Talk:Korea Train Express

Off-topic or not (edit conflicts)

In the section describing the modal shift achieved by the KTX, non-registered editor 81.111.115.63 recently added a half-sentence about similar success for the TGV, with source. I thought such specific references are off-topic in this article (they would be on-topic in the TGV article) and removed it, but that editor insisted it belongs there and re-inserted it with another reference for Eurostar. Would a Wiki editor other than me (and hopefully with more experience in edit conflicts) voice his/her opinion on this?

In my opinion, comparing KTX and TGV without a source for the comparison (not the figures) is WP:SYNTH. Jpatokal (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Another issue: this user also changed the section title "Ridership" into "Passengers", whereas I am accustomed to the former as the proper term for the issue at hand. But English is not my first language, so could someone advise on this, too? --Rontombontom (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Ridership is definitely a more precise term. Jpatokal (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not blame me for the "Ridership" to "Passengers" conversion, if you check the log properly you'll see that it was done by Ettrig, not me. I actually prefer Ridership if my view counts for anything. I'll read over WP:SYNTH. Sorry for taking so long to answer here, I was off on other wiki pages.81.111.115.63 (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Having had a read of WP:Synth, I fail to see the critical synthesis, I see no shaping or combining of the sentence conclusion. It has not in any way changed or altered the degree of the sentence, other than providing background for the trend(which as my understanding of Synth is not incorrect). It was designed to be of by-the-by relivance between high speed trains. Could you explain more clearly why you feel it would belong any more on the TGV article than the KTX one, as I understand it that would simply be flipping it (and putting it into a historically reverse perspective, which isn't exactly encouraged). I am interested in hearing more, I wish to understand the objections full and come to some sort of acceptable and correct conclusion, rather than this abrupt silence on a mildly troubling issue.81.111.115.63 (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"Ridership" is an Americanism. When an American "rides the bus", other English people think they are talking about sitting on the roof like Indians in India do.Eregli bob (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it is spreading in official documents in the UK, too: for example, Transport of London talks just of bus ridership. --Rontombontom (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Dick size comparison

Jpaktokal, would inserting "citation needed" and asking here in Talk not have been more appropiate than flat-out deletion? For, what you characterised as dick size comparison is Korail's, in the article referenced just before the deleted sentence, and you can find external sources for negation in the linked Wiki sources. I am re-inserting the sentence with slight edit and references added. --Rontombontom (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have two problems with the statement. First, it's not really very important or meaningul for some press release to claim it's the 4th vs the 6th system in the world, and second, your attempts to prove Korail/Rotem wrong here is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, since neither of the sources you added mentions KTX. (By contrast, the cites in the previous paragraph debunking Korail's more significant claim of the KTX-II being 100% Korean are about the KTX.) So I think the best solution is just to nuke it entirely. Jpatokal (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

On the relative importance of Korail/Rotem/South Korean governmental claims about the trains being Made in Korea and 4th in the world, I disagree with your opinion that one is mere dick size comparison and the other more significant. Both represent a national aspiration to be there among the best, and neither measure they have chosen is of too much import (say, the German ICE 3 is not 100% German technology, either). I also note that even Korail doesn't claim 100% Korean technology explicitely, while the figure from Rotem I inserted is 87%.

However, after a close reading of WP:SYNTH, I see I would have to quote an external source explicitely criticising either South Korean claim in a quality article. Incidentally, the only one I found so far is here on Wikipedia, HSR-350x (itself an article all over the place), so I submit for now and nuke the sentence as you wish. I'm removing the debunk-ish part of the foreign technology sentence, too. --Rontombontom (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yay! Looks much better now. And yes, that HSR-350x article needs a lot of work... would a joint HSR-350x/KTX-II article make sense? Jpatokal (talk) 04:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Until Rotem doesn't export it under whatever name (to Turkey or Brazil) and KTX-II lacks a service history, a joint article does make sense. But, as you say, lot of work, and I'm working on other articles in my Wiki time... --Rontombontom (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed sentence on foreign suppliers

Ziggymaster, you have removed a sentence without giving a justification either here or in the edit credits. Could you state your reasons? Otherwise, I will revert it.Rontombontom (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

ambiguous information

"While Hyundai Rotem has described[10] the trains as the "commercial outcome" of the HSR-350x, not a TGV derivative, the trains still use some components from European TGV suppliers like Voith.[11] The first six trainsets are scheduled to be delivered in June 2009." Voith is "an" European supplier, not European suppliers. Please do not put any ambiguous sentence that delivers misinformation. Also please do not say "some components" but name those components. Lastly, Voith is a company that not only does TGV supply, but engaging in numerous (mechanical) engineering activities around the world. Thus mentioning Voith as one of European TGV suppliers is inappropriate. It should be something like German/(European less precisely) (mechanical) engineering company. Since the quote above contains much ambiguous and unclarified information, it is removed from the main article now. Any ambiguous sentences or words that are not straigt out from reliable source are subject to removal from the main article.

In about one minute on Google, I found two other non-Korean companies, IXYS (propulsion systems) and MBD Design (rolling stock design), that have also worked on the KTX-II. I've corrected "TGV supplier" to "international supplier", but the point here is that Hyundai's claim of these trains being HSR-350x derivatives "based on our own know-how" is, to phrase it nicely, misleading. Jpatokal (talk) 08:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Any person who is not reetarded and has the intelligence quotient of 100 would know that there is no way Rotem can design and manufacture a high-speed train with only "their own know-how". That said, everyone who has a properly functioning brain would know that claim is bullshit. One reason not to trust corporate websites because they are unlikely to be reliable.

no citation at all

Please cite your reference for claiming "The tracks were built with technical assistance from SNCF technicians."

