikipedia. Second, your statements are unsourced. You can claim that they are facts, but without reliable sources cited, they mean nothing. All of your edits I have seen are inherently POV. I'm not sure what you personally have against the United States or its citizens, but I can assure you I am only here to make neutral edits to articles. That includes reverting unsourced edits, such as the ones you made. -- Kesh 03:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Why am I acused of insults when I am stating facts the oficial record for No999 Empire state express was 82 mph not 100mph where is the citation for that?

As a completely neutral party to this, the mentioned 195.5 km/h (121.47 m/h) record is contradicted by the first external link ([1]), it's stated there 112.5mph? 11/5/1893. Steam. Empire State Express. (Record not accepted. Recognised as 81.8mph). I've edited the speeds according to this website. If reputable external sources give a different speed, feel free to adapt, including a <ref>-tag. Niels|en talk-nl talk (faster response)| 03:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The speed you found was correct, per [2]. It also clarifies that the 112 Mph figure was recorded by unofficial timers, but this seems to clarify the point and provides a reputable source. -- Kesh 03:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The term unofficial timers probably means that they can't be trusted! Speed should revert to what the neutral observer Niels states, I won't do this as I'll be accused of insulting Americans by users including Kesh. Oxyman 05:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Also am I alowed to put LNER Class A3 4472 Flying Scotsman as the first officialy recorded Locomotive to reach 100 mph? This was removed without discusion by Kesh. Oxyman 06:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Oxyman that unofficial means that it can't be trusted unless you can find some more information about the unofficial clockings which would indicate that there is a good reason to believe that they were real. The sources I have seen linked have given no information about who made the claims about clocking it at 112 mph. "But unofficial timers claimed to have clocked it at 112 miles-an-hour" is a vey weak statement about the reliability of those claims. Jeltz talk 11:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I would personally write it as something like this:

131 (81.8) Empire State Express No. 999 Steam United States May 10 1893 Unofficial clockings claims 112 mph (179 km/h) which would make it the first wheeled vehicle to exceed 100 mph.[3]

Jeltz talk 11:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "can't be trusted," but I agree that it should explicitly say that it was an unofficial timing. The sources I've found have made it clear that the unofficial timings are the ones claiming 112 MPH. Your edit looks good, Jeltz. My only objection to Oxyman's edits were his attempts to add POV comments to this article and Empire State Express, in addition to making insulting comments. If he had simply requested clarification & changes, this whole edit war could've been avoided. -- Kesh 17:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Not surprisingly given the users arrogance up to now he has written the article Empire State Express so that the casual observer will think these "unofficial" claims are fact it should be clear to the reader that these are unofficial claims, after all is Wikipedia a source of facts or American arrogance such as that displayed by Kesh. An American may say that the claims can be trusted but that is seen as ridicules outside the USA. I request that this article be edited by a non biased person Oxyman 17:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
so is it ok to put "unverified information" in Wikipedia so long as it has an American bias? Oxyman 17:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I note you can't even be bothered to reply here, just copy & pasting the same screed you put on your talk page. See there for your reply. If you have any citations for your claims, please present them. -- Kesh 18:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I use copy and paste if that is the most appropriate way of posting information, Is that OK? Please realize that you are arrogant and stop putting thinly veiled insults everywhere, at least I am open about my insults. "No. 999 entered service in May of 1893, making the trip from Syracuse, New York to the Chicago World's Fair. The Express was recorded traveling at 121.5 mph (195.5 km/h) during an exhibition run between Batavia and Buffalo on May 10, making No. 999 the fastest-moving manmade invention of its time and the first object on wheels to exceed 100 mph (161 km/h)".where in this statement is it mentioned and visible to the casual observer that this is an unoficial claim? Oxyman 19:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This statement"E6s #7002 was clocked at Crestline, Ohio at 127.1 mph (204.55 km/h) in 1905. However PRR Steam Locomotives did not carry speedometers at that time, time was calculated by measuring time between mile markers, so this is not recognized as a speed record." lacks crucial caveats to the casual reader this may appear to be credible information rather than claims, at the least there should be a citation.Oxyman 22:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope its ok for me to put this verified information on this page?
160 (100) LNER Class A3 4472 Flying Scotsman Steam United Kingdom 1934

In 1934, Flying Scotsman achieved the first authenticated 100mph (160 kmph) by a steam locomotive.[4]

In the past I have been accused of being anti American and even appearing to be a raving communist for wishing that Wikipedia displays credible information so I thought it wise to post this comment Oxyman

Posting the comment was certainly a good idea. And your addition looks good, the citation works well. I have no problem with you adding this to the article. -- Kesh 00:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

New TGV record set

I have updated the introduction. It would be helpful if one of the regulars on this article would check the information and update the rest of the text. --Rollo 10:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

JetTrain turbine record

The JetTrain article claims the speed record for a gas turbine locomotive for itself. Can anyone find a reference or a date? Potatoswatter 09:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The only source I can find making this claim is a blog. Not even Bombardier makes the 205mph claim. Dbromage 02:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Records by country

The page currently lists progressive speed records by technology. Is there any merit in other tables for the absolute speed record by country? Possibly as a new article. Dbromage 02:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Speed record of the Sinkansen in Electric multiple units

Please do not delete a speed record of the Sinkansen which I wrote to less than .

