Talk:High-speed rail/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

WP:RFC - Chinese fastest railways/railwaygazette

This diff keeps getting reverted and re-added. The point of dispute is the claim that "China has the fastest railways on the world", where the referenced Railway Gazette uses the timetable and the distance of 248 km between two station to calculate service speed. User:FlyAkwa has referenced Google Maps to falsify that distance and claims it is more like 205 km see his image and it has been independently done by Z22, which would then yield a lower service speed based on the timetable speed between the two stations in question.

Survey

  • Support If the Railway Gazette is considered the foremost authority on railways, the paragraph should stay.
  • Oppose If Google Maps is considered a more reliable source on geography than Railway Gazette, then the RG is considered to have made a mistake on this occasion (but is otherwise still considered an WP:RS and the paragraph should be deleted.

Threaded discussion

Another sentence in question beside the "fastest railways on the world" is that whether we should include in the article that "... new high-speed railways have been built in China, and speeds have increased." I made a comment in that discussed that the source does not talk about the operating speeds but rather the design top speeds of 350 km/h which are usually higher than the operating speeds. And also the design speeds for trains prior to that accident already reached 350 km/h anyway. So newer high-speed railways haven't increased the design speeds in China. Because that sentence is misleading, I suggested in the discussion that the sentence should be removed. Z22 (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
It's also known, and sourced, that speeds China has been lowered in 2011 (after 2 years of maximum speed up to 350 km/h), and will not be lift up anew, according to railway minister.
But more interesting : I wrote to Railway Gazette, about the mistake in their article, and they confirm they are aware about this error but "are not able to modify their article due to technical problem" (sic).
I invite all of you to write them also, to confirm this information, and ask them to correct their article ASAP.
Here is a copy (with my adress/name blanked) of their reply :

De : "Jackson, Chris" <[email protected]>
À : XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Cc : "Rennie, Sheena" <[email protected]>
Envoyé le : Jeudi 5 septembre 2013 11h52
Objet : RE: Damaging mistake in "World Speed Survey 2013" article

Dear M. NNNNNNNNNNN,

Thank you for your message. I am grateful for your feedback.

We are aware that some of the Chinese distances used in our World Speed Survey were not correct, and we are now in the process of checking all of the official data using other sources.

We carried extensive correspondence about this topic in the August issue of Railway Gazette International, together with a revised listing of the fastest Chinese trains. Unfortunately, we have not yet been able to update our web story due to some technical problems, which are currently being investigated.

Yours sincerely,

Christopher M A Jackson, BSc (Hons) FCILT AIRSE

Editor-in-Chief, Railway Gazette International
DVV Media UK Ltd
NINE, Sutton Court Road, Sutton Surrey, SM1 4SZ, UK
[email protected]
www.railwaygazette.com
Follow us on Twitter: @railwaygazette

--FlyAkwa (talk) 09:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Until Railway Gazette actually change their article what you are presenting above is original research and of no value as a source. Thomas.W talk to me 09:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
And now ? --FlyAkwa (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Nothing has changed, other than the numbers. The article in Railway Gazette still says that China has the fastest high-speed trains in the world (I just checked). Railway Gazette backstepping a bit does not make them an unreliable source, so the text that you've been edit-warring over (edit-warring that you got blocked for) stays, but other parts of the High-speed rail article should be changed along the lines proposed by Z22 below. Thomas.W talk to me 21:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: The Railway Gazette article has now been revised. If the Railway Gazette is a reliable source as all of us believes, then we need to fix our article. They now say, the fastest average operating speeds is now 283.7 km/h which is on another line in China. I propose the followings:
  • Remove the last paragraph with two sentences in the Wenzhou accident section. The first sentence is an unfounded claims not supported by that inline citation and it is now contradicted by this updated version of the Railway Gazette article.
  • Move the second sentence to the China sub-section under Markets section. It is out of context in the section about accidents. When moving to China section, please don't leave it vague. It should be read more like "According to Railway Gazette, the trains between Shijiazhuang and Zhengzhou Dong have the fastest average operating speed in the world at 283.7 km/h as of August 2013." Also update the access date.
Please share your thoughts on this proposal. Z22 (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Railway Gazette 2013 Survey has been updated following my mail. The debated information is no more true, and must be deleted. The maximum average speed is present in the page "Land speed record for railed vehicles", and there is no need to be present in High-Speed Rail page. --FlyAkwa (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support proposal by Z22 above. The railway gazette clearly is a reliable source on this subject and its latest corrected data should be used. Maybe the start,'According to Railway Gazette' is not required. Calculations based on Google maps, or anything else are OR. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Closing: Here is the record of what the consensus appears to be. We are all in agreement that the revised Railway Gazette article on World Speed Survey 2013 can be used as a reliable source. I put out a proposal in the above on September 6 with two bullet points. The proposal received a support from Martin Hogbin. Other editors also support along the lines of the proposal (Thomas.W here, and FlyAkwa here). There is no one who opposes to the proposal except that Martin Hogbin suggested that there is no need to put 'According to Railway Gazette' at the beginning of the sentence. There is no other editor who provides additional comments about that. However, AadaamS has also been coining with the idea of putting that before (see here). So at this point, we should make change to the article as originally proposed. If later, we have another consensus on removing the 'According to Railway Gazette' out of that sentence, we will do so later. Is there any additional comments before we make the proposed changes? Thanks. Z22 (talk) 02:27, 10 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 [1]). 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)
As Z22. The train involve an High-Speed train, running at 200 km/h on a conventional enhanced track. In all case, this accident is comparable to Eschede disaster (that involve an ICE running at 200 km/h on a conventional line), and this accident is regarded as an High-Speed rail disaster.
The Whenzhou accident involve 2 high-speed trains, on a high-speed line (150 km/h), but the accident occurred at less than 100 km/h
--FlyAkwa (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The maximum speed of S-730 is 240 km/h, Adif confirmed not high speed train ( http://www.vialibre-ffe.com/noticias.asp?not=11159&cs=oper )

