Talk:High-speed rail/Archive 1

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

POV

There is an unacceptable level of POV in the History section that needs to be adressed. Two points:

Fuel efficiency does not equal competitiveness. Only the total cost is important

High speed rail is not that fuel efficient. Its main selling points are speed and capacity

Klafubra 10:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

-Klafubra, what is important is up to the planners POV. Fuel efficiency vs. total cost are gross oversimplifications, there are other considerations, including national prestige, environmental pollution, convenience (which depends on interacting systems, like city urban transport, parking, highways, etc), traffic jams, government kickbacks (yes, a real consideration!), economic stimulus, funding availability, safety (cars are killing machines, so is alcohol & sleepiness), war bomb shelters (stations), that often can't be calculated in dollars, but have social well being impact. Regarding solely the two however its important to remember total cost is dependent on time, total cost over time may vary widely with age, so its not as simple as comparing two figures. However, we know that high speed rail is designed to be considerably more fuel efficient than airplanes and/or private automobiles, but again that depends on actual usage patterns, design of trainsets, route design, maintenence, driving patterns...in practice, some stations are built far from city centers, requiring substantial extra time/distance to/from to the station than other alternatives. (e.g. Taichung station, Taiwan and Tsubame-Sanjo, Japan)


"Passenger rail service has been seriously downgraded since, due to declining demand". Not true. Demand for passenger rail has INCREASED overall since the WW2, while demand for air and road has increased at a much higher rate. As for the serious downgrade, what exactly do you mean by that? closing of intercity lines? decline in passengers? fewer trains on the timetable? slower trains? where is the evidence? Surely the introduction topics in this article refer to the countries that have notable high speed rail initiative, ie. Japan, Korea, China, Western Europe? I think you'll find that in those countries there has been no such 'severe downgrade'.

-People often write from a national perspective than a global one. People need to cite which nation they are referring to, and if they don't know, then they should not write at all.


Although there are a few exceptions, most high-speed rail projects never set out to be an excercise in running a profitable business. Both high speed and conventional rail are, like it or not, inevitably loss-making, government-subsidised systems whose existence is justified by the claim that their macroeconomic benefits outweigh the microeconomic losses. Using an ambiguous clichee such as "market" for the utilisation of something that has more resemblance to a public service than a to market product is slighlty inadequate and lazy writing. Although the english language seems increasingly infested with business jargon, most people still wouldn't say "market for police officers", "market for pavements" or "market for traffic lights" for instance. I therefore replaced the word, at least in the title, with the slighlty better description "Target areas".

-Profitable business, again, is a very narrow minded way to evaluate a high speed rail system, or for that matter, any system! Please see the first discussion regarding fuel efficiency vs. total cost.


I am moving some MAJOR POV to the talk page. I'll let someone else figure out what to put back and how:

[begin material from page]

The railroads, which had been built with private capital, were not given an equal playing field.

In Europe and Japan, with important conventional rail services, their extension and adaptation to a higher speed technology was a more obvious choice than in the United States, where decisions are dominated by the highway lobby rather than reason.

Other widely cited complaints against the air and highway modes are their externalities: pollution, noise, accidents, etc. Neither air nor highway modes can avoid these.

[end material from page]

Railroads do not make noise? Ever lived near one? Building a highway system was unreasonable? Amtrack is disadvantaged by the government? Come on!

-Whether one system makes noise has no effect on whether all systems make noise. We all know that some cars are noisy as hell and others are quiet as a mouse. People need to separate one individual design from facts of all systems...useful info would be highest, average, lowest noise decibels of major systems in operation, future designs/improvements that would reduce these figures and their costs, not a bitch fight whether specific systems are noisy or not.


I was also confused by the following sentence: As with its inauguration, the 1998 Winter Olympics in Nagano Japan are a target for the opening of a rail line extension.

Does this mean that this sentence hasn't been updated since 1998?

Cos111 00:29 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It seems to come from Levinson, David. 1995 [!]. Rail Reinvented: A Brief History of High Speed Ground Transportation, http://www.ce.umn.edu/~levinson/papers-pdf/RailReinvented.pdf I updated this line. - Patrick 08:05 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)


This is a great article! Did you write it specially for Wikipedia, Qbmessiah? --Larry Sanger

Unlike other modes, whose emergence have at least in part been the result of a forceful entrepreneur, rail?s George Stephenson and Peter Cooper, the automobile?s Henry Ford, or the airplanes Orville and Wilbur Wright come immediately to mind, high speed ground transportation has been a product of planning from the central government in Japan, France, and the state governments in the United States.

Who cares whether an "entrepreneur" is involved? Just mention it's the result of central planning and be done with it. Americans are so weird.

I disagree with the above remark. This seems to be a very important difference in the way this technology was developed. I'm sure you'll agree that one cannot discount the importance of entrepreneurs in the development of many technologies; given that, it's notable that (if it's true) entrepreneurs weren't involved in the development of this technology. This has social/political implications, of a sort that ought to be interesting to you, particularly if you don't (ever) care whether entrepreneurs are involved in a project.

--A weird American :-)

You're begging the question. You're assuming that it's notable (ie, important enough to be noticed) that "entrepreneurs" (whatever that Americanism means) weren't involved in the development of high speed trains. And from this you conclude exactly what you're assuming!

Entrepreneur as defined by a dictionary, and under its definition, it says:
French, from Old French, from entreprendre, to undertake.
Does not say anything about American, U.S., USA, North America, Western culture, ...
…Guy M… (soapbox) 10:09, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
and now back to the previously scheduled tirade...

Actually, the word "entrepreneur" should be taken out even if for the sole reason that it's an Americanism and a propaganda word for neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism is a POV which should be moded away. If you wish to say that "Neo-liberals think it important that blah blah blah" then go right ahead. At that point, I can leave it to someone else to take it out as completely irrelevant. -- Not an American

Read more carefully; I'm not given to begging questions. Entrepreneurs (a French word found in the OED) were important in developing very many technologies; that you must not be denying, because it's obviously true. It follows--but arguably, inductively, and non-trivially--from this that it is notable that entrepreneurs were not involved in the development of high speed rail. No "neo-liberal" assumptions are involved here, as far as I can see.

This said, given that you have some objection, and that other left-leaning people would too, adding a qualification would be very apropos (that's another French-sourced word). I think I'll do that.

--An anti-bigot.

