Jump to content

Talk:Vande Bharat Express/Archive 1

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

Sources from near-duplicate article

Engine-less?

Hi, I saw this on the DYK page today, but I don't understand the notability of "engine-less". Is there a difference between Train 18 and other Electric Multiple Unit trains? It appears to me that all EMU trains are engine-less, but I don't see this term in any of their articles (AGV (train), China Railway High-speed, etc.). Harris7 (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Harris7: You're correct in that Train 18 is a typical EMU. The "engineless" descriptor is just another way of stating that it has no locomotive for the hook. Per WP:DYK, hooks are usually "short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article"—so the "engineless" hook makes a reader pause and go "huh", click on the article and learn more about EMUs (including this particular one). Hope that explanation helps! cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Pity the hook definition doesn’t say anything about “true”. I expect that the average reader who opened it thought it was going to say something meaningful, and quickly shut it muttering “ No shit, Sherlock”, or the local equivalent, under their breath. Qwirkle (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Designed and built in India

@Qwirkle: Hey, just wondering about this diff removing the text It is also the first train to be designed and built entirely in India. The assertion is absolutely supported by the source, whose opening line is "The first train set conceptualised, designed and manufactured completely in India...", and other sources cited in the article also call it the first train designed and built entirely in India. I agree with all the other changes you made to the article, but this one is supported by the source given. Did you have a contradictory source? cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 02:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Seriously: that blanket statement even passes the giggle test for you? Those sources strike you as expert and credible? You dont even smell the faintest whiff of pressreleasitis there? Qwirkle (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
@Qwirkle: I would if it were just the one source, but since it's being widely reported that way on multiple Indian news sites, I didn't. I do think that some of the sources that have been takingt about the train are little more than press releases, which is why I excluded them. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 03:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Why would a general news site, anywhere, necessarily have accurate information about a technical subject? Why would you accept the claims of a source that contradicts itself? (If two major systems, regenerative braking and the conventional brakes are sourced from another country, then it isn’t entirely designed and built in India. Period.)
A better source might say someing like “ICF says the 160km/h train has been developed with 80% domestic content”; in fact, it does. Qwirkle (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I see where the disagreement comes from then: To me, at least (and it seems many of the sources as well), design and assembly are separate from source of components. Something can still be designed and built locally with components being outsourced. They're separate things. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 15:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
”To me” isn’t a useful standard when discussing something that has been closely defined for political and economic reasons. The purely Indian version of this equipment would have no brakes. This isnt a matter of some minor cosmetics, but of an essential system.
More importantly, though, the first India-built locomotive was in 1877, with coaches probably made well before it. Even if someone eliminates those because of racist/racialist distinctions, the railways had people of local bloodline throughout their hierarchy by 1900, and the percentage toward the top kept quietly increasing.
If you consider a design which is conceptualized in India by Indians, but initially made up by assembling a mix of local and foreign sourced components as “designed and built in India!!!!!” them most equipment past ‘55 might qualify if you look at the late end of production, or the first major rebuild. The MEMUs certainly would qualify. All the post-Alco Alco’s would etc.
This is not reportage of technical innovation. It’s reportage of Modi’s Make in India (you little Trumpite, you).
Let’s Make India Great Again! Qwirkle (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Merge Vande Bharat Express with Train 18, or repurpose articles

I'm not familiar with the subject, so I'm not able to the merge/repurpose, but I suggest either the merge, or...

  • Vande Bharat Express: Keep as the article about the route of this line, with stations and all that.
  • Train 18: Keep technical details of the train set here. (Got here by a link in the former page)

As above is how it is used on other countries' lines/services and their locomotives, ie: Japan's N700 Series Shinkansen train set and the Nozomi (train) service. --Roqz (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Roqz, it looks like 5 days ago, the article, which was originally hosted at Train 18 was moved to Vande Bharat Express without discussion. Someone then cut and pasted the content of the article back to Train 18 the same day. I'll see what I can do about merging. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 13:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Roqz, the merge is  Done. I have requested a G6 to swap the article histories to leave the original history at the correct title of Train 18, and the history since the cut-and-paste move at Vande Bharat Express. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 13:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits.