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.190.235.224 (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The entries were deleted because they were not world records and therefore do not belong in this article. You could place the various shinkansen speed records on a separate page if you think there is sufficient material. Please also note that your repeated reverts have removed valid data, which could be interpreted as vandalism. DAJF 15:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
As for the records such as 443km/h of the Sinkansen, the world is not surely fastest.

However, even other railroads are not written to update order of speed. It is an encyclopedia and should mention it precisely. 2007 210.174.18.244 09:55, 8 May (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.174.18.244 (talk) 09:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, non-world records do not belong in this article, which is why I deleted them. Note that the Shinkansen article now includes a list of speed records achieved by Shinkansen trains in Japan, even if they are not world records. DAJF 23:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Do not edit it in DAJF, the state of things!

      • Maglev
    • Manned
  • 60 ML100 Maglev Japan 1972
  • 110 HSST02 Maglev Japan 1978
    • Unmanned - linear induction motor propulsion
  • 230km/h EET01 Maglev Manching, Germany 1974
  • 431km/h JR-Maglev MLU002N Maglev Yamanashi Maglev Test Track, Japan 1994
  • 550km/h (341.75) JR-Maglev MLX01 Maglev Yamanashi Maglev Test Line, Japan 24 December 1997 Three-car train set.
  • 579km/h JR-Maglev MLX01 Maglev Yamanashi Maglev Test Line, Japan December 2003 Three-car train set.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.190.235.224 (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2007(UTC)

I totally agree. You should ride a correct record of Maghreb mentioned above. ADF erases it out of hatred to a Japanese on purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.174.18.244 2007 09:55, 8 May (UTC) (talk)
I am totally agreeable, too. It is wrong to tamper with a maximum speed record of Maglev. A German system is different from Japan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.221.135.40 2007 23:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC) (talk)


Semi-protection request

I have made a request for semi-protection of this article to prevent the continued reversions by non-registered users. This is the first time I have done this, but hopefully I have followed the correct procedures. (See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection) DAJF 13:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The request was declined due to there being "not enough disruptive activity". No doubt the persistent reversions will continue for a while at least, but editors should be careful not to delete valid details on this page when reverting changes. DAJF 14:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. I know I reverted some details you entered but this was the fastest way. It's useful to revert completely first not to correct the vandalized version. Only afterwards new valid details should be added. Doing both in the same version is not recommended. So It's easy to revert again should vandalization be repeated. Armando82 16:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have made another request for semi-protection following three more reversions by non-registered users in the last week. (See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection) Dbromage 07:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Claimed records

I darkened some rows in the diesel and steam records to show claimed speeds which if verified would be progressive records. Where authenticated records are accompanied by higher claimed speeds, e.g. Great Britain and Empire State Express, these are not darkened. Dbromage 04:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

360 km/h top speed for scheduled trains in Spain

I read ([5]) in Spain there are scheduled train with a 360 km/h top speed. If confirmed this should be added as a new record. Can anyone confirm? -- Armando82 10:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That was only a test (as you can read just above the headline). Madrid–Seville AVE can't exceed 300 km/h. Furthermore, it was stated on May that top speed for all scheduled trains won't exceed 300 km/h for the foreseeable future, not even the new Madrid-Barcelona AVE trains capable of reaching 350 km/h regularly, [6] due to track layout faults according to the first link. When other high speed lines currently under construction open - within the next couple of years -, we might see these trains used to their full capabilities and qualify for this record. --Ruiz de Elvira 14:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed 329 back to 313 (wuhan-guangzhou)

329 is only achieved in first days of running, It's over-speed running, and the train arrives ahead of schedule. It's not the common "scheduled" running. discuss here if you have opinions. Python eggs (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Electric locomotives : Siemens Eurosprinter topspeed

Official record of conventional trains need AT LEAST 3 CARS : that's why the 1955's and TGV records are 3 cars trains. Then, the Siemens Eurosprinter record, with only one car, can not be an offical record. --FlyAkwa (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, and where does it say that? Possibly a more important issue is the current contradiction in the Eurosprinter article that states the locomotive was unmodified when it set the record, i.e. not "built specially for record setting" as per the heading of that section, so possibly should be in a different category? (And does absence of snowploughs on the test run constitute "modification" of the train?) 81.155.80.19 (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

France, 1955 (?)

I think the French set a record with a special trainset on the Paris-Marseille line some time between 1955 and 1965. If I recall correctly, a speed of nearly 300 km/hr was achieved. This was a significant event and demonstrated the possibility of true high-speed rail. I don't have sources but do recall reading a detailed account of the event. 69.142.188.7 (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC) J.H. Crawford

Perhaps you are thinking of the two records listed under 'Electric Locomotives'? Benthatsme (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Loco vs. EMU

This page consistently describes the TGV as an EMU, but this contradicts the definition given on the electric multiple unit page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanf (talk • contribs) 10:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

In fact, TGV is not an EMU, because it has real locomotives at each extremity, and no cars are powered.
But because it's in a "rigid form" with 8 or 10 cars between two locomotives, it's often classed as EMU : locomotives and cars can't be separated.
--FlyAkwa (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Imperial speeds added to "Rocket Sled" section

For consistency in the article, I've just calculated the metric speeds given under the Rocket Sled section in imperial equivalents using Google Calculator, and added them to the table along with some minor formatting changes. Some quite relaxing speeds being hit in there, it would seem! :-)

On a slightly off-topic note: If anyone hears about any forthcoming rocket sled tests, could they please drop a note on my talk page? Having always found the 550mph cruising speed of a Jumbo Jet to be far too slow for my liking, I'd love to have the chance to give one of those things a try! >:-)

+++ DieselDragon +++ Talk, Contribs - 27 October 2010CE = 10:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

"Special built trains for test only" section is badly named

This section is badly named, not just because it should be "specially built" rather than "special built", but mainly because half of the trains in it were obviously not specially built for test, i.e. are in fact modified or unmodified commercial trains (and unmodified commercial is currently supposed to be the preceding section...) The current categorisation is just wrong. Essentially I think sections 2 and 3 need to be merged and the average speed table moved into its own section. Thoughts anyone? Mu2 01:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Page, organisation, chapters and data need to be cleaned and reordered

This page is become a real mess. There is lot of data without sourcing. It's now a page for propaganda and claims from manufacturers.

