Talk:Shanghai maglev train

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Transportation in China task force (assessed as High-importance).

Trains: Monorail High‑importance

	Trains Portal
DYK	June 12, 2006

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the Monorail task force.

Questions

Can two cars pass each other while traveling in opposite directions, or is there only one car moving on the tracks at any given time? AxelBoldt 05:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the pictures shows 2 tracks. Also if you search Youtube for videos of this, you will see it passes just like any other train passing. --Voidvector 01:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The situation of two cars at top speed in opposite direction was tested. Cars have passed each others in a relative speed of somewhat 800km/h and there were no problems.

I've been on the train and yes the trains pass each other. There is a slight shudder through the train as they pass each other. A tiny disturbance on an otherwise completely smooth journey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.25.176.102 (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

The article says "trill factor" under the Background section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.191.224 (talk) 05:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who made the Shangai Maglev ?

According to The Independant, which is reputed to do good journalism (something rare in the UK), the Maglev was made by Siemens and any engineer will recognize the German design. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/germans-win-bid-to-build-chinas-futuristic-rail-link-703123.html

However, sometime ago, in the news, I have found the information that the project was completed not by Siemens which had sold the technology, but Bombardier Transport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.55.41.130 (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Profitability? Costs? Losses?

Why is there no financial information about the profitability (or loss) of this? E.g., the Linimo article points out that: "the line lost over ¥3 billion in 2006. While ridership gradually increased to 16,500 ppd in 2008, the line still made a financial loss of ¥2.1 billion in FY 2009." If the Chinese government doesn't publish this info, surely some reliable source must have made some ballpark guestimates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benefac (talk • contribs) 09:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lowercase vs. uppercase for maglev train in article title

@Dicklyon: Was there any discussion or consensus on the moving of this article? I'm not sure I agree with the lowercase use here. Don't see any relevant discussion in the RfC thread. We're not dealing with a generic descriptor like line or station,Maglev is short for "Magnetic Levitation" and I would argue Maglev is definitely part of the proper name. Train could be debatable but I definitely did not see a discussion relating to whether we would decapitalize or capitalize train. This also applies to Shanghai–Kowloon Through Train, Beijing–Kowloon through train, Guangzhou–Kowloon Through Train, one of which you decapitalized but you missed the other two, creating more inconsistency. May I ask that you stop making these changes without some kind of consensus for each specific case? I do understand the need to follow Wikipedia guidelines on uppercase/lowercase, but it is not as clear cut here. This is not the same case as line or railway station, which was discussed. Even in those cases, I don't think we've come to a complete agreement given the opposition that has been voiced in the RfC. Heights^{(Want to talk?)} 04:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No specific discussion on this one, but it's not consistently capped in sources so MOS:CAPS suggests we default to lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will weakly support this but I would like to point out MOS:CAPS suggests substantial majority of cases, thus not requiring 100% compliance. I feel it is a bit of a stretch to say, for example, here's a few mentions in some book which glance at this subject briefly that did not capitalize, therefore we default to lowercase. I will agree here because I see Shanghai Daily seems to use the lowercase maglev train in its reporting, and this source probably carries some weight in this subject area. I would like to see more discussion next time before unilateral page moves on cases, such as this one, where there is a difference from the others that have been subject to discussion such as line, and railway station. In your user page you mention I was real careful to make sure consensus was firmly on the side of these moves before jumping in. Not a jab at you or anything, just wanted to point out that as we both know, this subject can get contentious so I would prefer to see more discussion and consensus over less discussion and individual judgment being made when it comes to interpretations of policies. Please don't take offense to this, I appreciate this work you've done in terms of following guidelines, it's just I feel like this case I needed to bring up as it wasn't discussed. In addition I would support the other through train articles being decapitalized as well, but maybe they require separate discussion. Thanks. Heights^{(Want to talk?)} 04:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it makes sense to have extensive discussions of individual cases that nobody is challenging. The bit about "consensus was firmly on the side of these moves" was about large groups of moves, not individual cases that might be seen as outliers. Anyway, I appreciate your help and attention, and am happy to discuss this one if it's challenged, by you or anyone. Dicklyon (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Shanghai maglev train. 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) 01:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Shanghai maglev route map.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How does the thing work

Is it electro magnets, natural magnets, what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.128.48.6 (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Torr's video, which shows a clip of the train moving at 431 km/h

I have undone a recent edit which cited Jack Torr's December 2023 video "Is CHINA what you really think? (first day in China) 🇨🇳" as "video evidence" that the train is once again running at speeds of 431 km/h. In the video a short clip is played which is implied to show the train running at 431 km/h. However, this clip is actually taken from a video uploaded to Youtube in 2018 by a different user. When Jack rides the train in the video, it only reaches 300 km/h. The video that Jack misrepresented is titled Shanghai Maglev Full Ride with Speedo - 4K, and the section used is from 3:45 to 3:55.

This is why Youtube videos make crap sources. Chappjo (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]