@LeoFrank and ImSonyR9: Don't you guys think it will be better if we discuss the issue here in the talkpage instead. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Train 19 into Vande Bharat Express. I think that the content in the Train 19 article can easily be explained in the context of Train 18, and the Vande Bharat Express article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Train 19 will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Train 19 was supposed to be launched in 2019 with same design just with seating layout changes (from chair seating to a sleeper version, and with same other features). But, Train 19 didnt launch, and there is no further news regarding it.  :) S A H A  16:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Merge Train 20 deserves its own wikipage but train 19 seems to be a forgotten goal by ICF. The focus has instead shifted on train 20 now. Therefore, I say merging is justified. Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 07:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello, please don't merge this just now for a week at least. We are using this page to test AAlertBot for WikiProject Indian railways Thanks, --Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 02:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Not relevant anymore.Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 09:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

"Train 19" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Train 19. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 10#Train 19 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Sony R (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Archive 1

Vande Bharat Express is name of service like Habibganj - New Delhi Shatabdi Express

The Habibganj - New Delhi Shatabdi Express first went into service on 14 Nov 1988 and has its own page. If train 18 is exported, it will surely not be called VBE! Train 18 is the model number and VBE is the service. Why remove the VBE page? 211.26.202.11 (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Good point. However, please mention the source for Train 18 is the model number and VBE is the service. As per govt. source: "Indian Railways has named the indigenously manufactured Train 18 as Vande Bharat Express". —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 16:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Here it says "train 18 sets": https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/mumbai/other/rpf-constable-pravin-kumar-saves-passengers-life-at-malad-station/articleshow/68131216.cms
At 1m20s you can clearly see that the service is named VBE (22436) and Rapti Sagar Express (12522): https://youtube.com/FagL6qPBFF4?t=80 And train booking websites also says train number 22436: https://erail.in/train-enquiry/22436/NDLS/BSB 211.26.202.11 (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I see your point. I suggest you create a reliably sourced draft page for Train 18 rolling stock (model), and initiate a request for move. You may take a some ideas from articles in Category:Rolling stock of India and its subcategories. Cheers. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 18:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
This is the train set page. Look up. On 22 Feb 2019, I said "why should the VBE page be removed". Nozomi is a train service in Japan that uses N700 Series train sets. VBE is a service. 211.26.202.11 (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

6th vande bharat

6th vande bharat will start operations from 11th dec Rhi12345 (talk) 04:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Any idea about a potential Pune-Secunderabad Vande Bharat Express ?

As the route is completely electrified, we can definitely see Vande Bharat coaches set replace the ageing LHB coaches which have been in use since late July 2014.... ArnavSharma602 (talk) 04:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Speed and Acceleration

There are few repetitions to easily check and compare with different sources given and as these are not many in numbers, please don’t delete. Readers can easily check the article from its sources. Please don’t delete if a reference is of verified Facebook/ twitter page - the word “verified” is important. @Buddingboffin Poorva12303 (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand that the information is taken from the verified page.
The information was deleted based on the fact that Facebook is not a reliable source of information. In addition, you mention that the information was taken from a verified page. Hence, it becomes a primary source of information that cannot be used. WP:RSE, WP:OR
I suggest using the same information from the news articles, as if it were information put on a verified Facebook page, it would have been covered in the news articles as well, making it a more reliable source. Buddingboffin (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Table of trains in Service section

@Srr4791 The edits to the table made it too wide, the previous table was better, so reverted. If you want to propose changes, please discuss them here first to make sure that the changes improve the table. Venkat TL (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Remove unwanted columns from services tables

Column like 'Maximum permitted speed', 'Rake version' and 'Operator' is of no use to the general public. So, these columns should be removed. Also, these columns do not exist in the services tables of Rajdhani, Shatabdi, Duronto Wikipedia pages. Why do they exist here. Luckybehera2112 (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The "general public" are not the only ones visiting this article. These columns are for people like railfans. Regarding the 'Rake version', such a thing does not exist for other trains, only for Vande Bharat Express as it is an EMU. Arnav Bhate (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Average speed should not be removed