Définition : The International Union of Railways (UIC) prefers to use "definitions" (plural) because they consider that there is no single standard definition of high-speed rail, nor even standard usage of the terms ("high speed", or "very high speed"). They make use of the European EC Directive 96/48, insisting that high speed is a combination of all the elements which constitute the "system": infrastructure, rolling stock and operating conditions.
According to the manufacturer Talgo and its user Renfe, the Talgo 250 hybrid (used under name S-730) has a maximum speed of 250 km/h
- Talgo 250 dual on Talgo site
- on Renfe site
Then, as a set, with specific service and speed up to 250 km/h, the Talgo 250 is an High-Speed Train.
--FlyAkwa (talk) 16:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The Talgo 250 Hybrid top speed is 250 km / h but the Alvia s-730 was approved to 240 km/h by Renfe and ADIF

Like the Talgo 350 which is 350 km/h but in Spain is not allowed to exceed 330 km/h

So the Alvia S-730 not high speed train

Again, in Spain we are very rigorous with high speed. Less than 250 km/h is not high speed in Spain

I provided references, the next time I give the number of Ana Pastor and you ask directly (Irony)

--Bucyrus (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear Bucyrus, on the High speed rail page we use the UIC definitions of high speed rail, not a local Spanish definition you want to be applied on this page. If you want the Santiago accident to be removed from this article, you should first seek concensus about the high speed definition. As far as I can see on the interwiki links of this page there isn't a Spanish wiki counterpart for this article. If you want to push your view, please take the effort to create the Spanish article instead of vandalizing this page based on Spanish sources I cannot read.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Not remove more, but it is wrong to regard the accident as a high speed. Regardless of the UIC, the S-730 does not offer high speed sevices, there is not a high speed train.

This accident is not considered high speed by Renfe, Adif, Ana Pastor, Brazil, Vía Libre (magazine),...

--Bucyrus (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Again, you change the article without reaching consencus.
I took the effort to google translate the reference under the Santiago section. It doesn't mention high performance in any way. You cannot change a statement without changing to a proper source supporting this change. Moreover, high performance train doesn't have a definition on wikipedia. Again, if you want to change a definition or context, first challenge the current definition and only after concensus change the articles text.
And tell me, why does the spanish S730 article's category at the bottom of the page mention "Trenes de alta velocidad de Renfe"?--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Here are a few reliable sources that indicated that S730 max speeds at 250 km/h and is a high-speed train:
  • Avelino Castro, MD of the industrial division of Renfe, was interviewed by EURAILmag about the 'world's first test run of a diesel/electric high-speed train.' As he said, "... will allow Renfe to extend the benefits of high speed to region where this infrastructure does not exist at this moment ... where we're combining the new high-speed infrastructure with the old network." The article also said max speeds when running on the high-speed would be 250 km/h (see full article here).
  • Talgo product brochure puts the "S370 Dual Train" in the "High Speed" category, (see page 12 here). And this, "It can travel at top speeds of 250 km/h (UIC gauge)..."
  • An article on Spanish Association of Scientists site went into a great technical details of Talgo 250 Hybrid (same thing as S730). It has that, "Este furgón, como todos los vehículos que forman el tren Talgo 250 Híbrido, es apto para circular a 250 km/h. Por vías de ancho estándar Renfe se limita la velocidad a 220 km/h." which is translated by Google to be as, "This van, like all the vehicles forming a train Talgo 250 Hybrid is roadworthy at 250 km/h. For standard gauge tracks train speed is limited to 220 km/h." (see article here)
  • Vía Libre, the same magazine that Bucyrus quoted as a reliable source has this article. The article mentioned, "La velocidad máxima en servicio es de 250 km/h (se espera que se eleve a 280 km/h) en ancho estándar, de 220 km/h en ancho ibérico y de 180 km/h para funcionamiento en tracción diésel." That is translated by Google as "The maximum service speed of 250 km/h (expected to rise to 280 km/h) in standard width of 220 km/h in Iberian gauge and 180 km/h for diesel traction operation."
  • Julio Hermida, a spokesman for the state railway, said in a CNN story, "It was unclear how fast the train was traveling when it crashed. It was capable of going up to 250 kilometers per hour..." (here)
  • And the list goes on and on...
  • So, it is a high-speed train. This article is not just about high-speed rail network. It is also about high-speed trains (high-speed train page is redirected to here and there are more than 100 times of the word 'train' in this article), so there is nothing wrong with having an accident involving a high-speed train listed in the Accidents section. Z22 (talk) 03:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Another article

