Talk:List of high-speed railway lines

Opening date

Hello Owennson. For the Opening date, I recommand to only put the year (not the full date), for the reasons :

be more light, and avoid a too rich table
avoid the US date format, that is not used elsewhere
the opening date is not still well defined (opening for test, inauguration, opening in commercial service, etc).
make the column sortable

Regards, --FlyAkwa (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. However, this is not my talk page, "Hi Owennson" seems to be too odd. Sorry for being so serious though.--Owennson (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger_proposal

I propose to merge High-speed rail by country and List of high-speed rail lines.
The old page High-speed rail by country is now quasi-empty, while its content has been displaced in a new page, Planned_high-speed_rail_by_country, months ago.
Indeed, the High-speed rail by country page has never own the list of high-speed lines, but only some planed high-speed lines, that are now in the appropriate page.
The new page page that has just been created, List of high-speed rail lines, contains what the "High-speed rail by country" should have contained.
I propose to only keep the List of high-speed rail lines, equivalent of the List of high-speed trains, and to copy the first table of High-speed rail by country on top of the List of high-speed rail lines.
--FlyAkwa (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. High-speed rail by country is not only about lines. 80.134.93.94 (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The High-speed rail by country page owned only a single table, that is present and updated in this page List of high-speed rail lines. Until you have a full article about high-speed rail with all paragraphs for each nation, please stop your sterile vandalism, and keep the merge. Otherwise, the redirect page will be protected. --FlyAkwa (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FlyAkwa - Watch your language. You raided High-speed rail by country only few days after List of high-speed rail lines was erected. Railman2015 (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the redirect. It is a misredirect and has been done out-of-process. The content does not overlap, one title is for the general concept, the other for lines only. See details at Talk:High-speed rail by country#Out-of-process misredirect. Railman2015 (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upgraded lines

Why does the article count "upgraded" lines in some countries but not others? bobrayner (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We look at the maximum upgraded speed. If it exceeds or reach 200 km/h, then it would count. However, some countries like Japan, the so-called "upgraded lines" are basically meaningless - as you said, not high-speed at all.--Owennson (talk) 08:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add a column for manufacturer? (and/or country of manufacturer?)

I think many people would like to know which countries are the major producers of high-speed trains. And which firms. Bombardier, Siemens, ThyssenKrupp, CSR Qingdao Sifang, Alstom, Patentes Talgo, Kawasaki, Hitachi, etc. Which countries export the most high-speed trains (in dollar terms)? Thank you. Benefac (talk) 03:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page is about high-speed lines, that are independent of the rolling stock (ie German Siemens ICE 3 runs on French lines) : please see List of high-speed trains and High-speed rail. --FlyAkwa (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In which case: Why don't we mention who built the infrastructure? It doesn't appear by government decree. bobrayner (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

US high speed tracks

in the chart of high speed tracks per country (in the Overview section), the US is described as having "No dedicated lines" and has a value of 0 km total. Now the chart seems to state high speed track, I don't think those two are interchangeable. If high speed track is defined as track suitable for speeds exceeding 200 km/h and there are US trains exceeding that speed (Acela), it seems obvious that there must be some high speed track within the US. I don't have any sources about the amount of existing high speed track so I can't correct it, but I'd be inclined to just remove the US entry as long as no information has been found. As I understand it, stating a value of 0 isn't just misleading, if my above reasoning is correct, it would be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makrom (talk • contribs) 00:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in one table?

I think the article as it is looks quite messy. In my opinion, it would be better to merge all the lists in one big table, specifying the country and the type of line (dedicated or upgraded). This fragmentation is especially annoying for the Chinese network, with the list splitted for each year. I don't think this makes much sense and it's not consistent with the other countries' lists. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a mess. It is called "List of high-speed rail lines" but what does it offer? Yes, several mini-lists. If one would merge into one table, then the name would be correct. The per-type-per-country lists should be merged into dedicated country specific lists or into country articles. 80.134.93.94 (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious ???? A unique table with all lines, dedicated lines and upgraded lines, of all countries ? This doesn't make sense. And many high-speed networks are not comparable... I can't agree this idea. Of course, no edit about this idea before a large consensus, and a vote --FlyAkwa (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"List", as in the page title "List of high-speed rail lines" is singular, but the page content is not only one list.
It is against common logic that there are any two instances of one concept that are not comparable.