From SNCF website: "1999: Assistance in electrifying the Daegu-Busan and Daejon-Mokpo lines. This contract consisted in advising the client on the electrification process for the portion of track between Daegu and Busan. It not just consisted in electrifying the tracks, but also on linking the existing conventional rails to the High Speed line, making their way of functioning compatible and assuring that the KTX got the electrical power suitable in order to operate." [1] Jpatokal (talk) 08:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Besides, "A spur line from Seoul to Gangneung on the northeast coast was under consideration, but seems to have been shelved after Korea's bid for the 2014 Winter Olympics failed." is totally incorrect because this plan was scrapped way before 2014 Winter Olympics host vote, and even before 2010 Winter Olympics host vote. Actually, the plan was tossed in 1998 because it was absolutely uneconomical.

Got source? Jpatokal (talk) 08:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

http://frdb2.wo.to/641.htm

Broken. Jpatokal (talk) 09:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're not reeetarded just go and click 동서고속철도. If you have at least the intelligence quotient of 100, you could have thought of googling it.

I don't see a link called 동서고속철도 (or anything close it) on that page, and I was asking you for reliable sources, not random fanboy (dare I say "kenkanryu"?) sites.

And calling people "retarded" is more effective if you spell the word right =) Jpatokal (talk) 08:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

kenkanryu and fanboy are obviously very different. Anyhow, because I did not cite that source in the main article, it did not have to be very dependable. Your problem was that you referenced random kenkanryu websites in the main article. See the difference? BTW, Click on 개통시기별 to see 동서고속철도 you duuumaasss. If you want a reliable source, go and google it you jeeerrrk.

Again, if you are not reeetarded and have the intelligence of 100, you would know that correctly spelled reeetarded might automatically call someone's attention. 凸 ^_^ 凸 Oh, don't forget to mention what was your source in the bottom section. 61.99.38.197 (talk) 07:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

no supporting source and incorrect information

It's jpatokal again. Let me go over your bogus inputs. "The initial trainsets are TGV-A models with minor modifications." (Added at 12:24 on 17AUG2004) - Yes, KTX trainsets are based on TGV-A models, but who said "with minor modifications?" They are based on TGV-A trainsets, however KTX transets have few significant differences from TGV-A; for instance, increased number of passenger cars of which two have motors to supply extra power inputs for additional passenger cars, regenerative braking system, traction equipments. I'm not sure if you can call them minor modifications unless you know how to do them. "The next generation of KTX trains, the HSR-350x, is based on the TGV-R trainset, but with over 80% locally produced in Korea. The trains may be introduced into service as early as 2008." (Added at 12:24 on 17AUG2007) "The next generation of KTX trains, the HSR-350x (KTX II), is based on the TGV-R trainset, but with over 80% locally produced in Korea. The trains may be introduced into service as early as 2009." (Edited at 05:28 on 4JUL2008 to add "KTX II") - What's your source for this? Please don't tell me that you quoted this from a random kenkanryu Japanese rail publication. First KTX-II is not HSR-350x. Although you can say KTX-II is based on HSR-350x, they are not the same. You will find differences in traction systems, the former equips IGCT and the latter equips IGBT; maximum capable speed; motors; braking mechanisms. Next, the train is not based on TGV-R trainset at all. While Alstom gave some high-speed technologies to S.Korea as a part of TGV purchase deal, core technologies or technologies considered important were kept away. Therefore it was not possible to design KTX-II based on any TGV type, and even the technologies that S.Korea obtained were patented or licensed to Alstom. Overall, the only remarkable TGV technology that is incorporated in KTX-II is wheel part (including Jacobs bogie). According to the manufacturer, Rotem(Hyundai), 92% of KTX-II is locally produced. "A further improvement to 1 hour and 56 minutes on the Gyeongbu Line is expected in 2010, when the train will begin to run entirely on high-speed tracks." (Edited at 12:28 on 17AUG2007) - Where the hell did you get this information. No such thing as improvement to 1:56 will happen in 2010 or in next some years. In fact, it will not break under two hours in the foreseeable future. That's because KTX will not run entirely on high-speed track in the foreseeable future.

jpatokal, what do you know about S.Korea? Obviously you could not even differentiate between Jeonju bibimbap and Jinju bibimbap, then introduced Jinju bibimbap as a famous Korean cuisine and Jinju being famous for its bibimbap on Wikipedia(Wikitravel). Go and ask any Korean if they have ever heard Jinju bibimbap or Jinji is famous for bibimbap. I've seen numerous Korean restaurants carrying Jeonju bibimbap in their menu, but never seen Jinju bibimbap. Also, what do you know about engineering? Are you professional in an engineering field? If not, why do you publish information that you don't know about. I doubt if you know much about S.Korea or TGV engineering, but you add and edit so much on this KTX page by referencing some random Japanese kenkanryu source. "The next generation of KTX trains, the HSR-350x (KTX II), is based on the TGV-R trainset, but with over 80% locally produced in Korea. The trains may be introduced into service as early as 2009." This is what was exactly published in "Japan Railfan Magazine" a while ago. While there is no question about Japan having superior train technology than S.Korea, the article in "Japan Rail Magazine" did take very pejorative tone in describing KTX.

If you know not much about S.Korea or engineering, why do you not stop delivering misinformation in this page? Just leave it so that those people who really know the technical details of KTX would edit this page. In the meantime you can go to "2ch" or any other kenkanryu website, and mock KTX or contempt it. Wikipedia is not the place where you can do kenkanryu stuff.