Over at Land speed record for rail vehicles, there's a similar dispute to the one we recently had here; inputs from uninvolved editors would be welcome. bobrayner (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

merge "High-speed rail in Europe" into this article's Europe section

The High-speed rail in Europe article looks like a duplication of effort and I think some of it ought to be merged into this article and other things moved into the articles for individual countries. Then the High-speed rail in Europe link should redirect to the Europe section of this article. What do you think? Both articles contain efforts listed by country and it creates a maintenance nightmare. AadaamS (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. In principle, we could have a general overview of high speed rail in Europe which actually focuses on Europe-specific things such as crossborder services, TEN-T networks, ERTMS, the ERA, the Ralway Packages &c - but in practice we just get another piecemeal country-by-country list. I would support a merger. bobrayner (talk) 02:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Such an article would likely suffer from the same scoping issues that the current one does. I have started a discussion of that article's talk page. The "Europe" section of this article is empty and it could be extended with material briefly mentioning multilateral or bilateral HSR efforts. AadaamS (talk) 07:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. bobrayner (talk) 07:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I think the High-speed rail in Europe article is too long to merge into this article. I suggest have the Europe section of this article only listing the countries who have high-speed. The wikicode of this article is 91 kB and of High-speed rail in Europe it is 79 kB. A sum of that is 170 kB, would be one of the 1000 longest pages on English Wikipedia (most so long pages are lists)--BIL (talk) 09:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Many of the individual sections of High-speed rail in Europe could be trimmed, since they often have a lot of duplication of the High-speed rail in country X articles. I am concerned about duplication. bobrayner (talk) 09:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I picture this merge happening as follows:
  • Put some things from sections 2 and 3 of High-speed rail in Europe into the Europe chapter into this one.
  • All the things from History and individual countries is already covered in this article and this should not be merged.
So most of High-speed rail in Europe would end up being deleted, as the national articles already cover what's in the "by country" sections of that article. I share bobrayner's concern with duplication and also since the "Europe" section of this article is empty I think this is good material to add here. AadaamS (talk) 11:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Have started a new discussion in Wikiproject Trains talk page. Please add any comments or suggestions there. And by the way, is there a userbox I can put on my profile page for Wikiproject Trains? AadaamS (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
How about this? bobrayner (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
{{User Trains WikiProject}}
thanks bobrayner! I have added it now. AadaamS (talk) 07:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
After much deliberation, I think perhaps deleting the "continent" articles is unworkable considering how much work has been put into them. Perhaps this HSR top level article should instead be small and delegate as much info to continent-country-technology pages with short summaries for every area? This is of course the exact opposite of what I was advocating earlier, but perhaps it is a more workable solution. It would also reduce the size of this article. As always, I am open to other suggestions or cricicism. The idea is then that the list-of-countries be deleted from this article, people have to go to the continent articles to find exhaustive lists. AadaamS (talk) 07:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
OK. Anything which reduces duplication will help us improve content. bobrayner (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Asia Map and Maximum speed in China

For 3 years, Chinese claims has been a recurrent problem in the High-Speed rail pages of Wikipedia, source of lot of edit war. Recently, User:Wwklion has tried to impose its fanciful map (png format), to replace a clean SVG map based on sourced elements.

I asked User:Owennson, who helped me to create and maintain the List of high-speed rail lines page, and live in Hong-Kong and give me regularly updates to apply to the SVG map, about the speeds in China. Here is its answer (visible on my talk page) :

As I know, after the 7-23 accident, the speed of all trains in china has been lowered, 350-->300, 250-->200, 200-->160. Chinese Wikipedia has some Chinese editors that always said that it had been raised to 310, some even claim raised to 320. Usually I don't really care since train speed always fluctuates, but I would take 310 if you ask me.