@Poorva12303 average speed should not be removed. Venkat TL (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Other train articles keep maximum speed in Infoboxes, per WP:CONSISTENT do not reinstate the average speed without due discussion. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
@CapnJackSp what are you talking about? There is no average speed in infobox. Venkat TL (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Apologies. I was confused due to your edit summary in this edit only talks about "average speed", and not about the edit you made regarding operating speeds. The above statement by me should have mentioned operating speed limits.
Nevertheless, your edit regarding average speed was still problematic because of the sourcing, so the removal is indeed correct. I did go ahead and remove the other statements attributed to the source. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Average speed is not considered, only operating speed is considered @Venkat TL kindly don't keep average speed data, no use of it as average speed also considers stoppage timing so no use as train runs 110-130 kmph not on average speeds. 202.52.150.20 (talk) 11:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
The source provided is inconsistent with the proposed material. Officials said the average speed of Vande Bharat trains is better than Rajdhani and Shatabdi Express trains due to its faster acceleration/deceleration in comparison. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The Howrah Rajdhani Express runs with an average speed of 88.21 km/hr over a distance of nearly 1500 kms for a name. So what the government officials claim is easily debunked. But this was just a dispensable trivial information to put Vande Bharat's average speed in perspective. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 08:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Any source? What you are saying seems similar to the snippets had been introduced earlier that relied on a faulty analysis to make those claims. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Look it up on Wikipedia itself, mate :) Also, like I observed above, it's besides the point and segueing into a digression. Of greater concern is the proposed inclusion of average speed of VB in the article and its lead which has garnered RTI response and attendant coverage. Do you demur to it? MBlaze Lightning (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
I would object on the grounds that is rather meaningless when "average" is distance covered/time taken, as that can vary wildly depending on number of stations, time per station, the route itself, so on and so forth, none of which is relevant to the train model itself. The comparison with other train articles is also not correct, as those are for a single route whereas this is about the train, not an individual route. If and when we have individual articles for each train route, we can state its average speed with the appropriate sourcing. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Captain Jack Sparrow, true, that's a good point and I too concur to the extent that the source's critique of average speed does not dovetail well with the very specific infobox parameters. That being so, the information could still be incorporated in the lead. The sources establish its relevance. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 04:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
The point is, there is no "one" average speed for a train. Every route has its own average speed, and it doesnt make much sense to write about average speed of route in an article about a train. If you look at articles like N700S_Series_Shinkansen and others, there isnt a mention of average speed either, but does focus on max speed. We have included operating speeds as they have received criticism, and can still be said to be relevant to the article to some extent. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Well, the point you seem to miss is the source does well to contextualize the information regarding the average running time of VB trains by providing an attendant timeframe within which the data has been constructed. i.e., the foregone two years since their inaugural run. That right there, my friend, is complete information in itself and decidedly of relevance to this parent article because independent reliable sources critique it in the context of VB trains. The article you cite doesn't mention average speed in the infobox, but which is something I have already granted: that it does not need to go in the infobox, for, as you say, the information doesn't concern the 'average' speed of a VB train on a specific route but how much have they averaged in the abstract across all routes over the two years. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 06:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC) (edited at 19:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC))

Meaning of name?

What is the meaning of Vande Bharat? This should be mentioned in the article. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 04:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

According to Monier Monier-Williams, depending on the context, vande means "to praise, celebrate, laud, extol, to show honour, do homage, salute respectfully", or "deferentially, venerate, worship, adore", or "to offer anything respectfully to".[1][2] Bharat is the indigenous name for India. 103.199.180.19 (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
As Indian Railways did not assigned any english name to the train it can be translated in various ways like - "India's Pride Express" or "Hail India Express" 103.199.180.19 (talk) 11:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
That wouldnt exactly reflect the meaning of the word "Vande".... I think the translation of "praise, salute respectfully" comes the closest, but its quite a mouthfull to call it that in english. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Praise India Express doesn't seem mouthful. Footy2000 (talk) 03:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Monier Monier-Williams, English Sanskrit Dictionary with Etymology Archived 28 April 2017 at the Wayback Machine, Oxford University Press, page 919
  2. ^ Bankimcandra Chatterji (2005). Anandamath, or The Sacred Brotherhood. Oxford University Press. p. 244. ISBN 978-0-19-534633-6.

Add a row for the time gap between 2 inauguration

Add a row for the time gap between 2 inauguration 202.179.66.33 (talk) 06:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Trivial information. It is of no use as the dates already exist. Footy2000 (talk) 09:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Redundancy in naming of the versions

Bit of a background: The first version of the train was designed and launched in 2018-19 period and it is in service for over three years. The second version of the train was designed in 2021 and launched in 2022.

This second version of the train is being used on all the new routes. Going as far as phasing out the initial service: New Delhi - Varanasi, which used the first version. There exists only a single first version service between Delhi and Katra. The second version of the train is now referred less as 'Vande Bharat 2.0' and more as 'Vande Bharat Express' itself. It is also not likely that the first versions of the train will be used anywhere again as there are currently no intentions of production.

The third generation is entirely a different service, meant to replace the premium trains for long distances including Rajdhani Express. It has a dedicated article as well. The Indian Railways may not call it Vande Bharat 3.0 to avoid disambiguity and to distinguish it, a sleeper service, from the chair service, but this is a prediction and requires waiting. Footy2000 (talk) 05:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

If and when, the New Delhi - Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Katra Vande Bharat Express service is changed to VB2, the rake version column can be replaced by a column about no. of cars. However, the section in Design about VB1 should be kept.

The Indian Railways may not call it Vande Bharat 3.0 to avoid disambiguity and to distinguish it, a sleeper service, from the chair service, but this is a prediction and requires waiting.