"high speed ground transportation has been a product of planning from the central government in ..." ^^ That's not true ... high speed rail in europe is no more centraly planed than the airport networks or the highway networks ... it's just that when you look at a HSL you forget to see that it's a private consortium that builds the HSL's or that the HS trains themselves are buit by private companies (with their own entrepreneurs) and not by government bureaucrats ... Stepheson was just one of many ... henry ford ??? ever heard of peugeot , daimler ??? von diesel and many others ??? there were hundreds of "entrepreneurs" who shaped what we know today as the "automobile" industry ... same goes for the railways ... and it's not a "new" thing this thing ... the High Speed networks are actualy just another step in the evolution of intercity railway ... half the rapid railways (200km/h) in europe are not even considered to be HSL and were constructed/upgraded even before the concept was created. Sotavento (talk) 10:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This article read like many of my draft articles - full of "moreover", "nevertheless","maybe", "possibly", "however" etc. I quite like that style, but most readers do not! When it comes to the crunch, very little is added by including words like that, though they can work well enough in informal text, or perhaps in speech, though we don't really speak like that, do we?

I think it is often better, have produced the draft including all the words mentioned above, plus a few more, to then go through and fairly ruthlessly prune most of them out. Also many sentences can be split into separate sentences, and while people with complex minds may find that too simplistic, there is evidence that for most people this makes the articles more readable.

I have tried to maintain the same tone, and information as the original, but simply to shorten it, and to make it clearer, without redundant words.

David Martland 18:08 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)

Well done! Patrick 21:10 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)


Duplication

The whole article seems to be duplicated. I'm not sure if there are differences between the two parts, so someone should compare them and fix it. --SPUI 11:04, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)--SPUI 11:04, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Some Technical stuff

  • Highspeed rail is in the international technical use defined as something faster than 100 mph (160 km/h). The UIC definition is more suitable for Europe, but not for the rest of the world.
  • The dual gauge train in Spain is called ALVIA S-130 or Talgo 250. The traction technology is from Bombardier Transportation Switzerland. The train is currently compatible with two overhead line voltage systems; 25kV AC and 3kV DC.
  • The Swiss ICN is a very nice, but this is not really a high speed train. It belongs more to the tilting train category like Pendolino or VT 611.
  • The new Talgo 350 for Spain is built by Talgo togehter with Bombardier. The design of the power heads is from Switzerland.
  • The Acela Express train is not tilting. It was only designed to do so, but it never did in revenew service.
Hmmmm... I've read that it tilts, but the loading gauge doesn't permit it to tilt as far as had been hoped-for.
Atlant 16:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Hmm I wouldn't say any definition which is based on mph is suitable for the 'rest of the world' For the US perhaps, but not the rest of the world. Besides that, where are the sources? Who is the one who defines it as faster then 100 mph? Saying it's an international technical use is not particularly informative without saying who defines it as faster then 100 mph. Is it defacto? The UN? Who? Nil Einne 19:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
To quote the start of article "According to UIC, "high-speed train" is a train that runs at over 250 km/h [155mph] on dedicated tracks, or over 200 km/h [125mph] on upgraded conventional tracks.", the UIC being the International Union of Railways (Ref: General definitions of highspeed.). So this is an international definition with a proper reference. Tompw (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

north american FRA states that high speed is above 95mph / 145km/h european union consideres HSR to be anything above 200km/h (old upgraded routes) or above 250km/h (new built routes) ... pendulinos and such are indeed HS trains ... every train capable of traveling at 200km/h is considered an HST , be it pendular or not. Narrow gauge trains with speeds of 160km/h are considered to be "high speed trains" Notice that the UIC does not specify themselves a notion of HSR but instead points out to the EU definitions as can be sen on their webpage. special notice that the dual gauge talgo is NOT the talgo250 ... you either get: - talgo pendular (ramas serie IV) with travels at 180km/h - talgo200 (ramas serie 5 and 6) wich travels at 200km/h - talgo "AVE serie 130" (self propelled consist, nicknamed "patitos") and "rama serie VII" (loco hauled consist) wich are rama serie VII and is capable of 250km/h (self proppeled) or 220km/h (loco hauled) - talgo "ave serie 102" (self propelled consist, nicknamed "patos" or "talgo 350") , these are special serie VII consists able to fly at 330km/h (supoded to go to 350km/h but restricted to lower speeds) - there are dual gauge trains other than the talgos in spain ... namely TRd and CAF serie 120 (other series being planned and constructed) - there are dual gauge trains for speeds of 320km/h in the planning stage for the near future Tilting trains can tilt to a lesser degree than their maximum if the railways are not prepared to receive them ... usualy they tilt as much as 8 degrees swiss ICN is just like the portuguese , italian , spanish , finnish , swedish (and many other) pendular trains ... speeds of 200km/h (or more) and the capacity to fly at higher speed that otherwise permited to conventional trains (average 20/30% more speed than other trains) Sotavento (talk) 10:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


UK Aspects.

It seems a little silly that the UK is the only country which gets its own section devoted to how it doesn't have high speed rail. Perhaps if the UK needs to be mentioned, then it would be sensible to refer to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (which will start domestic services in the nearish future) as the main backbone, while saying that the East Coast Main Line is close in terms of speed and straightness, while not being a purpose built High Speed Line, and that the West Coast Main Line is upgraded to 125mph on sections along its length.

Wich is in fact misleading since by the EU definitions of HSR the UK is precisely one of the countries with more mileage of HSR ... large portions of trackage at 125mph / 200km/h and the CTRL1.Sotavento (talk) 10:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Must be corrected!

In Europe High speed definitions varies from country to country, but is commonly designated with +250 km/h.

I fixed the statement about Pendolino deriving from APT train: this is wrong. The first tilting train with active technology in the world was italian ETR Y 0160 in 1969, while the first commercial runs were made in 1975 by ETR401 from Rome to Ancona. APT in 1975 started the building of the first three prototypes, completed only in 1981, while the 1972 APT was only a test train (so it came 3 years later the italian one). So it is wrong to say that Pendolino is derived mainly from APT technology. APT patents were acquired to improve the bogies of the second generation of italian trains, the ETR450.

Talgo is NOT the fastest diesel train. The fastest one was the TGV001 Turbotrain prototype, back in the '60s (315 km/h).

--Jollyroger 16:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

"High speed" relates to the "old" 200km/h railways , only completely new lines are +250km/h ... this acording to the definition

Pendolino "suspension"/"pendulation" is in fact partly derived from the APT ... earlier pendulation from the italian system was combined from the britsh system to achieve the current pendulation system (FIAT actual bought the rights fro mthe british back then?)