I cannot find some better English source though. I can only find a strangely located Pakistani website, which is also quite confusing. Thanks!--Owennson (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Based on this answer, the map of User:Wwklion can't be accepted. --FlyAkwa (talk) 10:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@FlyAkwa: You must source your statements to a WP:RS and a private email conversation is a self published source. And as maps of high-speed lines, they are incomplete as Japan isn't included and they have an extensive rail network. AadaamS (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello User:AadaamS, I'm afraid you're speaking about... the fantasists maps of User:Wwklion I reverted tonight for the 9th time... The SVG map include, of course, Japan, and try to be as exhaustive as possible, thanks to User:Owennson... I will ask, for the second time, the semi-protection of the page.
My "private email conversation" is a simple information about the total lack of source about the claimed "320 km/h maximum speed in China" supported by Wwklion, despite all official sources said that max speed is 300 km/h. --FlyAkwa (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Language accessibility: Conventional and Unconventional

The terms "conventional rail" and "unconventional rail" are used in this article a number of times, but they are defined only by context. I did some research and couldn't find any good documentation of these terms. I believe maglev and super-new technologies constitute "unconventional" while typical rail technologies, e.g. electric, diesel, etc. are "conventional." Could someone with some background in this help clarify these terms or point me to a resource that discusses them such that we can better integrate the terminology into the article? Appellative (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Update! Found something on another Wiki page that has 2 outside references. Will try to incorporate them when I get a chance... Though I'm not particularly thrilled with the references, which cite a speech by Canadian Transport Director and may not represent an international understanding of the terms (not that there's overwhelming consensus on terms anyway). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_rail_terminology#Conventional_rail Appellative (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Because this article is based upon definitions by UIC (Union International des Chemins de Fer / International Union of Railways), it should concern only railways(aka Conventional rail). Maglev, Aérotrains and other guided flying objects, are aircraft, and shouldn't be related to this article... --FlyAkwa (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on High-speed rail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on High-speed rail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Erros in Eastern_Asia_HSR2015.svg

See Commons:File_talk:Eastern_Asia_HSR2015.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibicdlcod (talk • contribs) 04:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on High-speed rail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on High-speed rail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on High-speed rail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Intrinsic vs extrinsic factors.

The recent back-and forth editing centers on two points. The first is how common something must be in order to mention it in a summary. The other is a difference between characteristics which are integral to the transportation mode, and those that are easily changeable. Flight and train delays are largely caused by system operation; there's no particular intrinsic advantage to either mode. Anmccaff (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on High-speed rail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

THE EAST ASIAN MAP IS A DISASTER

Grossly underrepresents our glorious nation.

1. The Beijing Shanghai line operates at 350 km/h should not be colored the same as filthy japanese

2. Changchun Ulanhot line is omitted

3. Lanzhou Zhongchuan airport line is omitted

4. zhengzhou jiaozuo and zhengzhou kaifeng and zhengzhou xinzheng airport lines are omitted

5. no yellow line between shenyang and harbin

6. no yellow line between tianjin and tangshan

7. wuhan shiyan line ia omitted

8. wuhan xiaogan and wuhan xianning and wuhan huangshi lines are omitted

9. changsha zhuzhou xiangtan lines are omitted

10. beijing bazhou line is omitted

11.no yellow line between xuzhou and lianyungang

12.nanjing qidong line omitted

13.chengdu dazhou line omitted

14.lanzhou guangyuan chongqing line should has high speed section terminate at some odd county(forgot which)

15.erdos baotou hohhot jining lines omitted

16.nanjing southwest line terminus is anqing not tonling

17.guiyang kaiyang line omitted

18.no yellow line between ganzhou and shaoguan yet

19.kunming yuxi line omitte

20.shenyang fushun line omitte

21.how can you forget guangzhou zhuhai xinhui line its older than wuhan guangzhou one holy shit

22.chengdu dujiangyan line have 3 branches liduigongyuan qingchengshan pengzhou

23.shanghai jinshan line omitted

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.121.61.9 (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

longest high speed service outdated. may be guangzhou lanzhou or beijing kunming106.121.61.9 (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Uncivil attacks based on race or nationality are not acceptable behavior here on Wikipedia. Calling an entire nation "filthy" alienates other editors and does not contribute in any way to the quality of this article.
In general, China appears to be pretty well represented on the map, and I doubt a unique color could be found for every line on the map. However, the map probably does need some work and hopefully someone with the necessary background information on Chinese high-speed rail can edit the map to bring it up to date and address the accuracy issues you have raised. Thank you for your suggestions. -- Joren (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

radiation

Regarding radiation in air travel, and less of it in train travel: Radiation from Air Travel is the CDC discussion on it. It seems that we get about 300 mrem/yr from natural sources, and about 3.5mrem for coast to coast travel. From that, about 85 coast to coast flights per year doubles you from ground based background. Most travelers should be much less than that, but flight attendants might have significant exposure. It does seem an interesting advantage of rail, but until we get coast to coast high speed rail, I think it isn't worth considering. Gah4 (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Time penalty for stopping