As said by Mu2, the distinction between "Unmodified commercial trains in test run" and "Special built trains for test only" is false, absurd, and only there to publish China propaganda.

If we must split into different category, why not 3 category :

  • Unmodified commercial trains
  • Modified commercial trains
  • Prototypes

The records will be more confused...

I think we must

  • keep only sourced (or well known) records,
  • keep in bold only official absolute record (and not manufacturer claim or governmental propaganda)
  • Reorder correctly the data/category.

Do you agree ?

--FlyAkwa (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

New Layout

As previously notified, the "Speed record for railed vehicles" was a real mess.

Then I created a completely new version of the page, based upon the previous version, but in a more clean, simple, and smart presentation.

Deleted categories

Because of a massive and crude propaganda from one country, lot of nonsense categories were present or added, like "Average speed, from station to station" and "Average speed, between terminating stations", "Top speed, first attained", "Unmodified commercial trains in test run", "Average speed, over long distance", "Special built trains for test only", etc, to push claimed or virtual records.

Then, a certain number of table have been deleted, because not relevant.

"Top speed, first attained" was only there to push the "350 km/h Chinese first attained". This category has never been considered in any land speed record list. And the list is unfinished, as all speeds could also be reported : first 320 km/h...first 280 km/h, first 270 km/h...first 20 km/h, first 10 km/h, etc.

"Unmodified commercial trains in test run" and "Special built trains for test only" was also there to push Chinese claimed records. These category where not relevant, as lot of trains in both table were "unmodified trains", "lightly tuned trains", "heavily tuned trains", "prototype" or "unknown status".

"Relative passing speed between two trains" is no more relevant, because it lacks references, and report only Japanese tests. Moreover, the only not Japanese data, about TGV, was false : TGV travels at 320 km/h, then relative speeds between trains is every days at least 640 km/h (and not 482.6 km/h).

At least, "Average speed, between terminating stations" is, one more time, a Chinese attempt to put their claimed records, and this category is one more time not relevant. Else, we could create "Average speed between terminating station and first station", "Average speed between first station and second station", etc.

Smart Layout

As the page is about World Speed Record, it's more relevant to have in first section the "Absolute World Speed Record", and the "Averages Speed Record" at the end.

Lot of tables have been grouped for "conventional wheeled", in a large, sortable, table. It's easier to compare different speeds by date, by power supply, etc.

The columns "Arrangement" and "Power Supply" have been added. New colours are used.

--FlyAkwa (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

World fastest commercial relations?

Thanks to FlyAkwa for bringing order and sense to the lists in this article. One question, though... what does "World fastest commercial relations" mean? Should it be "operations"? It is not entirely clear to me. --DAJF (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for you comment. I agree, the title is not the best. It's the old "Best time from station to station", but I was not satisfied by this title.
You're right, the table is about past and current commercial operations. If you could find a better title (as English is not my natural language), please correct it :)
--FlyAkwa (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi DAJF. I'm not sure that "operations" is the good word. In fact, the table reports the "fastest connexions from a station to a station", not exactly the maximum operational speed (although it reports also the maximum speed).
I search the exact translation of the French word "Relation", that seems not to be "relation" in english, and means "a travel from a station to a station".
--FlyAkwa (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, I see. I have now changed it to "World fastest point-to-point average speeds in commercial operations", which is a bit of a mouthful, but hopefully is more accurate. --DAJF (talk) 12:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
The industry terms they use are "average operating speeds" or "average travel speeds". Both terms imply commercial operation only, not some test runs. The difference between "operating speeds" and "travel speeds" are that if there are station stops between the two points that they measure the speeds, the operating speeds will include the time that trains stop in those stations. So if the layovers of the trains at intermediate stations are long, the operating speeds of that line will be lower. Travel speeds, on the other hand, will not include the station stop time. So it does not matter if a train stops at one station for 4 hours. That still does not effect the travel speeds on that line. Most sources use "operating speeds" because it is easier to compile data from simple timetable and physical distance measurement between stations. Measuring travel speeds requires them to know all details of arrival and departure times of intermediate stations which usually not being tracked by many rail operators (especially in the US, for example). US agencies such as Federal Transit Administration always uses operating speeds for performance measurement. So, it seems to me like we are talking about "World fastest point-to-point average operating speeds" here. Z22 (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Why "Conventional wheeled" have two lists?