TGV Turbotrain was turbine engined and not diesel neither did achieve its record in the 60's (actualy was in 1971)... but the russians claim that a TEP80 reached 270km/h back in 1992 (read it here on the wiki page about rail speed records) Sotavento (talk) 10:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


Merge with article shinkansen

The editors for the Shinkansen article are saying that "Shinkansen" is the universal term for all bullet trains because Japan dominates the field.

I disagree, and most of the article shares the same content with this article.

Let's make Shinkansen article provide information for Japanese bullet trains, not the bullet trains for all of the world.

And then incorporate many of the similar elements in that article into this. (Wikimachine 18:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

  • Disagree with merge -- IMNSHO, Shinkansen means exactly what it means: "New Railway" and it refers only to that new railway (which falls into the larger, more-general category of high-speed rail). Atlant 18:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly disagree with merge - Shinkansen refers uniquely to Japanese high-speed rail, not to the rest of the world. -- Arwel (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree with merge - I find it hard to believe this merge was proposed. This is the "High-speed rail" article, not the "bullet train" article. This article discusses world-wide high speed trains, Japanese trains (regardless of name) are but a small part. The main Shinkansen article should be linked in the relevant section (under the english term for them - "Bullet trains") but not merged. It should be treated just like all the other networks - TGV, Eurostar, ICE etc. Canderra 22:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You guys don't get this. Thanks for the participation anyways.

If you search the word bullet train, it leads to the Shinkansen article. This is what I am complaining about. This has the implication that Shinkansen is the universal term for the field bullet train.

Well, in that case case "bullet train" is synonymous with "Shinkansen". It is not, however, synonymous with "high-speed rail". -- Arwel (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

2nd proposal: Make the redirect on bullet train to high-speed rail article. (Wikimachine 19:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

  • Disagree with redirect "bullet train" is normally taken to refer to the trains running on the Japanese high-speed network. I have never heard of any other nation's train network being called by that name. The current article for "bullet trains"/"Shinkansen" is very good and much more appropriate for the term than this more generalised & global article. Canderra 23:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Folks, let's stop the discussion here and move it to Talk:Shinkansen. I've removed the merge tag as it's obvious this idea has little support. Jpatokal 02:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Irish Highspeed?

Whilst I agree it's good that IE have introduced their new mark 4 CAF built trains on internal routes it states right here that they only run at 160kph and the introductory sentence says that High-Speed rail is consider to be above 200kph. Therefore should the Republic of Ireland be included? Yes it's a much quicker and improved timing on certain routes be it is really just an upgrade of the existing services with new stock etc, not at all comparable to 'proper' high-speed like TGV, ICE, AVE etc running at 300+ kph. --Achmelvic 12:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


I think it should it should be included because the 160km/h is just a minimum speed not a maximum speed.

It should be included although 160km/h is not a minimum speed. Have you ever heard of anything that has a minimum speed of 160km/h? That's impossible. (Wikimachine 18:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC))

Does anyone know what the projected max speed is? --Achmelvic 18:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking "high speed railway" shoud mean anithing above the slow speed of common trains ... it could as easily be used to refer the average (in some parts of the world) intercity trains running at 160km/h Sotavento (talk) 11:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Confusing Statement about Japanese Trains

"As with other high speed rail lines around the world, some Shinkansen lines cannot handle the highest speeds. Some rails remain narrow-gauge to allow sharing with conventional trains, reducing land requirement and cost."

Are some Shinkansen run on narrow-gauge lines? Is this a three-rail setup, where one rail is used by trains of both gauges, while the other rails are used by trains of the different gauges? Or do they change the wheels on the trains like they do for some international trains in Europe where different countries use different gauges?

I guess the sentence refers to Mini-Shinkansen line, the upgraded conventional line with a through service to a main Shinkansen line. In other words, it is technically not a "true" Shinkansen, although announced as so. As far as I know, its truck is widened to standard gauge, except of very short 3-railed segments.--Kzaral 13:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

>>A direct train between Lahore and Karachi will commence operations from July 26th 2006 and will reach a top speed of 140 km/hr and will be equipped with VHF walkie-talkies<<

140 km/h? VHF walkie-talkies? Unbelievalble! A true 21st century railway engineering feat.

I mean, really, this entry does not belong in this article.

^^ Actualy it's an "express" train and noth entirely "high speed" train at all. Sotavento (talk) 11:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

High speed railways in Norway

I've included some text on the current political climate for high speed railways in Norway. I'm not sure how much of my sources I should mention in the article itself, but at least I can list some of my sources here:

129.241.139.132 23:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Weasel wording...

"Japan might be considered the spiritual home of modern high-speed railways."

Could somebody fix the thesis with something more neutral? Sounds like original research to me. The burden of proof is on you guys. (Wikimachine 22:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC))

-I think a better sentence would be "Japan is considered the pioneer of modern high speed railways". This would be accurate as it was the first to design, build, and operate them, an undisputable fact. Spiritual Home sounds more like a religious sect.

Bot wordings seem valid since in reality it was the Japanese construction of the shinkansen in such a different way than conventional (for that era) track and rollingstock speed upgrades wich lead europeans to try the HST/TGV concepts at the same scale (instead of just a couple of express trains like in prior times) Sotavento (talk) 11:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Article split?

The article is currently 57 kilobytes long (and 8,400 words), and it's not going to get any shorter. (The Technology and Hitsory sections both nmeed expansion). Consequently, I would like to suggest that the sections "Countries with high-speed rail networks in operation" and "Countries planning high-speed rail" be split off into their own articles. I would suggest something like High-speed rail networks by country and Planned high-speed rail projects by country or similar, though alternative names would be helpful. Tompw (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

How about we do split the articles but we keep the current and planned high-speed rail joined? GCFreak2 16:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
That sounds okay. (Wikimachine 05:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC))
Having both current and planned together would create an article over 42 kilobytes in size and containing over 6,000 words... which would be long enough it justify splitting in itself! Plus, a lot of countries only have sketchy coverage, so the article will get longer. So, I really think there hsould be seperate articles for countries with HSR, and countries just planning it. Tompw (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
People need to move all unnecessary info to subarticles, and then adding links such as "See artice ...", which would reduce size. Splitting is not the right decision. France, the nation in Europe with the most developed network, has the least coverage here...due to a proper redirect. Other nations with networks in operation should move nearly all info to their respective subpages, keeping only brief short statements. (e.g. Japan uses and pioneereed the Shinkansen system, See high speed rail in Japan <-- this is sufficient!!)
There are 32 countires listed - if each had 86 words (like France), then that makes 2,750 words. The non-country stuff comes to about about 2,300 words, so this would make 5,050 words, makeing the article about 34KB in size, which is still too big. Also, as I said earlier, the Technology and History sections both need expansion, so the article will only get bigger. Tompw (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
OK.... in view of the lack of response to my most recent commment, I've created High-speed rail by country and Planned high-speed rail by country. Tompw (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Organisation (Talk)