Airlines are essentially point to point; you can make stopovers, but they cost immense amounts of time and money. Meanwhile all that has to be done for a train to make an intermediate stop is the existence of a station (and they usually exist anyway or can be easily built). Take the example of the ICE Sprinter, which only saves ~30 minutes of travel time by cutting half a dozen stops over "regular" runs. Imagine a flight with six intermediate stops... And while more people live in big cities individually, there is a lot of money to be made serving intermediate cities which planes cannot do. And that's all before you even consider the economic and social cohesion arguments that governments may be interested in. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, rail does better for stops, though there is still some delay, and some energy cost. Eurostar has a system where passengers stand at the appropriate spot where doors will be, to minimize the stop delay. I don't know if all do that. Gah4 (talk) 03:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Northeast Regional

@Anmccaff:: You said in this edit that you would explain reverting this edit by 181.161.88.34 in the talk page, but maybe you forgot, so I decided to just create a new section for it. I personally believe the Northeast Regional does not qualify as high-speed rail, only higher-speed, but different organizations define the two terms differently, so it's confusing. Looking at Passenger_rail_terminology#High-speed_rail and Higher-speed_rail#Definitions, it seems most consider up to 125 mph to be higher-speed rail. –Daybeers (talk) 07:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I think we discussed at length about the categories in the US which can be at odd with the rest of the world, mainly to say that Acela is high speed rail. In part, we used the UIC document as a reliable source that Acela is high-speed rail based on this doc (but this is the updated version as of April 2018). Therefore, using the same source (seen on page 8), we should not call Northeast Regional high-speed. Z22 (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to reopen this discussion based on this edit. Is the Northeast Regional really high-speed rail? –Daybeers (talk) 02:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Energy efficiency

"In Japan (prior to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster) and France, with very extensive high-speed rail networks, a large proportion of electricity comes from nuclear power." & "In Germany 38.5% of all electricity was produced from renewable sources in 2017," We have to discriminate between energy efficiency (a low PEF = primary energy factor) and climate friendlyness (a low CEEF = CO2 equivalent emission factor). Then, it is a mistake to use the average of the generation mix, but the more precise approach is to use the maginal mix: that follows the "what if" concept. What if a load is switched on now (such as a train running or staying where it is). Renewables and nuclear baseload plants are on the left side of the merit order, that means they run anyways. Additional load is covered by dispatchable power plants that are only part loaded or waiting in standstill to be switched on. Therefore the marginal approach needs to be used to correctly estimate the deployment of new consumers for electricity. --Gunnar (talk) 07:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I have wondered about this. People discuss electric cars without properly accounting for emissions in generating the power that they use. I think there is no easy solution. For one, it takes a long time to build a power plant, and once built it needs to run to pay off its loans. It seems that there are some cases where the marginal cost can go negative.[1] In any case, if one is planning for the long term, the marginal cost some years in the future is needed, and likely not known. A better system for financing power projects needs to be worked out for this to all make sense. Gah4 (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ Gretchen, Bakke (2016). The Grid. New York: Bloomsbury. ISBN 978-1-60819-610-4.

History section

I wanted a timeline of High Speed Rail Development. I was soon to find that the history section is a mess. It mixes timeline with geography, several events appear more than once and it also appears to contradict itself.

For example, it states "High speed rail in Europe started in 1965 at a rail exhibition....." and goes on to describe trains aspiring to 200KM/h running. Yet earlier, in the 1930's we already have regular train services operating at up to 200KM/h in Europe. If there is a reason why one 200KM/H is different from another then maybe we should be told.

It also contains too much detail; I think a history section should ideally contain a concise summary of events with links to more detail. The major high speed rail networks such as the TGV and the Bullet Trains already have extensive pages dedicated to them.

The reason I wanted to find a timeline is because I wanted to establish at what point regular train services hauled by non Steam Locomotives exceeded the speeds of the fastest Steam hauled services.

I found that the Record Breaking Flying Scotsman was not mentioned, and it's successor the A4 class (which I found elsewhere still holds the record for the fastest Steam hauled services) was only mentioned in passing in a section about Italian electric locomotives. It also failed to mention the german DRG train which broke the records between the two trains and was faster than another German train that is cited.

This section is apparently unfit for purpose, unless it should only be considering railway lines specially built for high speed services. In the latter case two thirds of the History section should disappear as it is irrelevant distraction.

Incidently, the answer to my question appears to be 1963 when the Tokaido-Shinsanen Bullet train service started, however, I've yet to find out how fast the quickest steam services in Japan where. In Europe, which boasted the fasted steam trains the line was crossed in 1967 with the Paris-Toulouse service whilst in the USA (which had Steam services nearly as fast as Europe's best) the crossover came in 1969 with the Metroliner service between Washington and Philadelphia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.247.186.148 (talk) 08:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Hight speed rail

In Poland exist high speed rail, why it wasn't added to articule? Wojkus1 (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Re-structure article by including Overview from sub-articles

 {{#section-h:High-speed rail in Europe|Overview}}

With this piece of wiki syntax, sections in other articles can be transcluded into this. For instance, sections named Overview could be created in sub articles which would then be transcluded into this article. This will reduce the amount of maintenanance as text only is maintained in one place while creating a coherent structure for all High-speed rail articles. What do you think? A Thousand Words (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Citations for HSR Advantages section