Why the section "Conventional wheeled" has two subsections? and Why don't we name it "Conventional trains"? Yakamoz51 (talk) 08:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Yakamoz. I made the new disposition of the page. "Conventionnal wheeled" rather than "Conventional trains" because of fussy boys.
There is two subsection because a large majority of people search Absolute world speed records, but trains specialist or enthusiasts can also search for all speed records.
--FlyAkwa (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Mallard

How can it be in the list as the official record holder for steam and not be ratified? Is the system used on this page somehow better than official records? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.146.91 (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello. it's possible because I can do mistakes :) If this record is an official record, then it's ratified !
--FlyAkwa (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Mallard and many earlier records can bring up problems in how the speeds were measured. In the case of Mallard, the speed was the peak speed on a downhill stretch of the main line, recorded om a test run with a dynamometer car. It is accepted as the highest recorded speed by a steam locomotive. It is as certain as anything can be. On the other hand, the 100 mph record of City of Truro, in 1904, was based on stopwatch-timing of marker posts by Charles Rous-Martin, nobody seems to have checked the timepiece, and while the figures were published, the GWR was reluctant to claim a record that would prompt accusations of recklessness. It was published in The Railway Magazine, it was part of a whole different world of timekeeping technology, but it was considered good enough at the time. And it was a train in ordinary service, even if might have been carefully prepared. On that day, the people on that train were the fastest men on Eartn.

Mallard was unmodified, but recently overhauled. The centre big end melted, A4s were prone to that. The driver, Duddington was chosen as he was good at judging just how far he could push the locomotive.Skinner doc (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