I was considering making some contributions to this article, but I was put off by the very unstructured talk page. It is just anarachy ... the contents list is halfway down the page!! This page is very un-professional ... not what I would expect on Wikipedia. Sheepcot 14:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Future and hight speed use of wide gauge

It would be interesting to see the implementation of wide or extra wide 2m + gauge. Wiger gauge could take advantage of exponential economies of scale. A double sized gouge, for example, could bear a load up to four times bigger because the greates stability of a wider track also alows a train to be built higher. Greater stability from increased width would allow for much faster rail transport greatly reducing the cost of high speed rail.

At high-speeds, wind/air resistance is the biggest factor in slowing the train down... it is therefore better to make the train twice as long, than twice as wide. For real-world case studies; Japan switched from narrow-gauge to standard-gauge for high-speed trains; and Spain switched from broad-gauge to standard-gauge for high-speed trains. Sladen 02:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
For passenger rail, the trains should be as light as possible (per passenger). It is true that wider and higher trains allow more passengers, but gives more wind resistance. For freight traffic the trains should be as heavy as possible (including cargo), but they don't need so high speeds. The limit is the locomotive power, hill grade, bridge strength not the rail gauge, which is wide enough. Finlnad and Russia has/is building wide gauge high-speed rail, but it is just because their other railways has that. -- BIL 08:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
More stability than with 1435 mm gauge is not needed, since the curve forces should not be higher than today (tilting trains have the highest curve forces) because of wear and risk of axle breakdown etc. These factors limit the curve speed, not the stability. --BIL (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wider gauge is not an advantage at all since as gauges are biggers the head-hunting of wheels on rails becames stronger and any other advantage of the broader gauge gets neglected easily. Loading gauge (the size of the train body itself) also is nowadays a compromise between loading capacity and aerodinamics/drag ... Sotavento (talk) 11:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft

I deleted the following observation

"However, it should be noted that train travel is less safe than air travel. Trains have .04 deaths for every 100 million miles while air travel has .01 deaths for every 100 million miles travelled. However, compared to the automobile, with .94 deaths per 100 million miles, both figures are relatively low. Railway suicides may also skew the statistics a bit."

The rate of accidents to aircraft is in large degree related to the number of takesoff and landings. Relatively few accidents happen enroute. Consequently the apparent safety of aircraft per mile arises because many flights travel long distances. To be a meaningful comparison, the accident rates should be considered for equivalent journeys.

Sylvia 03:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Nonsensical/confusing sentence

"For example, scheduled airlines take only 25 minutes longer to travel the distance from Sapporo to Tokyo as opposed to just stopping at Sendai, but high speed rail takes 101 minutes longer."

How can airlines take 25 minutes longer than high speed railroad to go from Sapporo to Tokyo, if high speed railroad takes 101 minutes longer than airlines? Conversely, how can high speed railroad take 101 minutes longer than airlines if airlines take 25 minutes longer than high speed railroad? And what's this about "as opposed to just stopping at Sendai"? What is opposed to just stopping at Sendai? Is the sentence trying to say that without stopping at Sendai, airlines take 25 minutes longer, but if a stop in Sendai is made, the railroad takes 101 minutes longer? This sentence makes very little sense, though judging from the sentenve before it ("not good enough reason for make..." as it reads), this may be due to the author having a poor understanding of English grammar. I can't tell, personally, as even most people who speak English as a first language can barely assemble an intelligible sentence in it anymore. --Þórrstejn [ˡθoɝ.staɪʲn]: Hammer of Thor talk 20:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

High speed rail by country / Proposed high speed rail by country

The high speed rail by country section was a mess, I have seperated this section into 'high speed rail by country' and 'proposed high speed rail by country', in line with the main articles. Moreover, railway lines that don't reach a speed of 200km/h + shouldn't be on the list, in line with the definition used in this article. Any updates in this list are welcome. I also propose that there should eventually be a seperate 'High speed rail in [country]' article for every country that has high speed rail. --Joop20 (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with those changes. I also think putting up requirements for railway lines to be in the article is a great idea.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Uncommented Reversion to "Maximum speed in service" Section

A brief page history:

  • 2008-08-27T14:29:53 Python eggs (Talk | contribs) (37,598 bytes) (→Maximum speed in service)
  • 2008-08-27T14:48:58 Danorton (Talk | contribs) (37,177 bytes) (Undid revision 234571499 by Python eggs (talk) removed improperly referenced speculation (see WP:RSUE))
  • 2008-08-31T07:58:52 Python eggs (Talk | contribs) (38,120 bytes) (Undid revision 234575177 by Danorton (talk)) (undo)

I am inviting Python eggs (Talk | contribs) to explain his reversion on this talk page. In the comment area of my reversion, I referred to WP:RSUE. As the reference to WP:RSUE was indirect, I quote that section directly here (emphasis as in original):

Non-English sources
Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others are likely to challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.