In the section discussing the differences between HSR and air travel, the citation needed template appears three times in the subsection on passenger comfort. I'm not totally comfortable adding citations myself, but I do have a lead for anyone looking for a reliable academic source on passenger comfort in air travel: a 2014 Thesis by Naseem Ahmadpour [1]. It goes into detail exploring aspects of passenger comfort in aircraft, both on long and short flights. Another source would probably be required, to compare HSR to Aircraft. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.44.10.2 (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

That's appreciated, and I went to look at that work. For the benefit of other editors who may have the time to do something with this before I do: this (apparently unpublished) thesis is a 133-page PDF which is not all in French, as it at first appeared to me. Apparently, the forematter (approx. 6 pages) is French + English, but the body appears to be all English. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 16:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Ahmadpour, Naseem. "Aircraft Passenger Comfort Experience: Subjective Variables and Links to Emotional Responses" (PDF). Polypublie. Ploytechnique Montreal. Retrieved 14 June 2021.

India and Indonesia

An IP has, 3 times so far this morning, removed India and Indonesia from the paragraph listing nations which "have built and developed or are currently building" high-speed rail. No justification has been given. Other editors may have views? --David Biddulph (talk) 09:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, we seem to actually have nothing on HSR in India; the only mention of India in the article (even as of 9 October, i.e., pre-IP edits) is the listing with other countries, but without giving any details about India's HSR status. (We do mumble something about standard gauge in India, but that's irrelevant if India's not doing HSR). The Indonesia content seems, on the other hand, to be fully appropriate. The fact that's it's not completed (and what rail system is ever completed?) makes no difference; we say in the lede "or currently building" and then point to an entire article on the topic. Indonesia should stay, but the teeny mentions of India which we have should be removed. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 19:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
a very quick search with the search engine of your choice or even just perusing Wikipedia articles like Mumbai–Ahmedabad high-speed rail corridor or High-speed_rail_in_India will tell you at least some of what there is to know about hsr in India. The fact that this article didn't (in your estimation) talk about hsr construction in India in a sufficient way to convince you of its existence is not an argument to excise the section but an argument to improve it... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
My search engine of choice was my browser's "find" function, by which I found no mention of India in the article. It seems inappropriate to me to include India in the lead, an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. How can India be part of the "most important contents" when it is not mentioned at all? Readers will expect to find at least a mention, if not some details, of India's HSR developments in the article they're reading, but without such content, they may be disappointed or confused. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 23:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
India is certainly further down the path towards constructing hsr than Indonesia is. And the notable thing about India is that it chose standard gauge despite good arguments not to - that's how it is mentioned in the lede; in a discussion on gauge. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

How long was the test track in 1903

A recent IP edit claims the test track of the 1903 trials was less than 10 kilometres (6 mi) long. That seems rather unlikely and the German language article seems to indicate at least a 20 kilometres (12 mi) length for the test track. I fear sources will be hard to pin down, but can we get a bit more clarity on this? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The tests were done on the Royal Prussian Military Railway between Marienfelde and Zossen. If we are to believe the route diagram on that article, this section of the line was 23 kilometres (14 mi) long. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

WORLD FASTEST TRAIN IN THE WORLD.

High-speed rail is the fastest and most efficient ground-based method of commercial transportation.However due to requirements for large track curves.Gentle gradients and grade separated track the construction of high-speed rail is more costly than conventional rail and therefore does not always present an economical advantage over conventional speed rail.   Only in Europe and Asia does high-speed rail have ability to cross international borders. 103.255.5.92 (talk) 03:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

One-sided Lede

The lede should be inclusive of all essential details. @Trainsandotherthings You reverted my edit. But how can you judge the economic benefits by just saying it costs more than conventional rail? There's no source given plus the key advantages of HSR is shorter journey times. Greatly shorter journey times can both increase tourism and encourage public transport use, which in turn drives economic development and as well as reducing highway congestion, that further boosts productivity. Such gains may not occur with conventional rail. Maybe not worth it for the places with low population density or already existing conventional rail (where construction costs are gonna be higher due to replacing old railways lines). But it does have real economic returns in other places. I find fault with the lead's one sidedness in such a complicated topic, as well as a lack of source to state that it is economically unworthy compared to conventional rail. [2] RememberpaBrandon (talk) 04:11, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