Paula, is that you?

I wrote the very first version of this article back in 2004, drew the map, and took that train picture on my first KTX ride. I even created the original Korean Wikipedia stub for the KTX! My primary sources included the English-language Korean media and, later, was JRTR's article in 2005, written by Kim Chun-Hwan, General Director of High-Speed Rail at KORAIL. If you have better or newer sources, by all means please update the article, but please provide your sources.

Finally, I have no idea what Jinju bibimbap has to do with KTX, but it's the first local speciality mentioned on the official Jinju tourism site. While not as famous as Jeonju's version, it's available everywhere in Jinju, and it's pretty good stuff too. Jpatokal (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Dude, are you dyslexic? Where the hell in that article says KTX-II is based on TGV-R and over 80% locally produced in S.Korea? If you have functioning eyes, read these. http://www.hani.co.kr/section-021003000/2004/11/021003000200411030533019.html http://news.mk.co.kr/newsRead.php?year=2007&no=243691 The first article states that KTX-II is not based on any TGV, and mentions that KTX-II utilizes only one patent, wheel part (Jacobs bogie) as mentioned above, licensed to TGV. The second article states that KTX-II is 92% locally produced in S.Korea. http://www.donga.com/fbin/output?n=200608230222 This article says the trip from Seoul to Busan will take 130 minutes when the new tracks via Gyeongju are completed. Why 130min? Because they are not going to build HSR tracks through Daejeon and Daegu due to cost.

jpatokal, again what do you know about S.Korea or engineering? If you do know neither S.Korea nor engineering in detail, please leave this article to those who really know the stuffs about KTX so that they will edit it. You are just blabbing without knowing anything.

Also could you please stop making ridiculous excuses like you did in bibimbap article? Why did you make bullshit excuses above and reverted what I edited? Just admit that you quoted from "Japan Railfan Magazine". Although I do not know about KTX in detail as much as professionals do, I do know about KTX more than you do for sure. Why did I mention bibimbap here? Just to point out that you know totally nothing about S.Korea. It's annoying to see you publishing wrong information about S.Korea on Wikipedia and Wikitravel. Just put your hands away from S.Korea stuff if you don't know. BTW, bibimbap is available in any Korean restaurant, and the bibimbap picture with "Jinju bibimbap" title that you posted in Jinju article and S.Korea article was NOT Jinju bibimbap, but Jeonju bibimbap okay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.213.74.39 (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Good, now put your sources into the article.

As for the whole KTX-II/HSR-350x mess, let's see if I've got this straight. The original KTX-I, or "TGV-K", is a slightly customized TGV-Atlantique/Reseau (aka TGV-A/R, it's just different variants of the same basic train).[2] The HSR-350x, now "Hanvit 350", is a Korean-built experimental high speed train; it's never going to enter mass production as such.[3] The KTX-II has been sold by Hyundai and the Korean media as "fully indigenous" [4]; however, they're using European TGV suppliers like Voith Turbo, who say in their own press release that "This train is a further development of the TGV-based Korea Train eXpress KTX I" [5].

Do you agree with the above? If no, do you have reliable sources to the contrary? Jpatokal (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, dude. Your article is totally unreliable. I didn't even finish reading because even the first paragraph is incorrect. Your source says KTX-II will be used on the new high-speed tracks between Daegu and Busan. But it will NOT. This is just one good proof that how UNRELIABLE your source is.

The first source is from 2004, of course network plans have changed since then. That doesn't mean that the article's description of the technology in the existing KTX-I trains is incorrect! Jpatokal (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Scrap off that please. Go thru some disinterested articles which will provide better insightful information than your questionable source. "This train is a further development of the TGV-based Korea Train eXpress KTX I" This is totally a statement from one company which knows hardly anything about KTX-II in detail. Rotem is NOT permitted to conduct development of any component or part equipped in KTX-I because that is considered abusing patents licensed to Alstom. If Rotem does that, they will be sued by Alstom right away. Most of all, the author of your source does not even know where KTX-II will be used. Hence it's obvious that the three sources that I provided is million times more reliable than your doubtful source. If you have a brain, think. How would the supplier of coupler(bogie) would know that KTX-II is a further development of KTX-I? FYI, it's wouldn't be wrong to say that KTX-II is a further development of HSR-350x because KTX-II is a mass production version of HSR-350x although they did make some modifications, but it is definitely wrong to say KTX-II is a further development of KTX-I. Also, HSR-350x has entered mass production for Turkey although I'm not sure if there were some modifications from the original HSR-350x. You're just a kenkanryu guy.

BTW, how could you say that "TGV-A/R, it's just different variants of the same basic train"? TGV-A and TGV-R look very different to me. First, traction equipments with motors are different. Car body materials are different. Trainset-consists are different. They might look the same to you because you absolutely know NOTHING, but try to derive TGV-R from TGV-A on your own labor. To me, TGV-R looks much advanced than TGV-A. This is just as absurd as it can be.

Lastly, could you tell me what is your source of "The next generation of KTX trains, the HSR-350x (KTX II), is based on the TGV-R trainset, but with over 80% locally produced in Korea. The trains may be introduced into service as early as 2009." this quote? I did NOT find that quote in any of your references provided in the KTX article. Why do you edit the article without providing a valid source when you ask others to do so? Because you're just a hypocrite?

Thanks for adding the sources. Yes, the TGV Reseau (1992-1996) is newer than the TGV Atlantique (1988-1991), but it's still fundamentally the same — the only significant difference mentioned on WP is that the TGV-R is pressure-sealed, and so is the KTX — and that's why some sources say that KTX is based on TGV-R [6] and some say that it's based on TGV-A [7]. Which one is more correct? Should we list both?

