![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
Chinese trains are operating on higher speeds then French ones. That include both scheduled routes and test runs. But in the table "operating speed" are much higher for Europeans trains... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.132.165 ( talk) 12:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:TCDD HT65000 exterior-1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 21:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
I think the use of flags in the table facilitate the readability and understanding of who use or build trains.
I agree that the "manufacturer" column is not perfect, with, maybe, a little attempt of "nationalist pride", by adding, for example, "Altom Italia" after "Alstom".
A little work may be to do on this "manufacturer" column (but without deleting flags). For example, it's convenient to see immediately that "rubin" is a Russian manufacturer, or "ABB" is Swiss, without clicking on the link.
--
FlyAkwa (
talk)
11:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Without getting into the discussion on whether or not to use flags, I would question the number of flags used. For example, the cell for BR Class 43 (Intercity 125) has six (identical) flags as all six operators are in the UK. Surely one flag is sufficient? If a train has multiple operators in multiple countries (this hasn't yet arisen) then one flag followed by a list of operators in the country, and repeated for each country/list of operators would be sufficient. Robevans123 ( talk) 10:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\brailway-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—
cyberbot II
NotifyOnline
21:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I have tagged the entry for the Italian ETR 1000 as requiring a reliable source to verify that it operates in revenue service at a maximum speed of 360 km/h. The corresponding article states that it is intended to operate at 360 km/h, but initially operates at 300 km/h. As the "Operating speed" column in this list is supposed to be for the actual maximum speed in revenue operation, the figure may need to be changed if the ETR 1000 is not yet operating at 360 km/h. -- DAJF ( talk) 02:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I have tagged the service entry year (2012) claimed for the Spanish Alvia Class 105 as "Dubious", since, apart from being unsourced, the corresponding Wikipedia article does not verify that the train is even in service yet. If someone can verify the service entry date with a reliable source, that would be greatly appreciated. -- DAJF ( talk) 14:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Technically Railjet formation is just a set of conventional coaches with a cab car on the other end and conventional locomotive at the other end. Yes, they have branded it strongly and apparently the set of coaches are kept to a fixed formation with semi-permanent couplings between the coaches, but nonetheless technically these are just conventional locomotive hauled push-pull trains. For example, some of the Finnish Intercity trains use similar (but more flexible) consist and those aren't listed here even when they fulfill the 200 km/h criterion. Caret ( talk) 09:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I will add that the Northeast Regional, propelled by a Siemens locomotive based on that of the Railjet, also regularly reaches 125mph (201 km/h) but isn't included. Either all (Railjet, VR, Amtrak) should be included, or they should be listed together as Siemens sprinter derivatives. 2601:184:4180:D8CF:1C37:5848:4384:6FEE ( talk) 19:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
This list states that CRH380A operational speed is 300 kmph, while the dedicated page ( /info/en/?search=China_Railways_CRH380A) states 355kmph and this source ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/11133241/Bullet-train-at-50-rise-and-fall-of-the-worlds-fastest-train.html) states 380 kmph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.104.37.203 ( talk) 19:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
We don't generally report things until they have happened. See WP:CRYSTAL. -- John ( talk) 23:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Australia has some trains that reach the high-speed rail bracket. The Transwa WDA/WDB/WDC class, for instance, has a top design speed of 200 km/h. You can read its product sheet (as per the manufacturer) here. Then there' the XPT, which has a maximum official record speed of 193 km/h, slightly below the 200 mark. Finally, the Electric Tilt Train holds the Australian speed record of 210 km/h. The catch? Due to trackage, these trains are limited to a (still fairly reasonable) 160 km/h while in service. Same with the V/Line VLocity and Diesel Tilt Train, on that note.
The point is, these are fast trains. However, unlike their record or their design speed, their operational speeds fail to meet the high-speed mark. Should these trains be included or not?
Thanks, trainsandtech ( talk) 09:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of high-speed trains. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I think that it should be appropriate adding locomotives, since they also provide several high-speed rail services at or above 200 kmh (125 mph). In fact this page should be renamed "List of High-speed trains and locomotives." This would allow the page not just to include EMU's and DMU's. VivaBlondie2000 ( talk) 21:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I for one agree. Mostly. I think two separate lists should be created, one for multiple-unit trains, and one for locomotives. I don't think there's any reason to rename the article though. A locomotive is part of a train. NCLI ( talk) 15:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
NCLI and
FlyAkwa, please discuss here about locomotives.
I personally strongly disagree with adding them in the list.
NCLI, this is where you are wrong. A locomotive-hauled fast train and high-speed trainsets are fundamentally different.