So first of all: welcome to Wikipedia! Please don't edit your comments on talk pages (except for possible spelling errors and similar mistakes), if you want to add something later simply add it behind your previous comment. If you want to be sure we're following the same information, I'd suggest you read (or at least skim through) WP:LEAD and WP:DUE. You concerns about one-sidedness are legitimate, but I frankly don't agree. The lead is mostly neutral or slightly positive - it only includes on sentence which points out that HSR doesn't always have an advantage. This is a really mild sentence. In any case: content in the lead should be a summary of the content of the article, and what you proposed to include did not reflect the article.
You may note that several of your other edits have also been reverted. You are welcome to contribute, but please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policies (some of which I've linked) to ensure your contributions fit with the project. David12345 (talk) 09:53, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi David12345. I disagree that it's positive. I don't see much positive statements and its drive home message at the end, is that it's economically unfeasible and people should forget about it. The Lead should not be heavily about the maximum profit margins. As that's not why they build HSR lines over conventional. They build it because of the environmental, social and indirect economic effects like improved tourism, real estate development for certain projects.[3] I don't think it's wrong to write that HSR can have the potential to deliver in benefits when it is not undue or against WP:LEAD to summarise the benefits of HSR considering people need to know whether it's worth it or not. RememberpaBrandon (talk) 12:58, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Quite frankly: how on earth are you reading that sentiment into this lead? I quite agree that a more thorough discussion of the benefits and drawbacks of HSR would benefit this article, but this is not the way.David12345 (talk) 13:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
If you can't understand the issues with the sentence "Despite China didn't have any high speed railway at the start of the 21st century, the country today has the largest high speed railway network globally", I'm not sure what to tell you. It's just straight up poorly written and grammatically incorrect. The lead section is not biased, and I really don't understand what you're talking about. Speaking of bias, edits like this actually are introducing bias ("unfortunately" is inserting a POV). You should also review how lead sections are structured; they are not for going into detail, they are meant to give a broad overview of the rest of the article. You've been primarily making sweeping changes to lead sections without adjusting the body correspondingly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Your argument really shifts goals posts and now arguing that my English used, is not all perfect. However one doesn't need to achieve the absolute perfection in English. It just needs to be decent enough to be comprehended and your original issue was that I couldn't mention that there are real benefits to using HSR. What we are discussing here, isn't about English fluency, but why the benefits of HSR isn't suitable to be included in the Lead and apparently claimed to be of undue weight or "not an improvement" to even minimally mention it. RememberpaBrandon (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
The reason why I came here is because I do see the high speed rail articles as all biased. Like constantly not even letting any mention of potential benefits to be allowed on the introduction and editors reverting just the benefits. But generous information about the cons in final paragraph. If you claim it's poor English and grammar on why you removed my edits pointing out the benefits of HSR. That's now a very different reason being given.RememberpaBrandon (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
If you read the article it actually talks quite a bit about HSR benefits. The "Inter-city effects" section is entirely positive, and other sections note HSR in a favorable light compared to other forms of transportation in efficiency and safety. I'm not disputing that this article needs improvement, but your edits were a net negative for multiple reasons and were therefore reverted. It's not just about the information you're trying to add, but how you are going about adding it. The lead section needs to reflect the content of the rest of the article, not introduce new information not mentioned elsewhere in the article's body. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
@Trainsandotherthings Only if you later read the lower chapters, do you see the benefits. Not everyone reads that far. And such benefits is absent in the top chapter of introduction, which is meant to be a brief summary of the whole article including pros and cons. Not just cons. However that wasn't what concerned me initially. My concern that the last paragraph in the intro, is both unsourced and may not even be true. Because benefits will vary depending on markets and places, and yet reader get the one size fits all idea that high speed rail should really not be considered because article implies it fails to have far reaching economic benefits over conventional. But that is a very lazy and unprofessional statement. It instead needs to be improved to show that economic benefits really depend on factors like ridership, population density, existing highway congestion and so on. It can deliver in certain places especially if careful analysis is done but not so much for others. This is a necessary improvement that this article introduction really needs. [4] RememberpaBrandon (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
So the sentence you're objecting to seems to be the following: "High-speed rail is the fastest and most efficient ground-based method of commercial transportation, however due to requirements for large track curves, gentle gradients and grade separated track the construction of high-speed rail is more costly than conventional rail and therefore does not always present an economical advantage over conventional speed rail." This last bit ("does not always present an economical advantage") says in seven words what you just used two very drawn out sentences to say. This is what article introductions are for: to present concise and generalized summary in neutral language. It is a mildly positive sentence with a minor caveat to account for simplification. The fact that you seem to think this somehow implies "that it's economically unfeasible and people should forget about it" says a lot more about your interpretations and preexisting bias than about the accuracy or usefulness of this introduction.
The same is true (to merge these two conversations) of your edits I reverted: they replaced clear, concise and neutral language with biased, overly long and unclear content. You are not being judged on your ability to type error-free English: you are being judged on your ability to present clear ideas in line with Wikipedia policy. There are a lot of ways this article can be improved, and we are happy to work together with you in doing so. The edits you are suggesting are not the way to do so. David12345 (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
@david12345 I don't have Too much issues with the last sentence. I have issues that it is not balanced and the Lead should summarise the whole article at minimum if possible. For the record, I didn't actually remove anything from that sentence. I simply added to it by 1 sentence and a half to give better context. I added that HSR do not perform well in low density population or with high construction costs and given an expert source.[5] I also added just an extra sentence afterward displaying the major reasons people invest in HSR in the first place, due to the many unique HSR spurred benefits like jobs, tourism, clean air. Yet when I do that, my English is criticised and constantly told there is no bias, despite the only information that gives a brief intro to the goals of HSR projects are hidden. I only added one sentence briefly summarising the potential benefits of such projects and that is what's really debated on. [6] Why remove that? RememberpaBrandon (talk) 04:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Also noticed you haven't clearly replied to me here about my edits here on another chapter [7]. I don't think you can claim my English was bad here and starting to look like an invalid excuse to remove my edits. Because if my English was bad and fyi, I know it isn't. You could had slightly rewritten it instead of blanking it out. RememberpaBrandon (talk) 04:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
@David12345 And yeah, I had noticed how you undid all of my other edits and not just in the intro. Is there something forbidden on giving citations and stating; The disaster led to a blanket speed reduction, as well as construction projects on new lines, being suspended pending an official investigation.[111] Despite speed didn't play a critical factor in the incident, the nation's maximum speeds were reduced to improve safety, and Public confidence was greatly shattered by the accident. However in the decade since, there had been no major incidents, and number of passengers had increased exponentially as the HSR network expanded,  ? Is there a reason why one cannot say there hasn't been a major incident in the decade since? Or to mention that speeds were decreased to boost safety and that all construction on new lines were suspended, pending official investigation? That is the kind of information that readers would want to know and don't see your reasoning why that needs to be removed too. [8] RememberpaBrandon (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
As a side note, Ita140188 added the "lead section of this article may need to be rewritten" but I don't think they left any note of what they saw wrong with it (sorry if I missed it!). Ita140188, could you please clarify? Garuda3 (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
@Garuda3 I let that last sentence (explaining why HSR is not economically wise), to stay as it's not factually incorrect but it annoys me that the entire introduction is completely absent of major benefits of HSR. If one were biased against HSR, naturally one would try to remove any mention of any benefits of HSR even if it's just one summarised sentence. And hype an ambiguous statement at the end, on why people should not build it by focusing on a single narrow parameter and ignore the rest. But what is the reason why people even invest to build HSR? They don't build it because it's cheap. They build it for the long term economic and social benefits and if cost/benefit analysis are done well. It can be a tremendous solution to both climate change and economic growth. I just wanted to put in only one sentence briefly summarising key benefits [9] and reasons why people even bother to build HSR, and that is what's debated on this thread. RememberpaBrandon (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
And one last reply - from what I understand, the introduction should summarise the whole article and gives a brief intro to all areas of the topic. The part where people should not build HSR, is emphasized at the end. There's no mention of why people should build HSR anywhere in the intro and why I believe the introduction is unbalanced and missing essential details. Readers would want to know what is the point of actually building these things and ideally the introduction should "introduce" to them the potential benefits too. And yes, people don't spend billions of dollars if there were no potential mass scale benefits in return.[10] RememberpaBrandon (talk) 05:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Politics