--Danorton (talk) 04:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't read that policy. English source is added. Personally speaking, this is one of the most stupid policy I've seen at Wikipedia. Python eggs (talk) 06:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
You can discuss that particular wiki policy at WT:Verifiability.
I have reverted your most recent edit again, as it fails to reference an appropriate source (see WP:SOURCE). There are a number of other problems with the addition you seem to want to make, including its encyclopedic worth (see WP:NOT), its speculation (See WP:FUTURE and WP:Verifiability and its grammatical errors. Please consider discussing further what you propose to add before adding it because at this rate, it's not likely to remain and I'd rather discuss it and reach a consensus first. I am explaining in considerable detail why I am reverting your edit, please consider explaining in proportionate detail why you feel it doesn't relate to the polices and guidelines I have cited. Of course, I hope other editors here will add their two cents. Thank you. --Danorton (talk) 02:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
You want English refs, and you've have added them. I can't understand why you revert it again. Python eggs (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I noticed this discussion at the MC and took a quick look at it. After some googling I found this article, which, at least to me, seems like a valid source. I would suggest that the sentence in question be changed to something like "On August 2008, Zhang Shuguang, deputy chief engineer at the Chinese Ministry of Railways, announced that trains on the planned Beijing-Shanghai high-speed railway, scheduled to be completed in 2013, will be operating at 380 km/h". Would this be acceptable to everybody? --Twinzor Say hi! - Do I suck or rock? 01:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but no, because:
  1. The statement is speculative and thus lacks encylopedic merit,
  2. The primary source of the speculation is strongly biased,
  3. The speculation is self-serving, and
  4. It is grammatically incorrect.
(See WP:NOTCRYSTAL)--Danorton (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I can kind of understand your argument for possible COI, but it is a bona fide newspaper. Could you please elaborate on how it is strongly biased? Also, I don't think this would fall under WP:NOTCRYSTAL, since this is something that's happening in the relative near future, it's notable, and the work is already underway. As for the grammar, I'm not a native English-speaker, so please feel free to fix the grammar. :) This shouldn't be a point in the debate on whether to include it or not though. --Twinzor Say hi! - Do I suck or rock? 01:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that the China Daily (the secondary source) is a bone fide news source and I don't question that the named individual (the primary source) actually made the claim, but this extract from the article is simple repetition from the primary source without any analysis of the quality of the statement, without any independent verification of the claim, and without presentation of any independent POV of the claim. The original statement is from a non-neutral source, it is unmodified by the secondary source and its copy here is still primary, even if passed through a secondary source.
I also note that this section is about "Maximum speed in service" (current, not speculative or even planned) and that it is a subsection of "The history of a maximum speed" [sic - I'll fix that grammatical error -- sigh]. --Danorton (talk) 02:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, you are correct that the info shouldn't be under history of maximum speed. I missed that. I believe Planned high-speed rail by country would be the correct place for it. In any case, I still think that the source is valid. What kind of independent verification should I be looking for, since this is a statement from a government official? A second government official also confirms they are building a high-speed railway, since the source also says "Construction of the railway is progressing smoothly, according to He Huawu, the ministry's chief engineer". Would you agree that this warrants at least some kind of a mention on the aforementioned page? --Twinzor Say hi! - Do I suck or rock? 02:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I would have no objection to mention of the such plans, preferably with a substantiating comment from an NPOV source, else a clear indication that the unsupported claim is self-serving. --Danorton (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the references to future events from the history section and added them to Planned high-speed rail by country. I also found another source from Beijing-Shanghai_Express_Railway citing the speed. The validity of the sources was contested, but I think they are acceptable for the article regarding planned high-speed rails, since we now have two sources saying that this line is under construction and plans are to operate the trains on that line at 380km/h. Are we ready to close the case at the MC, or are there further issues here? --Twinzor Say hi! - Do I suck or rock? 16:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts, but I believe that's the same original Chinese reference that led me to delete the paragraph from this section. I suspect it's just a regurgitation from the identical primary source. I just deleted it from that article, too, for the same reason (WP:NONENG). --Danorton (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I have modified that article section in a manner that I believe reports the same information, but in compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Planned_high-speed_rail_by_country#China --Danorton (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm moving discussion of changes to other articles to the mediation page. --Danorton (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Canada

The top speed of any of the locomotives listed on Via Rail's website is 160 kph. http://www.viarail.ca/equipements/en_equipment.html. The rail service between Toronto and Montreal takes, at best, 4.5 hours to travel 550 km, with 4-5 stops. High speed rail has been proposed in Canada, but is not in existence. I'd be delighted to be corrected if anyone has any evidence of rail service in Canada that does, in fact, operate at over 200 kph. Joelphillips (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Target areas for high-speed trains

I think there is a little mistake in this section! The Brazilian government does not consider a stop at Congonhas Airport but rather Guarulhos International Airport, which also lies on north east of Sao Paulo in the direction towards Rio de Janeiro.

See also: Inter-American Development Bank http://www.iadb.org/projects/project.cfm?id=BR-T1087&lang=en

Pelzkragen (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

How about adding a higest average segment speed to the table

Some trains, such as the Acela Express in the United States have a large variance in their speed. How about adding a section for maximum scheduled segment speed? From a transportation point of view (rather than a technological point of view) I believe this is more significant. As if you travel half the distance of a trip at 300 km/h, and the other half at 100 km/h you still spend more time in transit than if you travel 200 km/h the whole time. Hwttdz (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Update China related

Please update China related trackage, maps since two new lines were just opened.Calvingao (talk) 06:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Please make the HSR lines more clear

IN the map of HSR lines in Asia, please make the HSR more clear. A good way of doing it is to delete all the conventional rail lines. Or make the HSR lines wider.Calvingao (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Just for the Sake of Good Reading, The Record Speeds Should Be in Or Near The Opening of The Article

The article is a little dry. Rearranging the elements would spice it up and make it more readable without sacrificing Wikipedia standards.

71.215.94.171 (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia - they're not usually 'spicy' - boring and dry = good (opinion)Shortfatlad (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Needs a disadvantages section with air travel.