And no, I can't find a source claiming that the HSR-350x is based on the TGV. Obviously Alstom's (now rejected) proposal for the KTX-II was based on the TGV though, and the source may have been referring to that instead, so it's good that the confusion is now sorted out. Jpatokal (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

When you say "some sources", shouldn't you cite more than one?

[8] (by SNCF!) [9] ... Jpatokal (talk) 08:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The source that you provided mentioning KTX-I is based on TGV-R must have been either typo or it's just they have no clue. BTW, how can TGV-A and TGV-R be fundamentally the same when they have different traction equipments and weights? Most of all, TGV-R is considerably lighter than TGV-A by replacing steel with aluminum and adapting hollow axles. This is not something to be disregarded because it makes a distinguishable difference in construction cost. Had KTX-I designed after TGV-R, they could have reduced the weight of trainset substantially. Consequently, that would have resulted in saving construction cost. When construction cost sums up to billions of dollars, saving even 1% does make a difference. Besides, Alstom announced that KTX would be based on TGV-A.

Do you have a source for Alstom announcing this? It would be an excellent reference. Jpatokal (talk) 08:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

For KTX, they added eight extra passenger cars, and one car on each end of the trainset are equipped with motor unit so that additional power can be delivered for pulling the eight extra cars. Therefore it's more correct to say that KTX-I is based on TGV-A. Also, please don't call "we" here since I'm uninterested in cooperating with someone who just cites from random Japanese kenkanryu sources.

I haven't cited any Japanese sites at all, unless you count the one article in JRTR, which was written by Korail's own head of high-speed rail. Jpatokal (talk) 08:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

blah blah blah, what a ffucccking bullllshhiit. Then what was the source? jpatokal, you just give damn too much diiiiirrrrrty excuses. Just be straight man. It's just too evident that you kiss Japaneses' aaaasssss.

Comparisons

I deleted a sentence at the end of the Ridership section saying,

This compares favourably, for example, with the French TGV, which in its fourth calendar year of operation carried an average of about 38,000 passengers per day.

This claim is unsourced, compares apples and oranges, and is incoherent in the text. One could speak of a 'favourable comparison' would the first TGV line have had the same catchment area (demand side), and the same construction costs (supply side). The latter are much higher for the KTX, meaning a need for much higher passenger numbers to break even financially, which was also reflected by the initial ridership projections quoted in the text. I added a half-sentence to emphasize this circumstance. Rontombontom (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The claim is sourced, but not in the content of the page, but in the "edit summary". It could have been in the text with a clear link to the TGV article on the French wikipedia (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV#Activit.C3.A9), but I felt it was an overkill (subjective).

As to the comparison, again, I know that these two high-speed rail projects are not the same (are any two of high-speed rail projects?). But still, I think a comparison does help to understand what the ridership numbers are. I think a broader comparison, involving ridership on every high-speed line that was built as first in a country would give a nice perspective on the KTX ridership, but data for that might be difficult to obtain.

Finally, as to the costs, the amount of French investment in the TGV was well above the Korean one. Do not forget, the French have carried a long and costly R&D on the TGV; the Koreans have bought the developed technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kowart (talk • contribs) 17:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

First, I am sorry for such a late reply when you replied almost instantly. I somehow completely forgot about this, and only saw it now when reviewing the fate of my older Wikipedia edits.

As to the sourcing. You can give multiple links for the same source (you have to name the reference - e.g. someting like name="ClaimSource" in the ref tag - on the first occasion, and when using it again, you just have to copy that opening ref tag, and end the tag with /> instead of just a > ). An other-language Wiki article is not a source; if that article is sourced, then that can be the source, otherwise, the French-language WIki has the same problem. I will now look into that.

Above I misread you and didn't get what you referred to with "edit summary", now I did... But, when quoting figures, or more, when calculating figures as I now see you did, it's better to source in the article.

I have looked at the French Wiki, where I found the annual passenger numbers -- unfortunately, unsourced. However, I managed to track down the source, added it to the French and German Wikipedia articles, and then added both the table and the source to the English TGV article, too. Then I could insert a comparison into the KTX article, with a qualification as I argued for below, hope it is okay with everyone that way.Rontombontom (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

As to the comparison, again: it does not help to compare apples and oranges. This applies at the other end of the spectrum, too: there are lines in Spain with catchment area population, passenger numbers and line construction costs below that of the French line; thus it would be invalid for a critic to compare the two on the basis of passenger numbers alone. If you want to use the French example for a ballpark comparison, at least also give the respective populations at the two ends of the line, and the line construction costs.

As to the costs: your argument with R&D costs is irrelevant for three grounds. First, you have to separate R&D costs from the costs of a line: the train development obviously benefitted later lines, too. Second, while R&D is costly in time and money, it is still dwarfed by the cost of the resulting batch of orders. For scale, some figures: the TGV train and test series that achieved the world record costed €30 million (source), the development of the AGV, the effective reinvention of the TGV, costs €100 million - while the first order for 25 trains is worth €650 million (see this article). Even assuming that all five test trains in the TGV development program (X4300 TGS, Z8001 Zébulon, TGV 001, TGV Sud-Est 01 and 02) incurred relative costs as high as the AGV, that could equal the cost of just 20 sets - while the initial order was for 87 sets. Third, the cost of the trains is again dwarfed by the cost of line construction. Rontombontom (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice research, but unfortunately it's all original research and thus not appropriate. The KTX was criticized for not meeting its own targets, not some hypothetical comparison to the TGV. Jpatokal (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I have not posted and did not plan to post the above information and Talk argument as part of the article. I am okay with your removal of the (older) passage; though, having omitted any links, it wasn't even WP:OR.Rontombontom (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguities

In December 2004, South Korea joined the ranks of high speed train countries of France, Germany and Japan when locally-developed KTX broke the 350km/h speed barrier.