There is much heated politics around this issue yet I currently noticed a lack of any information for politics in the article. But there's no secret that mostly right wing or automobile/ oil lobbies are extremely against high speed rail. They perceive it as a threat to their oil industry and car culture. And has been well reported that both lack of money and lack of federal will are among the top reasons why nations like the US, don't have much HSR. [11] I propose adding a new chapter about the politics [12] in relation to this topic as I believe it's relevant and of due weight to be included in the body, given its importance. Because as Barrington Institute so elegantly writes;
There’s a lot of forces in America that really don’t want to see rail become our major mode of transportation especially because it will affect passenger numbers on airplanes, it’ll affect the use of autos. So you have the politics, the message shaping and then the straight advertising and all three of those coordinate and work together to keep America kind of focused on cars and not focused on rail. [13] RememberpaBrandon (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
This is not a bad idea, you would be welcome to do so. I would recommend that you create this section in draft, and ask someone to look it over before trying to integrate it into the article. This will allow you to develop this without your edits being reverted because your initial efforts are not up too par, which can be very discouraging. David12345 (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Images at the top of the article

There have recently been edits to replace the Chinese train with a Taiwanese one. And while I think that was motivated by politics/nationalism, there is the legitimate question whether both of the first two pictures on this article should be for trains in East Asia, rather than those in other parts of the world. So let's have this debate! 213.95.33.60 (talk) 13:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Picture was changed back to a Chinese train. While I sympathise with the Taiwanese cause, a Chinese train should probably be in the lead as the country has the largest system in the world by far. I also feel that the Japanese Shinkansen should be featured as it was the first real HSR system and still the most important after China's. --Ita140188 (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
By what measure is the Japanese system "still the most important after China"? Total mileage of track is not the criterion - that would be Spain.... 213.95.33.60 (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I meant for ridership, which is the most important factor in my opinion --Ita140188 (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
A montage may be a solution, which is what I ultimately ended up doing at Train. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:High-speed_rail/Archive_4&oldid=1206183999"