A couple of readability problems

Hi all,
I have concerns about the readability of the huge tables. Who chose the categories and the columns and the colours and the bolding and the icons? The first pair of problems we could address is that (a) some pieces of information are repeated, and (b) the screen gets crowded, making the table unreadable. Since the first column of most of the tables - "R (Record)" - duplicates what is already said inline, it's probably best to remove this - which in turn will allow more space for the other columns. Any comments? bobrayner (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, is the green meant to represent a current record, or a record that stood at the time? What exactly does the tick mean? And why are records set by non-French trains ignored or sidelined? bobrayner (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I think it is not productive to just question who came up with with this idea. Wikipedia requires continuous improvements so our efforts is better spent in improving pages. That being said, your suggestion seems to be very good. I agree that the "R (Record)" is duplicate with the color schema. I think just the colors alone would work for most tables (except the last table) to identify record holder. We should try to make the last table to use the same legends (at least colors and styles) as all other tables. If the information about which line are still operating is important. Came up with another color and apply that to all tables. If that will make it very confusing (I think it will), then people reading the "Date To" column is good enough to know whether the lines are still operating. I would suggest to not leave the "Data To" blank for the one that is still operating, we should put "Present" as a confirmation that they are still in operation. Any blanks in any column mean not enough information.
So, in conclusion, we might want to drop the R (Record) column, remove the "Styles : [Currently active] - [Record holder] - [Old service]" line from the last table so we can assume to use the same legends as in other tables, and put "Present" in blank "Date to" cells in the last table. Z22 (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
It's better to talk here about ALL edits envisioned, BEFORE doing big edit.
Why the chapter "Absolute World Speed Record", that is a smarter table only with "absolute world speed record" for "conventional trains" has disappeared ? While I think that majority of readers are interested only by this smart table ?
Bobyrayer again act to disseminate trouble and misinformation :
* the Chinese claimed records are obviously doubtful claims, as there was no independent witnesses, officials, or international journalists (as there is always for TGV records), and the record was only ministry and company claims. And the sources are only in Chinese language. Then these records must keep the yellow color.
* If the Eurosprinter can be considered as an official record, it don't delete the 1955 record : the locomotives are not in the same category, first is "Alternative current powered" and pulled one car, the last was "CC powered" and pulled 3 cars.
The 1955 record is obviously always an absolute world speed record, and always keep the record for their category.
Then, why the green color and bold text disappeared ?
--FlyAkwa (talk) 10:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, there are several points to respond to here.
1. Is there a good reason to have two big tables with the same information? I think that is pointless duplication, at best.
2. "Chinese source" does not mean propaganda or deception. It's normal for events in China to be covered by Chinese media. I added a German source here; do you object to that too?
3. We have a reliable source which says that the Eurosprinter broke the old French record. Are you redefining the record in some way so that the French record still stands, or are you arguing that Railway Gazette is wrong, or what?
4. What do you mean by "absolute world speed record"? If something was a record once, fair enough, but records get superseded. Obviously it would be ridiculous to have special highlighting (green, bold &c) for all historic records on this page, because everything on this page was a record at some point. It is not clear to me why only some superseded records are repeatedly highlighted. Can you clarify?
As an aside, I am curious why French records got lots of bold and words like "absolute" &c whilst non-French records tended to get caveats and words like "claimed" &c. And French records were much more likely to be handpicked for the top table. Why is this? I don't have much free time at the moment but somebody really ought to go through the article line by line, checking it against good sources - and fix any divergence from sources. I already found a pretty serious misrepresentation around the Eurosprinter/1955 thing. bobrayner (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Don't fool me. I don't know if you really don't understand anything, or if you're a troll. But stop that.
I think that everybody can make de difference between a ratified record, with international coverage, on board journalists and bailiff, such as all record by SNCF or DB, and a claimed record without any objective eyewitness, made by a dictatorship, such as so-called Chinese records.
In the record table, all category are showed, and record holder of each category is in bold.
At last, the first short table is the official "absolute world speed record" list, aka fastest record at its time, officially recorded.
I think it will be sad you try again to misinform and vandalise an article, as you try on "High Speed Rail" page.
--FlyAkwa (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
And you've reverted. This is not good.
Why are you deliberately reinserting factual errors, misusing sources, cherrypicking and selectively highlighting your favourites? Do you not see why this is a problem? Canvassing too. bobrayner (talk) 23:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
For example, this source says that the EuroSprinter broke the BB9004 record. However, FlyAkwa's preferred version of the article says no such thing, instead branding the EuroSprinter with the caveat that it was "pulling one car", removing a properly-sourced problem with the BB9004 record, which is now rebadged as Official Conventional wheeled absolute record repeatedly. And, of course, the Eurosprinter is conspicuously absent from the table of cherrypicked records that FlyAkwa has added at the top - where BB9004 is still presented with bold and green, whatever they're supposed to mean. We certainly can't let readers know about this.
I only want articles to reflect what sources say. It is very frustrating to be reverted at every step. bobrayner (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Let's do this. Let's discuss the issues here. I can see some merits of what bobrayner said, although I may not agree in all of them. I also can see it is hard for FlyAkwa to maintain this huge list. However, as we have seen in the other page, edit war does not get us anyway. So let's don't go back to that ever again. Please stop reverting back and forth and just talk here instead. It will take more time for other editors to digest all these and try to help. Would you both be patient on this?
I think most of the things come down to reliable sources. At the big picture, the article is related to speed records, not the record of one authoritative source. So I think the followings should be considered:
  • If we have green and peach colors to indicate "official" vs. "unofficial", fine. In that case, The table should only have green and peach rows. Now, we need to define what "official" and "unofficial" really mean. The official records are the ones that are confirmed by what authorities? Or just being reported by secondary reliable sources are good enough? I can see that if the only source for an entry is from its primary source, then that record could be marked "unofficial".
  • I heard a lot of arguments about "Chinese propaganda". I'm not an expert on how Wikipedia sources the subjects in China. I can see that if a record comes out from the state-run media for the state-run train operator, then it might be argued to be considered as primary source. However, if another reliable mainstream media has an article about a speed record in China, then it should be considered as secondary source. Whether that is considered "official" or not, go back to the first bullet point and work out the definition.
  • Each entry must have reliable sources. The entry must be a record (fastest at the time of publication of the record). Entries that don't have any reference should be marked using "Citation needed" template. If the entries have been marked for a long time and no reliable sources can be rendered, then those entries should be removed.
  • As per WP:NONENG, a non-English reference should be accompanied by translated quote. This is for verifiability. This can be put in the parameter of the "ref" tag.
  • I don't get the point of having "Absolute world speed record" and "Full list". Maybe I don't know enough of this subject. Can someone please explain? I think many readers will have a hard time understanding the difference between the two lists.