Relax, and stop edit warring. Railman2015 (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I initiated this discussion precisely because i wanted to create consensus over this. I really think that a merge would be beneficial though. Can you explain why in your opinion some lines are not comparable? --Ita140188 (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

European HSR lines are very diffrent from Asian HSR lines. European one have less stations and its target is to have the quickest way to go to the other city, and the population density of European countries are generally lower, so the stations would be less. However Asian HSR do not. Asian countries have very high population density, endless cities that have more than 1 million residents. The frequency of the stations would be much higher and that's why I split it up into 2 major types.--Owennson (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is true, but anyway I don't see why the fact that they have different station densities means they are not comparable. I think they definitely can be compared in terms of length, number of stations, top speed, electrification and other characteristics. --Ita140188 (talk) 04:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One table would be unmanageable, especially bearing in mind the arbitrary ways in which "lines" can be divided or aggregated. bobrayner (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the aggregation is going to be a problem, nevertheless I still think it's worth the effort. And anyway this problem exists also for the separate lists. I started working on the merged table, you can see the preliminary result here: User:Ita140188/sandbox4. There are still many things to fix though. Of course I will not replace the current article before consensus, I post it just as an example. --Ita140188 (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I went on and merged the Chinese lines into one table because it obviously doesn't make sense to divide by year. I would still like to see one big list for all countries. Anyone agrees? --Ita140188 (talk) 11:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's better to discuss BEFORE doing any merge, even for China tables. Goal of theses tables is to be readable and useful. And bigger is a table, lesser is it usable and readable.

Ok for the merge of China, now it's done. But I'm opposite to merge different countries in One table, it's non-sense. What about compare the TGV-Sud-Est line and the Taiwan HSR lines ? It's irrelevant. --FlyAkwa (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Out-of-sync article title

User:Owennson did not respect the consensus on using "railway line" instead of "rail line" when s/he created List of high-speed rail lines.

Compare

Then User:FlyAkwa in a 30 hour raid did destroy the several years old page High-speed rail by country.

Railman2015 (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1: I don't know there is a consensus.

2. I think using high speed rail instead of high speed railway here would be more logical.--Owennson (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russia

The line from St. Petersburg to Finland may be 385 km long, but only about 200 km are in Russia. This should be corrected.--Bk1 168 (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal

The main line between Lisbon and Porto is run by a tilting higher speeded Pendolino train. It reaches 220kms/hour in many sections of track.

I do not see why Portugal is not in the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.138.91.51 (talk) 06:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden

Sweden should be mentioned, because they have quite a long netword of highspeed railroad lines for speeds ≥ 200 km/h.--Bk1 168 (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HSL-Zuid from Amsterdam or Schiphol Airport?

The HSL-Zuid line in the Netherlands is listed as starting in Amsterdam. Although all services run over HSL-Zuid terminate at Amsterdam Centraal, the high-speed line itself does not start until after Schiphol Airport. Is this intentional? Jamy015 (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The start-stop points are simplified, and the exact kilometric point is actually rounded to the nearest main station --FlyAkwa (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of high-speed railway lines. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720214528/http://www.uic.org/spip.php?article971 to http://www.uic.org/spip.php?article971

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 18:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in List of high-speed railway lines

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of high-speed railway lines's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "elmundo":

From Madrid–Levante high-speed rail network: JANDRO ROURES (17 January 2018). "Rajoy inaugurará el lunes el AVE Castellón-Madrid que empezará a circular el martes con 4 trenes diarios". elmundo.es.
From Valladolid: "Valladolid ratifica su hermanamiento con la ciudad italiana de Lecce". El Mundo. 10 September 2010.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the map be based on density of network, not total length?