Yes, for now there should be no change as all sources call it Vande Bharat. Arnav Bhate (talk) 06:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Map

Provide proper map of india on the different routes taken by vande bharat or remove it 61.3.175.189 (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Remove the separate Vande Bharat Service please and instead add it to main page

I think it would be better to add vande bharat current and future services to main page like Rajdhani or Shatabdi or like Duronto. It would be awkward to make another page and clip all the info on the another page. What you all think or if not agreed then remove the table added by @Footy2000 Ayushmaansecured (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Should service table be removed and should it be replaced with Map, As size of Services table will keep on increasing

service section table should be replaces with a map to save space and data Hexatron93 (talk) 09:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I think most of the services section should be split off into its own page. Arnav Bhate (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Increase in number of services isn't a valid reason to remove the useful table especially when the entire article is about Vande Bharat Express service (trainset has its independent article). The size argument mentioned above does not comply with WP:WHENSPLIT standards either and 'large' tables are almost never the reason articles are split. I suggest the readers and editors to open a discussion on the talk page to seek multiple opinions for broader consensus before taking a significant step such as split. Footy2000♡; 20:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
I think it should remain split. The list of services article is larger in size than the main article. The Services table as you have transcluded now occupies nearly a fourth of the article's vertical space. This excludes the 30 citations that the table adds. That table does not even occupy half of the list article. All this would mean that much space will be devoted to just one subtopic. There are many readers who do not come to the article to look at the list of services.[1] Arnav Bhate (talk) 05:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Again, occupying 'large vertical space' is not a valid reason to perform undiscussed split. Almost never a Wikipedia article is split for tables alone. It is only when the subsection content is so large and independent that it exceeds Wikipedia limit of 100 kilobytes that a split is performed after broader consensus on the talk page. And the argument that 'there aren't any readers who visit the article for list of services' (despite having no tool that determines the mindset of audience) is also not correct. Wikipedia articles should be accessible for every type of audience. Including the table within the main article, especially when it doesn't warrant a separate page, allows readers to find relevant information without having to navigate through multiple pages, making this article more user-friendly and informative for everyone, regardless of their specific interests. Footy2000♡; 13:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
My argument is not 'there aren't any readers who visit the article for list of services'. Please read it properly and see the source. And I was WP:BOLD for doing the split. But it wasn't exactly undiscussed. I waited for 4 days after my reply and there was no opposition to the split. If you want a discussion, please start one. Arnav Bhate (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
The statement 'There are many readers who do not come to the article to look at the list of services' which is backed by viewership comparison between the two articles, conveys exactly that. In case if I am mistaken, I would like to know what else it could mean. However, in the viewership tool link provided above, the new list article has in fact crossed 50,000 kilobytes already, that is 20,000 kilobytes larger than the main page. Splitting is beneficial in this case but removing the transcluded section is not. Regardless, I hope to see more opinions here. Footy2000♡; 15:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Maybe I was unclear but what I meant to say is that while there may be people who come to the article to look at the list of services, there are also many people who come for other parts of the article. I think looking at the page view numbers, you will agree.

Splitting is beneficial in this case but removing the transcluded section is not.

Ok, to that I will agree. Arnav Bhate (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Pageviews Analysis".

Facilities section reads like ad copy

Hi, just published an edit because the facilities section read like an advertisement, accidentally published it without an edit message, so leaving a note here. Shantaram3013 (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

File:5th_Vande_Bharat_Express_departing_towards_Mysuru_Jn.jpg should be in-front page not anyother pic

File:5th_Vande_Bharat_Express_departing_towards_Mysuru_Jn.jpg is perfect Display pic for VB train Hexatron93 (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

no the current pic is far more better and in contrast with the orange pic. I gues Taj04 (talk) 11:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Delete Rewa - Bhopal Vande Bharat Express

Request any administrator to pls delete Rewa - Bhopal Vande Bharat Express as Rani Kamlapati (Habibganj) is already in Bhopal and it connects with Rewa.

Rani Kamalapati (Habibganj)–Rewa Vande Bharat Express

So government has already introduced it as part of route it follows the same route.

Secondly no proposed vande bharat page also exists and pls delete all the redirects of the Rewa Bhopal Vande Bharat Express Taj04 (talk) 02:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree, but not the right place for this. Please see WP:PROD. Arnav Bhate (talk) 09:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
thanks Taj04 (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
I have redirected the page as it is the best option. In case if the government plans to start the same route in future, the redirect can be removed. 42.105.159.16 (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
You have done well thanks for the support most probably it would not start as Rani Kamlapati- Rewa vande bharat is already serving it. Taj04 (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vande_Bharat_Express/Archive_1&oldid=1244645288"