Again, it will be more productive if we can just resolve this on the talk page first before making another revert. Thanks. Z22 (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Reverting back and forth? I removed content which contradicted or misrepresented sources, that got reverted, and I have patiently sat and waited on the talkpage. Alas, the content of this article is now determined by which editor is most liberal with the revert button, rather than by diligent attention to sources. If you're going to chide me for fixing a swathe of factual errors, trying to bring the article in line with what sources say, and then commenting on the talkpage when the article owner reverts - even though I didn't revert that so the content is still wrong - then we have more than one problem. bobrayner (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay, chill out. Let's focus on how to make this page better. Not pointing finger or anything. If we would please go back to our points of concerns about this page. Do you agree or disagree on those bullet points? Anything to add? Let's put all the concerns together and address those. Z22 (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Also for the first bullet point. My thought is this. The "official" records should be from independent record-keeping entities. If a record is from either secondary reports based on info from non record keeping entities or self publication (primary), then it is "unofficial". We may want to add a column to identify the record-keeping entity for each "official" record entry. For example, Railway Gazette's record on the highest average operating speed in China would be considered "official" and the record-keeping entity for that entry would be Railway Gazette because they clearly functioned as a record-keeping entity in that case. However, if Railway Gazette reports that there is a record but the article does not clearly indicate where that ranking comes from or it says that the info of the record come from an entitity that is either related to the train manufacturers/operators or the entity is not in the business of record keeping, then it is "unofficial". Does it make sense you think? Z22 (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The word "official" is part of the problem, not part of the solution, I feel. Right now, some records get lauded as "official" and some don't, and the distinction is not supported by sources - which generally don't take that approach. So why should we try to find a new definition for the words "official" and "unofficial" in order to keep using these labels to distinguish some entries from others? Get rid of it and focus on what the sources are actually saying, instead. They're just ways for an editor to make some records look more impressive than others. The same applies to the bolding and the colouring. The same applies to the extra table at the top. The same applies to the highly selective use of caveats and superlatives. The same applies to silly claims that major media sources are "propaganda" - but only for non-French records. For a French record we can cite anything, even a railfan's photo gallery, although negative content in that source has not made it to the article. And apparently China is a dictatorship, attempts to bring content in line with reliable sources are vandalism, the various editors who revert one particular editor are a cabal, biased, &c. And the attempted sockpuppetry and deceptive edit summaries. And so on.
  • I applaud your enthusiasm to depersonalise the dispute, but there are several different problems in the content and several different problems on talkpages, and the problems all come from one place. We're not going to solve the problem by pretending that pov-pushing just falls from the sky like snow, going along with misrepresentation of sources as though it's an innocent typo, overlooking personal attacks, and "Chinese sources are propaganda, you say? OK, let's find a way to use different sources... SNCF records are Official and Absolute, you say? OK, let's find a way to fit those words into the article...". bobrayner (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I understand that there is an appearance of multiple issues with this page related to WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:OWNER. However, I always assume WP:GOODFAITH and welcome all editors involved in the dispute to share ideas. My approach of solving the problems is to focus on improving this page by developing consensus with a specific proposal. We all refine the proposal until a consensus is reached. If there is a consensus, we change the page. But if there are individuals who decide to pursue disruptions after that, we will consider them for the WP:RFC/USER process. So, I think if we go step by step, focus on the contents, things will work out at the end.
Let's get back on the details. Here is the initial proposal:
1) It appears that the "absolute" train speed is used to refer to the highest speed trains in various types in various statuses. As this reference [7] uses to confirm that the absolute train speed record was Japanese Maglev even after TGV set a new record for conventional wheel. So the section name of "Absolute world speed record" can be confusing. Since Conventional and Meglev are in separate sections anyway, we should just avoid using the "Absolute world speed record" as a sub-section under Conventional. Now back to the Conventional section, I still fail to see why we need to have two lists. First one is a subset of the bigger list. What dictates entries to be in the first list? To avoid any confusion on this, I think we should just have one list that is currently under the sub-section "Full list". Then we clean up the entries in that list.
2) I originally thought that there is a merit on having "official" vs. "unofficial" because there would be some sort of record-keeping entities. However, as I spent more time to look through many of the references today, I found very little about the records that have any indication on who is keeping those records. Since any record-keeping entities are hardly identifiable in any of these references, it is hard to justify which ones are "official" or "unofficial". In this case, I agree that dropping these designations and eliminating those associated colors might be the best thing to do.
3) The bold. I see the merit of having that. In a large table where many types of trains are combined, it is helpful for readers to quickly identify which ones that have the highest speeds in their power categories. So we should keep that. However, I see in the large table that "Elec. AC" has two entries that are in bold. The second should not be in bold.
4) The repeat words of "conventional wheeled absolute record" in the comment column don't seem to be helpful. The section is clearly conventional wheeled and only world's records should be listed here. So it is implicit, and there is no need to repeat.
5) The word "official" that is used in the comment should only be used if reliable sources indicate of such official designation. Most of the entries with that word in the comment column are either have no reference, or have references to railfan pages. I think user pages or blogs are generally non-reliable source as per WP:BLOGS. So we should remove the "official" designation from the comment column.
6) The word "claimed" should only be used if the reference is a WP:PRIMARY source.
7) Like I said earlier, for any entry without any kind of references, we should put the "Citation needed" tag.
8) As it is English language Wikipedia page, sources in English are more preferable. However, references in Chinese language do not automatically be unreliable. Regardless of the political system in China, there should be no discrimination against sources that are written in Chinese language. If there is any doubt about any of the references, enter a new section on talk page and discuss those specific web sites and those should be considered case by case.
Please comment on the above points whether you agree with them, agree with conditions, or disagree. Thanks. Z22 (talk) 03:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with all those points. It's nice that we agree, but not sufficient to fix the article. Do any other editors agree or disagree with these points?
I'd add a ninth point: "If part of the article contradicts a reliable source, that part should be removed or fixed". Does that sound reasonable to you?
bobrayner (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, on the 9th point with two conditions that A) The source that is used for judging this should be WP:RS (multiple sources may be needed in some cases to strengthen the degree of reliability) and the source carries appropriate weight to the subject that it does not violate WP:UNDUE, and B) We need to be careful with interpretation from the source and the contradiction should obvious to the eyes of WP:NPOV editors. These are just common Wikipedia practices, but I explicitly added the two conditions to make it clear so that we avoid interpretation issues that we experienced in the past in the other article.
We should wait for other editors to have a chance to comment on this. If not enough participants, we will try to get some more comments before we conclude this and start making the changes. Z22 (talk) 11:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
The article still has serious factual errors and neutrality problems. The editor who repeatedly inserted them is not commenting. If we sit here and say we'll leave the factual errors and neutrality problems in the article until everybody agrees to remove them, that may not deliver the desired result. bobrayner (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Since it is a major edit, we better make sure we have it right. I have put a draft of the new page in my sandbox here. I implemented #1 through #7 in the above proposal. It will be great if you can review the changes I have made (see my sandbox page history for the diff). Number 8 is general statement not to discriminate against sources with a particular language. For number 9, I don't know which entries that have contradiction to the sources. If you have anything specific, we can discuss those. Please review my sandbox before I transfer to the final edit to the article. I also invited other editors who are in Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains to comment on this proposal. I would still give more time for other editors to comment especially from the Trains project. The standard WP:RFC process gives people 30 days and during those days contents can still be in dispute with potentially serious misinformation. I don't think we need to wait that long, but we don't need to rush either. This is to show our WP:GOODFAITH to this major edit. So, give more time for others before we make this change. Z22 (talk) 03:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments on draft