Train travel is slower and statistically less safe than air travel. I believe it's more subsidized as well (but I'd need the data). This should be included and I may do so later when I get motivated. --Rotten 03:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes aircraft is safer, but relatively speaking, they are both very safe. --Shadowlink1014 14:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
It's very difficult to nail down the subsidy situation with regard to either air or rail travel; maintenance of railways often has something to do with maintaining the ability to move military materiel while, in America, it's fairly difficult to preciesly pick apart Boeing's commercial operations from their military operations. Just how far do you go when you look for subsidies? Going a bit farther afield, the American Interstate Highway System also has many ties to the planning for military preparedness.
Atlant 15:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually freight rail in the US is one of the more "unfettered" networks around, in terms of government subsidies/regulations, I was more talking about world-wide modes of travel for individuals, air vs. high speed rail. I don't have the data and don't really want to get into it that much. --Rotten 16:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Your belief has nothign to do with it - what matters is whether or not you can find suitable sources to verify your claims :-) If measured in fataliaties per passenger-mile, then I agree air travel is safer than rail... though I think if you measure it by fatalities per journey, then rail comes out ahead. (It's intersting to note that trabel into space is a lot safer than air travel if measured per passenger-km, and more dangerous than motorcycle riding is measured per journey...).
The subsidy issue is harder to quantify... the state off Washington gives tax breaks to aerospace companies, which means Boeing can sell iot's planes for cheaper... airlines don't pay tax on fuel (trains in the UK do)... US airlines got massive bailouts post 9/11... Do these count as subsidy? Rail in the US recieves a tiny amount of goverment money; that in France receives a *lot*. So, it is very hard to tie down exact figures and say "air gets more/less goverement susbsidy than rail". Both modes can(and do) either operate with a commercial profit, or only because of goverment subsidy. Tompw (talk) (review) 21:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if you consider high-speed rail to be a separate system to conventional rail, it is safer than air travel. I beleive there has only been one fatal incident worldwide in the entire history of high-speed rail (correct me if I'm wrong).
Also, you need to make a like-for-like comparison. Most high speed rail journeys are from city centre to city centre. The equivalent air journey would (sometimes) require a car or bus journey to and from the airports. Cambrasa confab 23:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Most journeys do not go from city centre to city centre, at least not within walking distance. It is true that if going by air and reaching the airport by public transport one usually passes the city center/railway station. But usually not when using private car/taxi. Journeys usually go between someone's home and a hotel/a company/a relative/ a friend. People usually live in a suburb or outside the city requiring a transfer. Hotels are often located near the railway stations but often not, needing a transfer anyway. Companies are usually located in suburbs of cities. Some companies might be located near the railway station. The railway has a location advantage, but you will usually need a car or bus ride to the railway station also. --BIL (talk) 08:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. High speed rail is usually most viable for high density cities. One of the main advantages of HSR is that it takes you to a central location, so we can assume this this is also its main market. All high speed rail lines build to date integrate seamlessly with large metro and regional rail systems at the destinations. What you say may be true for American metropolises (none of which have high speed rail - probably exactly for the reasons you state) but not for Asian and European metropolises, where most people do live and work near the railway station (or can at least connect by metro). It would be interesting to get some statistics as to what percentage of high speed rail passengers continue by car, bus or metro. Until we have such statistics, comparing safety of HSR and planes is meaningless. Cambrasa confab 08:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, like it or not, but whenever a "proper" high speed rail connection is introduced between two major cities, it gains a market share that is bigger than aircraft's. This proves that it is more advantageous for majority of people in "door - to - door" travel. Of course the market share of aircraft does not drop to zero, simply because of the fact that location of the airports are more convenient for "some" travelers. Gokaydince (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Rail travel is way safer than air travel specially considering comuter traffic is much more safe than small plane usage. HS rail is also much more safe than nationawide/international air travel. And air travel is tremendously more subsidized than rail travel ... airports are much more subsidized than train stations and the remaining aerial operation is also goverment subsidized everywhere in the world... Sotavento (talk) 11:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Chinese high speed double deck train

I’m looking for some info (and ideally pictures) on a high speed double deck train used (or to be used) by the Chinese. It might be called something like class NZJ2? Can anyone help? Thank you Chwyatt (talk) 08:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

NZJ2 is not a high-speed train. The maximum speed is 180 km/h, and it seems did never reach this speed during its operation. This is the only photo I can find at Wikipedia: File:20030510230632_-_津京城际“神州号”特快列车.jpg Python eggs (talk) 11:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Chwyatt (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's another photo: File:20060515101919 - 北京站.jpg, the train on the right side is NZJ2. Python eggs (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Python eggs, I found one as well [1] Chwyatt (talk) 08:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Yours is not NZJ2. It is NZJ1. The page's title is wrong. Python eggs (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Comparison with automobiles

Aren't the calculations for comparison with automobiles wrong? The way I work it out is that the number of cars on a 6 lane high way (3 lanes in each direction) is 2250 cars/lane/hour * 1.57 passengers/car = 3532.5 passengers/lane/hour. This gives a total of 3532.5 * 6 = 21195 passengers/hour. Compare this with the stated figure of 12000 passengers/hour in each direction, but a train line, like a car lane, only runs in one direction so the stated figure must imply a bi-directional 2 lane track. This puts the total number of passengers at 24000 passengers/hour. The ratio of train traffic:car traffic now becomes 1.13:1, significantly less than the claimed 3.3:1. The land usage is still less less so the overall ratio of passengers/meter/hour is about 1.13/4 * 10 = 2.23:1 (assuming I understand the land usage stats correctly. This isn't a bad statistic and but is far far away from the implied 3.3/4 * 10 = 8.25:1 ratio. Now, I could be missing something here or my maths could just suck, but it seems like the figure of 3.33 has just been plucked out of the air. I'm going to correct the figures, and if I'm wrong, this is my motivation and feel free to slap me down here and revert the changes. Karhig 18:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I wrote that bit, and yes, your calculations are right. Not sure where I made an error, but I certainly didn't pluck it out of thin air. I re-phrased your edit slightly, beacuse "13% more" flows better than "1.13 times greated".
The "passengers per hour per hectare per kilometer" is rather weird... I think you are stating (passengers per hour) per (hectare per kilometer). (Call it (p/hr)/(hect/km). Now, one "hectare per kilometer" is 10m. (10,000m²/1,000m). So, a figure of (say) 30 (p/hr)/(hect/km) for a mode of transport means that a 10m wide strip will cary 30 p/hr... (a 20m wide strip would cary 60p/hr).
So, better units would be "passengers per hour per meter". (1 passengers per hour per meter = 0.1 (p/hr)/(hect/km).) Calculations:
  • Train:
    • 24,000 passengers per hour
    • 1.0 hectare per km
    • 24,000 (p/hr)/(hect/km)
    • 2,400 pass/hour/meter
  • Car (6 lanes):
    • (2,250 passenger cars per hour per lane) * (6 lanes) * (1.57 passengers/car) = 21,195 passengers per hour
    • 2.5 hectare per km
    • 8478 (p/hr)/(hect/km)
    • 847.8 pass/hour/meter
  • ... which makes rail's throughput 2.83 times better than roads.
I hope this all makes sense. Tompw (talk) (review)
Yep, that's much better. My strange passengers per hour per blah blah was a bit dodgy yes, the new description is much better. Karhig 17:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I have trouble believing the 2250 cars per lane per hour figure. There are 3600 seconds in an hour, so that means that a car must be crossing a point on the road every 1.6 seconds. I can imagine that this could happen in ideal circumstances, but as soon as a car slows down everyone else must. Toll booths, merging trafic, accidents etc then that would slow down significantly.124.177.189.219 (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The figure 2250 cars per hour per lane is indeed the ideal maximum. If (and it's a big if) traffic is flowing freely without hinderenace, then you can obtain that figure. (This number actually comes from DfT guidance on highway modelling (link - see Table B3... though they've chnaged it from 2250 to 2330 since I last looked. The area types are defined here). Tompw (talk) (review) 11:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The capacity of a highway is dependent on the velocity of traffic flow. When you place velocity of traffic flow at the x axis and highway capacity on the y - axis, you observe a concave parabola - like shape which is only defined on the 1st quatrant of the axis. The peak of this shape is located somewhere between 50 km/hour. Long story short, if in reality a traffic flow of 2300 vehicles/lane occur, the velocity of that flow would be around 50 km/h, which is was slower than the high speed rail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gokaydince (talk • contribs) 12:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