It looks like 161.149.63.106 parroted South Korean news reports. What is the definition of "high speed train countries?" Too ambiguous. --Nanshu 00:59, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The definition of high speed train countries is a country that has developed a train that has a maximum speed above 300kmph. (Wikimachine 21:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC))

You're doubly incorrect and I've reverted your edit. First, the high-speed rail article states the limit is 200 km/h; second, even with the 300 km/h limit Spain, Belgium, Italy and China also qualify. Jpatokal 04:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

the demand fell short of the initial expection of 70% -- does this mean demand was 70% of the expected figure (0.7x), or 70% less than the expected figure (0.3x)? What are the actual ridership figures? And a cite for the prime minister's quote, please, Google News finds nothing. Jpatokal 15:05, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The former. [10] --Nanshu 14:44, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not sure I like the term "ridership". This is not a common one in English. May I suggest "Passenger usage"? Or just plain "usage"? --User:IantheLibrarian 22:18, 8 JUL 2006 (BST)

"Ridership" is a quite often used standard term in American railroad literature. See for example | APTA statistics page. Less used in Britain, where they say "frequentation" or just "Passenger numbers". Rontombontom (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

At least when I worked on the high-speed rail article, it was different.

"The countries that have developed high-speed rail technology include: Japan, France, China, Italy, Germany, the United Kingdom, Korea, and Spain."

Also the article states that limit is 250km/h-300km/h, not 200km/h. You wouldn't reject this. Right? Thanks. (Wikimachine 03:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC))

I will reject it, because it's irrelevant. This is about KTX, not other countries or their rail systems. All you're trying to do is prove that Korea is somehow superior because it has this technology and some other countries don't, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. Jpatokal 06:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent KTX crash?

Apparently, there was an accident recently, involving two KTX trains... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.76.57.38 (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right on that, 2 KTX trains collided inside Busan Station in the early morning of November 3. I've only found news report of it in Korean, including this one [11], containing a video report showing the crash. The damages were minor and there were no casualties, so this is probably why it hasn't been so big in the news. The article seems to mention a possibility of a problem about the signaling system. — Luccas 11:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Reassessment

I have reclassified this article as a C. Ideally a B should have more subsections, I would expect a section on the technical details and another on the origins for the KTX program. In addition referencing needs to be extended and increased, which will be easiest hand in hand with the new sections if someone more fluent in the Korean language cares to found. This should make this article of more worth to people looking for information on the KTX; in essence a past, present, and future of the KTX would be desirable, we have the current and future network plans, but the development and origins deserves a section of its own with far more detail upon how it as a concept came to be, is it simply the idea of one government for instance? I wish this article and its editors luck in this challenge, and may drop in to lend a hand from time to time.86.155.132.194 (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This is "start class" hopeful C to be honest (opinion). The "passenger numbers and usage" section is GOOD (I didn't write it), the history section needs expansion. Dates, construction challenge, length, companies etc, better overview of why it was built (city sizes?) etc.

I've done some expansion on rolling stock, still in progress. + sectionalise. I can't/won't do the other bits on history - probably need a fluent korean reader.77.86.42.133 (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments on the "passenger numbers and usage" section (I wrote most of it :-) ). Now I expanded the history section greatly. Re-assessment? --Rontombontom (talk) 13:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that a lot of the older citations need format cleanup... will do tomorrow. --Rontombontom (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Format changes

I've changed the sections into:

• History (by chronology of line construction)
• Rolling stock (links to individual articles) (KTX-II under construction, also HEMU.. later)

Having separate articles for rolling stock seems standard practice. Please feel free to expand on operations of the rolling stock if relevent in the individual articles. As the info is referenced systematically in the "main" articles I haven't bothered to extensively reference the abstracts linking to the rolling stock articles.

Although I've added section headings to the "history of lines" section I haven't expanded it, someone else may want to look at that.77.86.42.133 (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Supplimentary question

There's a korean tilting train in development (or maybe already in production) - is this relevent to this article - or is it for a different service (non-high speed lines?) anyone know? Thanks.Shortfatlad (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

From what I've read, it is meant to improve the speeds on the older lines. The new High Speed lines are mainly straight, while many of the older Korean branch lines have tight curves. Think of the Virgin SuperVoyager in the UK, a similar role to that, homegrown. It also doesn't get close to 200 Kmph, so it hasn't been built for speed even on the 'old' mainline routes still in operation. Kyteto (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

KTX is compatible for two kinds of rail lines, old one(Daegu-Busan) and new one (Seoul-Daegu). New one is already constructed (in other words.. upgraded) and can boost speed up to above 300 km/h. Old one is conventional rail line which other kinds of train(Sarmaul / Moogoonwha) uses. Also KTX can use that line but speed is limited to 120 km/h for technical reason. (as article says... upgrading is in process)

	New line	Old line
compatibility	KTX only	all trains (KTX / Saemaul / Moogoonwha)
high speed	over 300 km/h	120 km/h

In addition, all KTX trains travel up to 300km/h from Seoul~Daegu and travel 120km after Daegu. (I'm kinda KTX-holic lol) -- Modamoda (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits - is there a problem

The recent edits seem to be doing and undoing each other (jan 2010) - are there any current issues with the article? If so please discusss here first.Shortfatlad (talk) 12:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Can I suggest this point http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korea_Train_Express&oldid=337982849 as a starting point from which the article should be discussed for changes - I note several issues in general:

1. The section part " Hyundai Rotem has described the trains as the "commercial outcome" of the HSR-350x, ..." has been removed - is their a reason for this?