On the whole this looks good, but it could still be improved I think. Note that I've only skimread the above discussion and I'm not already familiar with the article, so I'm seeing it as a reader would see it. My thoughts, in no particular order are below:

  • Each table should cover only one category. Particularly split the conventional-wheeled table by whatever it is that determines the classes (power?) as that isn't clear. You can then remove that column from the table.
  • Why are there pictograms for the power source? They don't add anything and take up space in an already large table.
  • Even with the key at the top the "S" column is cryptic. At the very least give it a full header and if possible longer abbreviations. A tooltip explanation of each would be useful too.
  • Why are records that weren't world records at the time included? By what criteria are they selected? If they are just national records then move them into a separate article for "List of fastest trains in $country" or whatever.
  • What does "absolute record" mean? I would expect it to be the overall fastest rail vehicle, but I see several, including at least one not bolded, so I'm mystified as to what it could signify.
  • There shouldn't be inline links to other language Wikipedia articles. If there isn't a relevant English language article then write it or include a redlink - a foreign language article is of no use to the majority of readers and disguises missing content.
  • The 1936 German entry has the comment "World speed record" - are they not all world speed records? If it means the overall World land speed record then say that.
  • "Record average speed over long distance" What speed over what distance?
  • Where other speeds/distances/weights are given in the comments, these need to use {{convert}}
  • Mallard's entry says "World record holder". What for? Surely that's implied by being the fastest in whatever class it is in?
  • The default sorting is by speed, but the conventional-wheeled table has the order 161km/h, 164km/h, 145km/h
  • World's first railway steam locomotive needs to link to the relevant section of the article about the train
  • Why are statements like "Guinness Book of Records 2006" marked as needing a citation? That is a citation, do you perhaps mean this is disputed or it isn't precise enough to verify?
  • The 1977 Maglev train record has the comment "end 1973." What does that mean? It also needs a capital letter.
  • I'm guessing the Chinese maglev is in the list because it's the record for an "unmodified" (does that mean in service?) train? If so, say that in the comments.
  • What was the gauge of the narrow gauge record holder? What is a Scheffel bogie?
  • There are categories called "narrow gauge" and "conventional wheeled" - these are both presumably conventionally wheeled trains, so call them "Conventional wheeled - standard gauge" and "Conventional wheeled - narrow gauge" and place them one after the other.
  • Per the accessibility guidelines for tables: Do not solely use formatting, either from CSS or hard-coded styles, to create semantic meaning (e.g., changing background colour). (the current commercial operations table does this). Tables should also have captions.
  • The current commercial services table is sorted by default the opposite way to all the speed record tables. All the tables on the page should be consistent.
  • The current commercial services table has unclear inclusion criteria, and needs an introduction. Consider splitting current and former services into two tables?
  • Why is a one-time service included in the table?
  • If maglev services are not included, say so and say why.
  • Non-English sources should specify the language and, ideally, include an English translation to aid verification.
  • References should not simply be bare URIs in the ref template (e.g. refs 5 and 6)

Sorry this is a very long list, but we might as well take the opportunity to get it right. Thryduulf (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Great to hear a comment from antoher editor on this proposed change. Also it is great that you have very specific points that are actionable. It is a long list, but it is helpful. I would like to answer point by point first before coming up with another cut for the draft:
  • Yeah, I got a bit confused to when working with a large table. If we split, we could potentially split by power and get rid of that column.
  • If we get rid of the power column, then we don't need the pictograms.
  • Good point on the "S" column.
  • This should only contain world's records. I haven't had enough time to go through each one of them. If you notice specific entires that are not a world's record then those should be removed. Let me know if you see.
  • The word "absolute" world's record suppose to mean the highest speed regardless of the type mainly the highest of wheel-and-steel and maglev, according to a BBC article. The absolute record should be Japanese Maglev, also according to that BBC article. I will search and fix the issue.
  • I think we can remove inline link to non-English article. I think the original editor meant to use as references. I already tagged that Wikipedia articles cannot be used as self-references. So, we can safely remove those wikilinks.
  • We can safely remove "world speed record" from that 1936 German entry.
  • Yep, it will be a lot of work to add "convert" template, but will do.
  • Again, "World record holder" should be removed from comments.
  • Will need to resort by speeds
  • Will wikilink world's first railway stream loco
  • For entries with Guinness Book..., I will convert to inline citation and remove Citation needed flag.
  • No idea what "end 1973" suppose to mean. Should we just remove it from those two entries?
  • I can add a sentence before the "narrow gauge" table to describe that it is a category for Narrow gauge railway. The Scheffel Bogie is a special body to allow narrow gauge trains to go faster. Will add more description in the comment.
  • Good idea on having "Conventional wheeled - narrow gauge" right after "Conventional wheeled - standard gauge"
  • Will fix color and caption on tables
  • Will reorder the last table to be like others
  • I don't think we need to split the last table yet. Will try to add intro.
  • I guess even a one-time service, it it is a true average operating speed, then it should be included.
  • Since the other first-level second split into conventional and maglev, maybe we need to split here too in average operating speeds. Will have the second table for maglev and add an entry on Shanghai with a reference.
  • Will specify which language but can't help in translation.
  • Will fix refs 5 and 6
Any other editors would like to add anything before I come up with another cut of the draft? Z22 (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
All those points are good; I agree. Thanks, Thryduulf. There are a lot of different things which need to be fixed; it's unrealistic to expect that we could get it all perfect in the first pass. We should concentrate on fixing the most obvious problems first, plenty of time for more edits later... bobrayner (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I implemented most of the points listed in the above. See the revised draft. Let me know if it is in the right direction. I will implement the other bullet points in a couple of days. Z22 (talk) 04:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I've only had time for a very brief look, but it's definitely an improvement. Only things that immediately leaped out were that you don't need to expand things that aren't acronyms, e.g. "State (state)" and it could do with a definition of what "tuned" means. I'll hp[efully get more time this evening (UTC). Thryduulf (talk) 08:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I completed everything except to add language template and expand details for some of the citations. Those are non-controversial improvements which can be done incrementally later on. At this point I think I have the final draft done. Please review it [8]. If we agree, I will copy this to the article. Thanks. Z22 (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks bobrayner for the recent edit. I agree with your change that the two CRH entries are unmodified as the sources said the records were part of the test runs prior to servies. However, I think the lead should be kept to the minimum. Readers can go to the tables to sort the records in whichever way they wish. There is no need to list out the highest speed for each condition because it will be too many. It will also be very confusing which was the similar reason for your argument in the original table not to have bold entries in the tables. So, I think there is no need for a line on world record of unmodified trains, world record of prototype trains, world record of tuned trains, etc. The lead may only contain the record for each major category which are conventional, maglev, hoover and rocket sled. So we should remove CRH380AL from the lead section. Also the TGV V150 should have been called world record holder of conventional wheeled type as per reliable sources such as [9][10][11], etc. I will change to reflect this unless you have additional comments. Z22 (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I have updated it and now the final draft is this. If no other objections, I will transfer this draft to the article. Thanks. Z22 (talk) 04:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Looks like a big improvement. Go for it. If this change sticks, it would be a good idea to go through the rest of the content with a fine-toothed comb to look for other problems. bobrayner (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Consensus reached. Article updated. If there is any need to clean up any entries, open a new section on this talk page. Thanks to all participating editors for the contributions on this major cleanup. Z22 (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
CONGRATULATIONS ! This article has been reverted exactly as it was 2 years ago, before I reordered it. I'm very disappointed by this "return in the past". All the doubtful claims had been formalized back in your list...
All the improvements I have made (one full list to compare all the systems, icones, columns about doubtful records, etc) have been deleted, leading to sad a list of gray tables... These improvements were approved when I made it...
Your tables have no more sense : if an "electric" table, why not "continuous current" table, "alternative current" table, "by 3rd rail current", etc ?
You are really good to destroy the work of others... I hope all this mess would be reverted in the future. --FlyAkwa (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

