![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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
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!
French, from Old French, from entreprendre, to undertake.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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))
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.
2nd proposal: Make the redirect on bullet train to high-speed rail article. ( Wikimachine 19:09, 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)
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))
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)
"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?
>>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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
"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)
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)
A brief page history:
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):
-- Danorton ( talk) 04:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Please update China related trackage, maps since two new lines were just opened. Calvingao ( talk) 06:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Wait, all of the above seems to relate to the US. What about international? Simply south 16:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
To define "high-speed rail" as passenger rail running at a top speed of 125 mph (200 kph) or higher.
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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
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!
French, from Old French, from entreprendre, to undertake.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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))
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.
2nd proposal: Make the redirect on bullet train to high-speed rail article. ( Wikimachine 19:09, 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)
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))
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)
"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?
>>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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
"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)
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)
A brief page history:
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):
-- Danorton ( talk) 04:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Please update China related trackage, maps since two new lines were just opened. Calvingao ( talk) 06:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Wait, all of the above seems to relate to the US. What about international? Simply south 16:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
To define "high-speed rail" as passenger rail running at a top speed of 125 mph (200 kph) or higher.
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)
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)