2. The section HEMU-400X - is there a reason why it is removed

3. The main image - what is best - please discuss

4. Whether or not KTX-II has replaced KTX-I, and other changes to the lead section.

1. I would also like to know why Softjuice keeps removing this.

2. The HEMU-400X info is still in the article?

3. I think the new KTX-II image is fine.

4. Obviously it has not "replaced" KTX-I yet, the KTX-II has not even started commercial service yet. (According to ja-wp, service is scheduled to start with the Honam Line in April 2010.) Jpatokal (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Dunno.

2. HEMU 400X is currently in the article - I can't see why it shouldn't be there.

3. Not bothered either way - an image with both types of train together would be truly iconic. -We haven't got one -yet.

4. k. I would expect KTX-I to continue for many years (only 9 years old) - train life is usually decades - so I think the new ones will suppliment them.

I removed references to a bullet train - the generic term is used a bit [12] - in Korea do they call it the bullet train?Shortfatlad (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Move

Technical issues and accidents (KTX-I). This incidents are all TGV based KTX-I incidents. Irrelevant to KTX2, KTX3, and whole Korea Trains. Irrelevant to this topic. Moreover, KTX2, KTX3, Both trains largely different from KTX1. (KTX1 is exactly French TGV train. KTX2 and KTX3 are almost Korean technology) And both trains has not reported problems.Ssyublyn (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for revealing the reason for your move. So, no: they're KTX accidents, and belong in the KTX main article, in the same way that TGV, Shinkansen etc list their accidents in the main article. Jpatokal (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No. they're KTX1 accidents. Not the whole KTX systems. KTX1 is wholly different from KTX2 and 3. Topic is belong in the KTX1 main article. Title name is "Technical issues and accidents". The only technical issue was KTX1 system. It pretty vague incidents though. (tunnels, trackbed etc, those are not cleary connenct with Technical issue of KTX1) Also KTX2 is only one train running. no problem reported. Unlike your claim, Shinkansen is not list their accidents in the main article.Ssyublyn (talk) 00:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

1. KTX1 : Exactly import of French TGV. The license, intellectual property rights and whole technical issues relate to French TGV. It should not permit to export or selling.
2. KTX2, KTX3 : The license, intellectual property rights belong to Korean company. wholly different from TGV. It can freely export ot selling.
3. tunnels, trackbed etc, those are not Technical issue of train.Ssyublyn (talk) 01:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly right: this article is about the KTX system as a whole, not the KTX-1 train, which is why all information about KTX issues and accidents belongs on this page.

Is it only reason of your edit? poor reason. All of its Acciddents are KTX-1 trian. And some of its topic has nothing to do with KTX. (tunnels, trackbed etc, those are not cleary connenct with Technical issue of KTX1) And some of its topic was not "accident".

KTX-1 is wholly difference train from KTX-2. license, intellectual property rights of KTX-2 & 3 are not belong to French TGV.

All of incidents are KTX1 accidents. And you very confused "Korail" from "KTX". Korain is operated KTX. But, KTX is not Korail. eg. Tunnel design responsible for construction comapany. It was not belong to KTX subject.Ssyublyn (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

And Shinkansen does list their accidents at Shinkansen#Safety record — it's just that they have had almost no accidents! Jpatokal (talk) 08:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Almost no accident? Are you kidding? What is this ? [13] How about Shinkansen derail accident at 2004? How about accident of escape bolt during run at 1998? What is these?[14][15][16][17] I can find Shinkan accidents more if you want. but simply out of topic at here. Ssyublyn (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Links 1 and 4 are about the derailment accident in 1994 (the only derailment accident, to be precise) which is already mentioned in the Shinkansen article. Links 2 and 3 are about people committing suicide by jumping in front of trains, which is already mentioned in the Shinkansen article. And link 5 is a list of other Japanese train accidents that doesn't seem to have anything at all to do with Shinkansen, except for one more mention of somebody being hit by a train. But hey, if you're unhappy with the Shinkansen article, go improve it.

"if you're unhappy with the Shinkansen article, go improve it." Later. Not here.

Amagasaki rail crash

March 4, 1971: Collision at a level-crossing on a line of Fuji Express Railways: 14 killed, 68 injured.

October 25, 1971: Head-on collision in a tunnel of Kinki Nippon Railways: 25 killed, 236 injured.

November 6, 1972: Train fire in the Hokuriku tunnel of JNR: 31 killed, 637 injured.

December 28, 1986: Trains fall from a railway bridge on the Sanin line of JNR: 6 killed, 6 injured.

December 5, 1988: Rear-end collision on the Chuo line of JR East: 2 killed, 109 injured (The first accident after the privatization of JNR)

May 14, 1991: Head-on collision on a line of Shigaraki-Kogen Railways: 42 killed, 614 injured.

December 27, 1995: Accident at Mishima Station on the Shinkansen line of JR Central: 1 passenger killed. The first fatal accident since the inauguration of the Shinkansen line in 1964.

March 8, 2000: Tokyo subway hits a derailed train: 5 killed, 33 injured.

April 25, 2005: Derailment in Amagasaki on the Fukuchiyama Line of JR West: 107 killed, 461 injured.