UAC TurboTrain is in wrong category

UAC TurboTrain used mechanical transmission to drive the wheels, so it should be in the Fuel-mechanic section. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvarjas (talk • contribs) 08:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

This is fixed. Z22 (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://ia601607.us.archive.org/5/items/1969TurboTrainEquipmentDiagrams/TurboTrainDiagrams.pdf

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.railway-technology.com/features/feature-top-ten-fastest-trains-in-the-world
    Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Article to be cleaned

This page is about "Land speed record for rail vehicles".

Wiki definition of rail is "The rail profile is the cross sectional shape of a railway rail,[1] perpendicular to the length of the rail.". Wiki definition of rail transportation is "Rail transport is a means of conveyance of passengers and goods, by way of wheeled vehicles running on rails.".

Rail doesn't means guided system.

Transport vehicles without contact with the ground (Aerotrain, Transrapid, Maglev, etc) are not recognized by the UIC, and are related to airplanes and other aerial vehicles.

Recently, Japan broke some record with its Maglev, and, of course, like China some years ago, a massive propaganda has touched Wikipedia, with lot and lot of new categories, additions and edit in this page and the "High speed rail" page, to put everywhere this pseudo-record.

I think this page MUST avoid melting of everything, and MUST relate ONLY to railed systems, with real rails (and, of course, wheels). Possibly, we could create at the end a light table with aerial guided vehicles (Aérotrain, Transrapid and Maglev).

It's an absolute non-sense to compare aerial systems with wheeled rail-road. While not add also guided boats, trains of boats, airliners, etc.

I'm waiting for other opinions (except from Bobrayner, fierce opponent of my work for years), before radically clean the page.

--FlyAkwa (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I venture the radical suggestion that we should follow sources instead of letting FlyAkwa tweak definitions and rules and subcategories. If an independent source notes that something was a rail speed record, it belongs in this article. bobrayner (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Maglevs and the like all seem to be part of the railway industry rather than the aviation industry and use related infrastructure to other rail services. Doesn't seem illogical to have them on the same page, and I for one would naturally look to a rail listing for maglev speed records. 212.159.44.170 (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Then, you refute the Wiki dedifinition of rail transportation "Rail transport is a means of conveyance of passengers and goods, by way of wheeled vehicles running on rails."...
And you deny also the authority of UIC about rail transportation, the international organisation that doesn't recognise any levitation system.
I suggest you to quickly change the definition in Wikipedia to put your own definition of rail transportation. --FlyAkwa (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Land speed record for rail vehicles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Land speed record for rail vehicles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

relative passing speed record

SCMaglev has a table with relative passing speed records and links to this article, but there is no mention of the concept and the record of 1,026 km/h here. --Espoo (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Land speed record for rail vehicles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Land speed record for rail vehicles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

What about CRH380A?

Why is is the chinese record not in the first table? http://english.sina.com/china/p/2010/1203/350743.html --JKBDre (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Land speed record for rail vehicles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Land speed record for rail vehicles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Point-to-point average speeds need to be cleaned up

The point-to-point average speed table is a mess in my opinion. Why does it have it own section? Why do the "currently active" lines have an "date to" year? Where is the Chinese transrapid line? Why are some train services, instead of rolling stock, listed under "Train"? What city is "Lorraine TGV"? I'll try to fix some of the issues I mentioned so I'd like to know if anyone has any suggestions. Dlesos (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Railway_speed_record/Archive_1&oldid=1149855937"