Talk:High-speed rail

What's with this giant image in the middle?

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

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

The "Evolution in Europe/North America" section

This section has two broblems:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Aadaams. Thanks for your edits.

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

Equally, the previous chapter include Europe and USA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advocacy or Information?

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

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

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

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

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

Vandalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I copy-paste the chapter sworded here :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

High-speed line in Morocco

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

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

Chinese max high speed / railwaygazette

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A recurrent problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Verifiability, not truth

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

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

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

Try Google Map Measurement Tool [1] by yourselves. When I carefully tried to click along the side of the line plotted by Google Map from Leiyang West station to Shaoguan station (took me a while), it came up with 228 km. Although, it is not in a perfect alignment, my judgement is that it would have an error of a few kilometers at the most. If it would have run max speed the whole time given that length for 47 minutes, it would be 291 km/h. In reality, it needs acceleration and deceleration. Also, location that cut through the mountain is curvy and would need to run at lower speeds. Those factors will bring the max speeds on the straight portion in the middle to be higher than 291 km/h. However, we rely on the assumption that Google Map plot the line correctly. My observation is the followings:

• The UK’s Railway Performance Society uses 248 km (475 - 227) from which I believe it is from the provided fare schedule ([2][3][4]) which could have been from the same primary source. The ticket price goes by distance so the distances on the fare schedule could be in doubt of inflation.
• The internet forum that discussed the issue used source from the "Route map" in the infobox of Wuhan–Guangzhou High-Speed Railway to derive the 206 km distance (758 - 552). However, I could not find the source of that the information in the infobox. I have placed Citation needed template in that box. If someone know the source of this, we could then put that into consideration.
• The line that Google Map plots is not that accurate. You can see that the line is about 400 meters to the east of the actual rail line. The curvature are not in the same shape as in the actual rail line. Also, in the mountain area in the middle where the line is not that straight, there is no visible rail line to compare with Google Map plotting. Either the image was old where the line has not been fully constructed or the rail line goes inside tunnels. Either way, there is not way to visually confirm Google Map accuracy. So, in reality, it could have been 248 km or it could have been 206 km.

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

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

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

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

File:Leiyang - Shaoguan.png

Distance between Leiyang and Shaoguan

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

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

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

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

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

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

Santiago de Compostela

What's the deal with Santiago de Compostela? Why the edit war? Please stop reverting and start talking, here. bobrayner (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Santiago de Compostela Disaster involve High-speed train running at 200 km/h seconds before the accident, and tail of the train was on High-Speed Line when head derailed.

This accident is very comparable with Eschede Disaster, that has never been contested as High Speed rail disaster.

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

In this case, I agree with FlyAkwa, the article should include this accident. A very notable event and it involves high speed train. Z22 (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

This accident is not considered high speed:

1. The train was a Alvia S-730 high performance train not high speed train, in Spain 240 km/h not considered high speed.

2. The line is a reformed conventional prepared for high speed, without ERTMS, Iberian gauge, maximum speed of 220 km/h, with small radius curves and voltage of 3 kV. This line not high speed rail.

In Spanish ( http://www.vialibre-ffe.com/noticias.asp?not=11159&cs=oper ) (http://www.02b.com/es/notices/2013/07/el_accidente_atemoriza_a_las_empresas_que_pujan_por_el_ave_de_brasil_6826.php )

Bucyrus (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The S-730 train itself is a high-speed train with top speeds of 250 km/h (see this [5]). Although it is hybrid which can switch between high-performance and high-speed, but with that top speeds, the rolling stock part would qualify for the High-Speed status as per UIC. We should call it what it is. It is a high-speed train with additional capability to run on conventional network. The infrastructure that the accident took place is not a high-speed rail infrastructure, however. Since this article is in the subject of high-speed rail which includes high-speed trains and high-speed rail infrastructure, it is appropriate to include this accident in this article. Z22 (talk) 06:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Shinkansen power frequency

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