HST reaches its "saturation point" when you get double sets of DUPLEX trains (2x545 pass = 1090 pass per train) at 3 minutes frequneces .. so it gets around 21.800 passagenger per hour PER DIRECTION ... so the 43.600 passengers would be impossible to achieve in a 6 lane highway. (notice to american notation that its 43600 or 43,600 , fourty tree thousand)Sotavento (talk) 10:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC) But effectively a HSL would take more than the mentioned space ... give it some 10/12m for the tracks and some other 10m for clearance (Service routes and such) ... effectively negating its space advantages over the higways.Sotavento (talk) 10:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC) And the notion that on a well flowing highway you can easily realy get 1 car per second is true. Sotavento (talk) 10:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

High-speed rail definition

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Discussion

We need somebody to make an authoritative definition on Wikipedia as to what high-speed rail is. Crashintome4196 has been insisting that the definition is 90-110 mph, and has been making a lot of edits to this page, and others, against consensus. I am going to leave his edits be for now, until we have conclusively determined that 125 mph is indeed the definiition. However, I will be reinserting my citation that he removed, with no explained reason, which was an American transportation textbook defining high-speed rail as 125 mph. --Shadowlink1014 10:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Okey-dokey... I've incorporated both definitions into the article for the meantime. --Shadowlink1014 10:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The definition is, of course, a political one and not a technological one. Because of this, I think it's safe to say that the floor for "high speed rail" is whatever the Acela is managing to achieve this month, it being about the slowest of the world's "high speed rail" systems.
90-110 MPH clearly doesn't cut it; the Metro-North Railroad's New Haven commuter division manages 90 MPH with some pretty garden-variety EMU trains, and the Pennsylvania Railroad used to manage 100 MPH with their GG1s on the NYC-Washington run 70 years ago.
Atlant 11:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I re-wrote so it leads with the 200km/hr version first, because the US definition seems to be unique to the USA. (It's not even North American, as Canada uses the the 200km/hr definition. (See page 5 of this PDF). I agree 90mph should just be a minor note. Tompw (talk) (review) 11:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not even sure we should have the 90 mph definition in there at all (even though I added it) -- all of the American textbooks I can find refer to high-speed as at least 125 mph... even that is pretty low -- the Acela runs at most 150 mph, and that's pretty slow.

Wait, all of the above seems to relate to the US. What about international? Simply south 16:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The International Union of Railways say 200km/hr (link). Tompw (talk) (review) 17:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The International Union of Railways also says (on the very same webpage) that "there is no single standard definition of high speed rail" and "definitions vary according to the criteria used since high speed rail corresponds to a complex reality." You cannot draw a fine line between what is high-speed and what is not high-speed. Obviously a 60 mph train is not a high-speed, but 90/100/110 mph train should be considered high-speed. –Crashintome4196 23:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey

To define "high-speed rail" as passenger rail running at a top speed of 125 mph (200 kph) or higher.

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.
  • Support - This is the international standard definition for high-speed rail, as I mentioned above, the International Union of Railways uses it, and transportation textbooks in the United States define it this way as well. Using a definition of "high-speed" of 90 mph, high-speed rail has been around for almost 100 years. --Shadowlink1014 16:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support -- As per my comment above -- Atlant 16:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Used by textbooks and international bodies alike. Tompw (talk) (review) 16:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - I think "over 125mph" is better. Tompw (talk) (review) 18:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per NPOV: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." We should give at least a sampling of the definitions that different governmental authorities use, and let the reader decide which one is correct. Reliable sources that use speeds below 110 mph include [2] and [3]. The latter implies that this lower speed is only used in the U.S.; if this is true, we should state that, but not remove it just because it's not a worldwide standard. Also note [4]: "The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has defined high-speed rail as self-guided intercity passenger ground transportation by steel wheel railroad that is time competitive with air and/or auto for travel markets in the approximate range of 100 to 500 miles (160 to 800 kilometers). This is a market-driven, performance-based definition of high-speed rail rather than a speed-based definition." and "The international organization of railways, the Union Internationale Chemins de Fer (UIC) High-Speed Rail Task Force, has decided to use the plural word "definitions" for high-speed rail to reflect the fact that there can be no standard definition based on infrastructure, rolling stock, and operations." --NE2 17:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    Woudl you say the current intro is NPOV? Tompw (talk) (review) 18:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    No; it states matter-of-factly that "High-speed rail is public transport by rail at speeds in excess of 200 km/h (125 mph)." --NE2 18:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    Here's the UIC's page on its high-speed rail "definitions": [5] Specifically note:
    "Finally, in many countries where the performance of the conventional railway is not very high, the introduction of some trains capable of operating at 160 km/h and offering a significant level of quality - often as a first step towards a future genuinely high speed service - may already be considered as high speed."
    "Specially upgraded High Speed lines which have special features as a result of topographical, relief or town-planning constraints, on which the speed must be adapted to each case."
    --NE2 19:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    But trains traveling at these speeds in the U.S. are not new... what about the Streamliners? The United States had trains going over 110 mph in the 1930's! --Shadowlink1014 01:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    So the U.S. had a type of high-speed rail in the 1930s. I'm not sure if this is a reliable source, but [6] agrees:
    "Paul Kokowski (ph) is a transportation planner and train aficionado who has traveled the rails, correct me if I'm wrong here, on every continent except the North and South Pole."; "This is interesting, because high- speed rail started in the United States in about 1891, when we had the locomotive 999, went from New York to Buffalo in seven hours, hitting speeds of over 121 miles an hour. It was the fastest vehicle in the world at the time, manmade."
    Again, see NPOV. We include all widely-held points of view, even if you disagree with them. --NE2 14:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    One country's view doesn't count as widely held in my eyes. In the article on weather, it doesn't mention that in North Korea, everyone gets told that Kim Jong-il controls the weather. Tompw (talk) (review) 15:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for the strawman. --NE2 04:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Trains consider high-speed in the United States don't travel as fast as those overseas because various laws restrict the maximum speed in which trains can travel. Because of this, high-speed rail standards are lower than in other countries, and any trains traveling over 90 mph (145 km/h) are considered high-speed according to the Federal Railroad Administration of the United States Department of Transportation. [7] According to the current statement, systems traveling at 110 mph are not considered high-speed, including the Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor, despite having "high-speed" in its title. 125 mph may be reasonable to apply to systems outside of the United States, but standards should be lowered for systems within the United States. Here are several proposed high-speed train systems in the U.S. that travel below 125 mph:
    The law has nothing to do with it. Just because the US doesn't allow 125mph+ running, it doesn't change whether or not 125mph is the lower limit. Tompw (talk) (review) 18:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

