Talk:High-speed rail

400 People Killed?

Removed the sentence "This train however, crashed taking with it 400 lives". I can't find this accident with 400 killed mentioned neither on Wikipedia's Railroad accidents nor other places. The phrase "This train" also contradicts the sentence above. And was "this train" an interurban? According to Middleton, the worst wreck with US interurbans was the Kingslake disaster with 41 killed. Pål Jensen

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 "Rise of high speed in Europe and the U.S." 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)

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)

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)