We says these are cleary shinkansen "accident". Ssyublyn (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah.. i found some interesting news, you can read this

ＪＲ西に事故やトラブルの説明を申し入れ　脱線事故遺族ら

... 月の山陽新幹線の保守車両による衝突事故や、同社車掌が電車から予備電源装置のヒューズを抜き取った事件など、ＪＲ西で起きた最近の事故などを指摘。これらについ ... 2010 9月9日（木） 20時54分-社会（産経新聞）-記事[18]Template:JaSsyublyn (talk) 11:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

And oh, a tunnel built for the KTX and used only by the KTX is definitely a part of the KTX. Korail is only a company, in the same way that JR is a company (well, many companies). Jpatokal (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

tunnel is not desigend by KTX. What is the realtion with KTX? Tunnel built by Construction company which offered by Ministry of Construction and Transportation. If tunnel design is really matter, it should include at this link Ssyublyn (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

(Reply re-formatted]

1. This article is about the KTX system -- which includes trains, depots, track, signalling and superstructure, and doesn't exclude any of those. Thus even accidents that would be related to KTX-I trains only would belong here.
2. Until March this year, KTX-I was the only type KTX operated with, thus even if accidents would be related to specific technologies of this one train type and not to that of others, this train type is very much central to KTX operation up to now, and there was not much time for the existence or lack of existence of similar problems to be seen in KTX-II service.
3. You seem to assume that train breakdowns are solely the result of design faults. But train breakdowns also result from quality problems of parts, improper maintenance, specific stresses on the railway line they are operated on, improper operation by train divers or dispatchers, vandalism, and weather; all of which could affect other ROTEM-built vehicles similarly.
4. Ballast flying, and danger to humans resulting from ballast flying, is chiefly an infrastructure issue (the very use of ballast: it doesn't happen on ballastless track; the siting, dimensioning and protective fences on bridges etc.) and also related to maintenance (is ballast getting on top of sleepers, how regular is tamping etc.). The sole vehicle-related factor is the aerodynamics of the underframe, and the TGV is supposed to be rather good in that (it was Germany's ballastless track optimised ICE3 that had to be retrofitted for running at top speed on high-speed lines in Belgium and France).
5. A collision at an end station has nothing whatsoever to do with the train type, it has to do with the train driver, the station dispatcher and the signalling system.
6. Problems with tunnels have nothing to do with the train types.
7. Why do you list accidents with non-high-speed trains occuring on non-high-speed lines as if those were related to the Shinkansen?
8. I see that after you first deleted a whole section, there have been several back and forth edit reverts while the discussion was still on-going here. I suggest that, to avoid such edit wars (WP:EW), you follow WP:ATD, in particular the Discussion point, before doing disputed deletions.
9. On a purely stylistic point, for better readability, I corrected the indentations in the exchange between you two above.

For a more constructive collaboration, if you are a native speaker of Korean can I request some research, in particular further details and updates on those points of technical issues?

* Has KTX invested into retrofitting the tunnels on the first stage for fire safety since? How do the even longer tunnels on section 2 fare (say, what is the distance of emergency exits, are there any bi-tube tunnels etc.)?

* The 160 breakdowns: I gleaned as much from the available sources that this report was political, prepared by one party, and its authors were mistaken at least about their assumption that the use of used parts from other trains is a result of shortage (rather than quite standard practice in train maintenance). What I couldn't ascertain is how serious these 160 breakdowns were: say, does it mean the trains stopped, or could it involve the mere failure of a toilet?

* Did KTX/Korail implement any measures against flying ballast after that accident?

* What was the result, if any was published, of the investigation into the collision in Busan? (Dispatcher fired etc.)

* Was there an update on displacements and crack propagation in Hwanghak Tunnel?

I'd appreciate anything you can find on the above. --Rontombontom (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

irreravant this dispute.Ssyublyn (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

1. If you check its description carefully. (tunnel, supply of spare parts, gravel on ground, human error) It was neither Technical issue nor Accident.(tunnels, trackbed etc, those are not cleary connenct with Technical issue of KTX1) And there is no human killed by technical fault of KTX train.
2. 160 breakdowns only happend in KTX-1 which TGV import model.
3. Korail is not exactly KTX1. KTX1 is part of Korail. All of problem happen only in KTX1.
4. Tunnel design is nothing relation with KTX.
5. very tiny technical issue are not notable at wikipedia.
6. No serious accident and injury yet.Ssyublyn (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Replies with the same numbering:

1. Lack of fire safety is a technical issue. Failure of a train is a technical issue (and anincident; I could add that to the title). Flying ballast is a technical issue, and ballast hitting bystanders is an accident. A collision, even if low-speed, is an accident. Tunnel construction and the management of cracks, in particular when the cracks cause track distortions, are technical issues.
2. In my earlier point 3), I explained the many factors that can be behind train failures -- you neither reacted to that, nor did you present any evidence that any of those 160 failures were due to faulty design. As implied by my earlier point 2), those 160 failures occurred with 40 KTX-I trains over more than two years, while the first few KTX-II are in operation for a few months only, and no one presented failure statistics yet. (I also note the significant reduction of failures from the first to the second year.) In my extra note, I noted that the 160 failures were presented without any qualification (did all those trains stop on the line? Or are WC failures and other minor problems necessitating a visit to the depot included?) by a political party, and there has been no update since which I could find. You didn't react to any of these.
3. Same as 1).
4. How would tunnel design not be related to KTX?...
5. Which of the five points in the section are you characterising as "very tiny technical issue"? And with what authority are you telling me that?
6. No serious accident, but flying ballast was serious injury.

I have no choice but to undo your latest edits, which you again implemented before consensus was reached here in the discussion. But I will add "KTX-I" in the points where it is accurate.