EDIT: America = 90mph-110mph (only for diesel trains), 125mph , 150mph on upgraded tracks , 200mph or more on new HSR (speed grading used by FRA to define the acela and future services in the USA) , see: http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/RRDev/cfs0997ch3.pdf Europe = High speed Rail is "200km/h or more" , new railways are built to "250km/h or more" simply because european regulations make a huge gap between noh nigh speed (general less than 160km/h) and high speed ... for example a railway infraestructure in wich conventional trains run at a maximum of 160km/h(100mph) can be suitable for pendular trains at 225km/h (or even more). Someone please depelop on the subject of high speed grades on USA, Europe and japan. Sotavento (talk) 11:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: EC Directive 96/58 is wrong numbered. Correct is EC Directive 96/48, but this one is replaced by EC Directive 2008/57.Tommasel (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Speed of high-speed rail

Can we have a sensible worldwide definition of high speed rail? Personally I'd say it has to have a maximum speed of 300km/h or higher to count as high speed rail. Maybe dropping as low as the European definition would be reasonable, but allowing the US to pretend they have high-speed rail as they have one train line that goes above 90mph is a bit silly IMO. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the trouble here is that Wikipedia is not really able to make its own definitions. We don't do original research, we just collect information others have compiled. As such, we are in a situation where there is no worldwide consistent definition, which means we must describe the various definitions as they exist. As you point out, nations will define the speed as it is convenient to them. So, while I think your idea is sensible, I fear Wikipedia cannot be the source of that worldwide definition you suggest. —fudoreaper (talk) 08:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Can't we take a third party definition that isn't a government definition if there is one? Alternatively couldn't we just apply the European definition worldwide? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps another of the three HSR definitions by the US FRA (definitions on page 2) could be used or a whole section could be written. And of cause definitions in other parts of the world should also be included. Anyhow – the inherent problem with signalling at speeds over ~200km/h (in-cab-signalling needed) and the common requirement of grade separation in HSR should exclude "Emerging HSR" from the introduction and written in the HS definition section. Prillen (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Using another definition from the US list would be a good start. I would prefer to go for HSR-Express, but going for HSR-Regional would be a good compromise as it requires at least some dedicated track. Its also similar enough to the minimum EU standard of 200km/h (125mph) to avoid too much confusion (though I'm sure I can find an exception :p).
That said I do think having a single standard for this article is preferable. This is becoming more of an issue as more countries upgrade their rail systems to run at higher speeds - especially China. So this means if you include everyone's definitions you've got to have the US, EU, Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Taiwanese and Indian definitions for starters which is going to get confusing if they are different. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
PS I do accept that we cannot come up with our own definition that isn't someone else's standard as that would be original research. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Well let me back up and ask a question. Why are you asking that we have a sensible worldwide definition of high-speed rail? For the purpose of clarity in the article? To limit discussion in this article to just systems of a certain class? In other words, if we had a single definition, how would that improve wikipedia? (I ask this question to clarify our thoughts, not as opposition) —fudoreaper (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I think a definition-section (where the different definitions are presented) would help the reader, and a minimum definition (in reality often chosen as 200 km/h) would help the editors to decide what should in HS categories and templates etc. Prillen (talk) 09:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
@Fudoreaper, initially I wasn't particularly clear, but I had essentially two concerns: 1) That the currently given US definition of 90mph is really too slow to be counted as high-speed rail - which can be addressed by giving either the US HSR-regional or the HSR-express definition instead. 2) That high speed rail systems don't have a minimum standard which states whether they are included or excluded from this article and related articles (say 200km/h - and this is borne out by the International Union of Railways). Having a fairly clear line on what deserves to be included (as there is in the List of Metro systems article which I have edited a fair bit) is definitely useful.
All-in-all I rather like Prillen's suggestion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
It sounds like we are suggesting a couple of things:
1) A better discussion about how high-speed rail differs in definition between regions/countries
2) An internal Wikipedia definition of what counts as high-speed rail, in order to limit the scope of discussion. As a hypothetical example, if Vietnam now has 120 km/h trains, which is high-speed compared to the 60 km/h trains they had before, should that be included? In other countries, like Germany, a 120 km/h train is just regular speed. This suggests the need for policy to guide us on what we should be discussing when talking about 'high-speed rail'.
I basically agree with both ideas above. International discussion is probably difficult, as we need a lot of sources to determine what is considered high-speed rail in all parts of the world. But we could start the section with what we know now, and expand as we get more information. —fudoreaper (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I see your point Fudoreaper about the relative increase of speed, but today I do not think a country would call a regular train "high-speed" just because it run substantial faster than the other trains in the country. They probably call it "express", "lightning" "super" whatever, but I think we could use the EU and Japanese definitions in the intro – I think that would include most of HS trains or derivatives. And then have a sections with more details of other countries. What do you think? And by the way; anyone knows the Japanese definitions? Prillen (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the Malaysians probably call their airport link high speed even though it only goes at 160km/h. About the Japanese definition I'm not sure, but I think no-at grade crossings, standard gauge track and speeds of over 240km/h from [12] and Shinkansen - From bullet train to symbol of modern Japan (Christopher P Hood). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The Malaysian airport express is called "KLIAexpress" or "Express Rail Link" but in the text it is said to be "...a premium non-stop high-speed train service". But I still think this is one of the many so-called high-speed that could be in the HS definition section. Prillen (talk) 09:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Do we need to have a request for comment? And what should we asking for comment on? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 Done apart from the internal definition for Wikipedia. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:High-speed_rail/Archive_1&oldid=382886745"