-- NemesisIII ( talk) 20:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
NemesisIII: You've made it clear that there is a distinction between these types of trains, but why does this distinction matter? Both fit the limited definition of a train that goes at high speed, and the broader sense of sustainable, convenient, and rapid transport that high-speed trains represent. 2601:184:407F:8705:EC5B:DC18:E7E:81B4 ( talk) 04:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Should we raise the lower bound for what a modern high-speed train is to 250 km/h, which seems to be a commonly accepted definition in modern times? Of course, the older trains should stay, but I'd argue new inclusions should be able to do at least 250 km/h. NCLI ( talk) 15:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Why not give them their own category? NCLI ( talk) 12:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
It would be a good idea to add MPH conversions to the speeds. I'm not going to add them since it would take ages for me to have to rewrite the speeds using the Convert template. Slender ( talk) 15:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
The "record" column is for officially recognized records by UIC (It's me that created this table and this column 9 years ago).
It's not for "record recognized by RDPC" or "record recognized by NCLI" or "record recognized by any other guy".
By the way, all records have been made by prepared or tuned trainsets. It's false to think that a record can been made by a train without any control, revision and preparation.
--
FlyAkwa (
talk)
00:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
That is just not true. Plenty of trains have set records without being modified from their commercial variant. Trains which are known to have been built or heavily modified to set a record, such as the current french world record holder TGV, should be under experimental trains in my opinion. That you created this article is irrelevant to its future direction. It is not your property. Also, please refrain from naming other editors out of nowhere. NCLI ( talk)
I also don't see why the UIC is needed to verify every record. Sure, if a train claims to have broken a world speed record, it matters. But if we're just talking a train setting a record for a country, for instance, any reputable 3rd party verification should be sufficient, surely. That's how the rest of Wikipedia operates, after all. NCLI ( talk)
The Northeaset Maglev is not "Soon in service". Zero work has been done, it's not all close to any sort of approval, and the project really just consists of a website. The supposed 2028 launch is unsourced and laughable. So, I've removed it. 2601:184:407F:8705:EC5B:DC18:E7E:81B4 ( talk) 04:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
As you know, Tgv is a series push pull high speed trainset, should we count the trainset that use the “style” of tgv as locomotive haul? Or still count as emu?
As with the comment in the section above, there is some room to discuss the ambiguity between placing trains into the first section which has been renamed to "trains with power cars and multiple units" and locomotive hauled trains, like the TGV, ICE 1 and 2 and Intercity 225, whose locomotives are rarely detached, such as the Class 401 and 402 locomotives in the ICE 1 and 2 trains respectively, BR Class 91 with IC225, and TGV's clearly defined power cars.
Should these changes in allocation to different sections be reflected following this new naming of the sections (not sure why this was done as well) AlbusWulfricDumbledore ( talk) 20:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand the difference between trains with "power cars" and the traditional definition of multiple-unit trains. NCLI ( talk)
I chose to remove the two trains mentioned in the title, because there is currently no announced track for them to run on, and no prototype has been shown running at anything close to the announced top speed. I think that, at the very least, there should be a line under construction for a train to run on before it gets added to this list. Especially for major projects like these trains, which are claimed to be capable of running significantly faster than any train before them. NCLI ( talk) 16:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Is Acela an high speed rail?
2601:204:EA7F:220:E159:45BB:B700:8EB5 ( talk) 04:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
If someone asked me "Which train runs the fastest?", I would say "Whichever runs at the highest average speed in real service". I don't want to know that engine A hit a top speed of X once. Shushimnotrealstooge ( talk) 22:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
The speed for TGV M on /info/en/?search=List_of_high-speed_trains does not match the information on /info/en/?search=SNCF_TGV_M 130.238.112.129 ( talk) 03:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
Chinese trains are operating on higher speeds then French ones. That include both scheduled routes and test runs. But in the table "operating speed" are much higher for Europeans trains... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.132.165 ( talk) 12:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:TCDD HT65000 exterior-1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 21:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
I think the use of flags in the table facilitate the readability and understanding of who use or build trains.
I agree that the "manufacturer" column is not perfect, with, maybe, a little attempt of "nationalist pride", by adding, for example, "Altom Italia" after "Alstom".
A little work may be to do on this "manufacturer" column (but without deleting flags). For example, it's convenient to see immediately that "rubin" is a Russian manufacturer, or "ABB" is Swiss, without clicking on the link.