As a meta-comment, it appears to me that you view the issue of KTX accidents and technical issues as if it were an issue of national pride, in particular, in comparison with other countries; hence your insistence to find an external blame and the comparison above with Japan. However, I don't see why. I didn't add this section (only improved it), and didn't like it much in its original form (that's why I read the sources and sought out more), but I am a railway professional and I view these as simple technical issues -- what's more, ones that have been raised in a South Korean domestic context. Furthermore, I don't see any but the first (the tunnel safety issue) as all that serious, in particular in international comparison. In fact, they might be even less serious (including those "160 failures"), but to evidence that, we'd need information on updates to these issues, which I couldn't find so far, and that's why I asked for cooperation. --Rontombontom (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Seeing that you discovered a dead link, I noticed that the ballast throw incident was the only one I didn't check on. From what I could find, it appears it was a more serious incident apparently caused by a loose screw on a damper, a clear maintenance issue. I also found this where negligence, and behind that staff working hours(? I'm not sure I read that right) are surmised as the reason, but the definite end result of the investigation is what would be needed for the Wikipedia article. --Rontombontom (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Sound like a WP:OR.Ssyublyn (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Unlike Shinakansen and Taiwan high railway and Chinese high raily way, Only KTX highlited very tiny incidents as Accident.

I commented there is no accident or injury reported.

I suggest completely removing that part. It is not notable, and wikipedai is not newspaer.Ssyublyn (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Check it out. Was it really "Technical issues, incidents and accidents"?

• Lawmakers criticised the safety of Korail's tunnels after the Ministry of Construction and Transportation ...

Lawmakers did not criticised the safety of Korail's tunnels. There is no single word "safety" in that source.

If Lawmakers criticised, it was to 'Ministry of Construction and Transportation' and construction company. Not the KTX and Korail.

• According to an investigation by the Grand National Party released in October 2006, KTX-I trains broke down 160 times

The early model of KTX1 had some problem at intial operate. KTX1 was French made TGV train. Not the whole KTXs.

Desipte the breakdown rate at early operaion of French TGV based KTX-I, breakdown rate sharply dropped in recent years (breakdown rate : 0.304% in 2004. 0.062% in 2008).The source cleary confirmed.[[19]Template:Ko

Old source (year 2006): The lawmaker Yun Doo-Hwan released in October 2006, the TGV based KTX-I broke down 160 times (81 times in 2004, 50 times in 2005, and 29 times in 2006 until the end of August).

However, According to recent year (2009) source.

Quote : 개통 첫해 운전 장애가 81건 발생해 고장률(100만㎞당 고장건수) 0.304%를 기록했던 KTX는 그러나 이후 제 궤도에 접어들면서 고장률이 현저히 줄어 작년에는 0.062%(운전장애 27건)로 크게 감소했다.[20]Template:Ko

((2009-3-29)The first year-2004- operation of KTX, 81 times broke down. breakdown rate was 0.304%. But, breakdown rate sharply dropped. In now, 0.062% in last year(2008).)

• On October 5, 2008, it was revealed by lawmakers that inside Hwanghak Tunnel

The problem of Hwanghak Tunnel known as "fault zone under tunnel area". The source cleary confirmed.[21]Template:Ko

Quote : 조 의원은 “지난 2004년 경부고속철도 황학터널구간에서 궤도틀림 현상이 발생했는데 공사 당시 발견되지 않았던 단층대가 원인으로 밝혀졌다”면서 “안전성을 위해 세밀한 조사가 필수적이고, 가장 최선은 위험구간을 거치지 않도록 노선을 조정하는 것”이라고 밝혔다.sourceTemplate:Ko

((2010-3-2) The lawmaker told "The Hwanghak Tunnel problem In 2004, the problem come out into the open, It was a fault zone under tunnel area. We need more investigation for geological features, and we should avoiding dangerous geographical zone while constructing tunner.")

• In November 3, 2007, an arriving KTX train collided with a parked KTX train by inside Busan Station

The problem was human error by tired worker. The source cleary confirmed.[22]Template:Ko[23]Template:Ko This is not relation with technical issue. No injury of passangers.

Quote : 하지만 이번 사고에서 드러나듯 이 같은 첨단 시스템도 기관사의 과실 앞에서는 무용지물이었다. 기관사 김씨는 조사에서 "깜빡 조는 바람에 정지신호를 보지 못해 선로를 잘못 진입했고 ATS도 잠결에 껐다"고 진술했다.

((2007-11-5) Desipte the high technology train system, it was worthless to human error. An engine driver on the railway, Driver Cho told, "I was fallen a sleep at that times. Even I shut down ATS while sleeping. I did not saw Stop signal at that times because i was slept")

• "I also found this where negligence" >> Your found source is same incident as above (an arriving KTX train collided with a parked KTX train by inside Busan Station) duplicated.

• Editors should avoid original research.

• See Wikipedia:Content forking, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper Ssyublyn (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ssyublyn (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The contents all belong to KTX-1 Train.I remove irreravant issues. Human error and Natural disaster(fault zone under tunnel area) it was not technical issue. Please edit only notable and related with its topic.

Do you think Human error was really relate to KTX?

• If you fallen a sleep while drove a Toyota, made accident, That accident was really relate to Toyota topic?
• If you met natural disaster -eg. earthquake- while drove a Toyota, made accident, That accident was really relate to NHTSA topic?Ssyublyn (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The Shinkansen's biggest incident to date was jumping the tracks during an earthquake. Are you saying it should not be listed either? Jpatokal (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)