It doesn't make much sense. Smaller countires may have a very dense network, but will only show up as yellow on the map. NCLI (talk) 15:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could not agree more. Density per inhabitant or density per square kilometer are both interesting.--Bk1 168 (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify the scope of this article

I was compelled to comment following the message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. From a quick skim of this page, it seems like a lot of the content doesn't belong here at all. I already removed a section on Hungary that was not sourced and hadn't started construction yet. The Czech Republic also doesn't appear to have any high-speed rail yet (High-speed rail in the Czech Republic) and so this section should possibly be removed too.

I'm confused about the hatnote "Planned high-speed rail in countries without existing high-speed rail lines", which links to Proposed high-speed rail by country. This page contains info on countries such as Japan and the United Kingdom which clearly do indeed have high-speed rail. Could we simplify these two articles by limiting this article (List of high-speed railway lines) to operational high-speed rail and putting all proposed/under construction high speed rail info on Proposed high-speed rail by country?

NemesisAT (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there are indications in the Overview section that this article is for rail in service or under construction, and then we should move all planned or planned projects to the other article.--BIL (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark railways in operation/under construction/under consideration

I find it a little hard to distinguish between railways that are in operation, under construction or only under consideration. Some under consideration are only suggested by lobbyists. One can look at the year, but sometimes an optimistic lobbyist some years ago wrote a year which now has happened or is close. In the article in German Wikipedia there is a coloured column saying if it is in operation, under construction or under consideration. So I suggest to have a column at left with In operation, Under construction or Under consideration.--BIL (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I note we have a special article "Proposed high-speed rail by country" with planned, proposed or considered, which does not prevent such projects to be in this article. Maybe we should write more clearly that this article is for high-speed railway lines in operation or under construction. And then move all proposals and plans to the other article ? --BIL (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Operating or under construction (visible work ongoing, not just being discussed) could be a good criteria for inclusion in this article. Could you link to the German article? I don't think it's listed as an alternative language for either this article or the proposed high-speed rail article. I was really hoping @92.62.110.197: would join the discussion, but they haven't yet. They've made the bulk of the edits to this article recently. NemesisAT (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The German article is de:Schnellfahrstrecke, like several other language article about High-speed railways, it is linked from High-speed railway line which is a redirect to List of high-speed railway lines which is strange.--BIL (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Make the definition clear

Make the definition clear. Here it is told that high speed tracks above 250kmph for newly built and 200kmph for upgraded track. That means tracks newly built for 200kmph will not be included here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki841 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed confusing. The list apparently includes all links with 200km/h speed, but am not sure.

Additionally it says Finland only has upgraded tracks but the Kerava - Lahti connection is newer. It has 220km/h cap so does it count, is it in listed? 2001:14BA:A807:6D00:B14B:6212:74F4:DBE (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The high-speed line distinction to be made is not Upgraded vs Dedicated but Upgraded versus New

This article is mainly separating lines between a category "Dedicated high-speed lines" and a category "Upgraded high-speed lines". But this is a wrong categorization, because:

upgraded lines can also be dedicated to high-speed traffic,
some new high-speed lines are neither "upgraded" and neither "dedicated" to high-speed traffic, having a mixed traffic (e.g. Contournement Nîmes – Montpellier in France)

The categorization which should be done is therefore Upgraded vs New (or Newly built), not Upgraded vs Dedicated. Carfois (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brightline

Why isn't Brightline in Florida mentioned in this article? It is capable of reaching 125 miles per hour, and does. Norisheep (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance needed

With the defination and a standard established, the overview section revamped, and with a standard table format developed for all regional sections, it would be great if someone could lend me a helping hand in updating the rest of the tables in regional section. All we have to do is follow the standard table format used in the Asian section with China, India, Japan, Indonesia. Inclusion of a significant line (formed by multiple small lines) is preferred over multiple small sections. Also remember, only Operational, Under construction and Approved (initial works for construction) sections are to be included. Proposed/Planned sections go to Proposed high-speed rail by country article. Thanks a ton. Footy2000♡; 16:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nvm. I did it by myself. Footy2000♡; 15:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]