--
FlyAkwa (
talk)
11:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Without getting into the discussion on whether or not to use flags, I would question the number of flags used. For example, the cell for BR Class 43 (Intercity 125) has six (identical) flags as all six operators are in the UK. Surely one flag is sufficient? If a train has multiple operators in multiple countries (this hasn't yet arisen) then one flag followed by a list of operators in the country, and repeated for each country/list of operators would be sufficient. Robevans123 ( talk) 10:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\brailway-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—
cyberbot II
NotifyOnline
21:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I have tagged the entry for the Italian ETR 1000 as requiring a reliable source to verify that it operates in revenue service at a maximum speed of 360 km/h. The corresponding article states that it is intended to operate at 360 km/h, but initially operates at 300 km/h. As the "Operating speed" column in this list is supposed to be for the actual maximum speed in revenue operation, the figure may need to be changed if the ETR 1000 is not yet operating at 360 km/h. -- DAJF ( talk) 02:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I have tagged the service entry year (2012) claimed for the Spanish Alvia Class 105 as "Dubious", since, apart from being unsourced, the corresponding Wikipedia article does not verify that the train is even in service yet. If someone can verify the service entry date with a reliable source, that would be greatly appreciated. -- DAJF ( talk) 14:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Technically Railjet formation is just a set of conventional coaches with a cab car on the other end and conventional locomotive at the other end. Yes, they have branded it strongly and apparently the set of coaches are kept to a fixed formation with semi-permanent couplings between the coaches, but nonetheless technically these are just conventional locomotive hauled push-pull trains. For example, some of the Finnish Intercity trains use similar (but more flexible) consist and those aren't listed here even when they fulfill the 200 km/h criterion. Caret ( talk) 09:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I will add that the Northeast Regional, propelled by a Siemens locomotive based on that of the Railjet, also regularly reaches 125mph (201 km/h) but isn't included. Either all (Railjet, VR, Amtrak) should be included, or they should be listed together as Siemens sprinter derivatives. 2601:184:4180:D8CF:1C37:5848:4384:6FEE ( talk) 19:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
This list states that CRH380A operational speed is 300 kmph, while the dedicated page ( /info/en/?search=China_Railways_CRH380A) states 355kmph and this source ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/11133241/Bullet-train-at-50-rise-and-fall-of-the-worlds-fastest-train.html) states 380 kmph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.104.37.203 ( talk) 19:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
We don't generally report things until they have happened. See WP:CRYSTAL. -- John ( talk) 23:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Australia has some trains that reach the high-speed rail bracket. The Transwa WDA/WDB/WDC class, for instance, has a top design speed of 200 km/h. You can read its product sheet (as per the manufacturer) here. Then there' the XPT, which has a maximum official record speed of 193 km/h, slightly below the 200 mark. Finally, the Electric Tilt Train holds the Australian speed record of 210 km/h. The catch? Due to trackage, these trains are limited to a (still fairly reasonable) 160 km/h while in service. Same with the V/Line VLocity and Diesel Tilt Train, on that note.
The point is, these are fast trains. However, unlike their record or their design speed, their operational speeds fail to meet the high-speed mark. Should these trains be included or not?
Thanks, trainsandtech ( talk) 09:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of high-speed trains. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I think that it should be appropriate adding locomotives, since they also provide several high-speed rail services at or above 200 kmh (125 mph). In fact this page should be renamed "List of High-speed trains and locomotives." This would allow the page not just to include EMU's and DMU's. VivaBlondie2000 ( talk) 21:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I for one agree. Mostly. I think two separate lists should be created, one for multiple-unit trains, and one for locomotives. I don't think there's any reason to rename the article though. A locomotive is part of a train. NCLI ( talk) 15:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
NCLI and
FlyAkwa, please discuss here about locomotives.
I personally strongly disagree with adding them in the list.
NCLI, this is where you are wrong. A locomotive-hauled fast train and high-speed trainsets are fundamentally different.
-- NemesisIII ( talk) 20:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
NemesisIII: You've made it clear that there is a distinction between these types of trains, but why does this distinction matter? Both fit the limited definition of a train that goes at high speed, and the broader sense of sustainable, convenient, and rapid transport that high-speed trains represent. 2601:184:407F:8705:EC5B:DC18:E7E:81B4 ( talk) 04:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Should we raise the lower bound for what a modern high-speed train is to 250 km/h, which seems to be a commonly accepted definition in modern times? Of course, the older trains should stay, but I'd argue new inclusions should be able to do at least 250 km/h. NCLI ( talk) 15:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Why not give them their own category? NCLI ( talk) 12:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
It would be a good idea to add MPH conversions to the speeds. I'm not going to add them since it would take ages for me to have to rewrite the speeds using the Convert template. Slender ( talk) 15:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
The "record" column is for officially recognized records by UIC (It's me that created this table and this column 9 years ago).
It's not for "record recognized by RDPC" or "record recognized by NCLI" or "record recognized by any other guy".
By the way, all records have been made by prepared or tuned trainsets. It's false to think that a record can been made by a train without any control, revision and preparation.
--
FlyAkwa (
talk)
00:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
That is just not true. Plenty of trains have set records without being modified from their commercial variant. Trains which are known to have been built or heavily modified to set a record, such as the current french world record holder TGV, should be under experimental trains in my opinion. That you created this article is irrelevant to its future direction. It is not your property. Also, please refrain from naming other editors out of nowhere. NCLI ( talk)
I also don't see why the UIC is needed to verify every record. Sure, if a train claims to have broken a world speed record, it matters. But if we're just talking a train setting a record for a country, for instance, any reputable 3rd party verification should be sufficient, surely. That's how the rest of Wikipedia operates, after all. NCLI ( talk)
The Northeaset Maglev is not "Soon in service". Zero work has been done, it's not all close to any sort of approval, and the project really just consists of a website. The supposed 2028 launch is unsourced and laughable. So, I've removed it. 2601:184:407F:8705:EC5B:DC18:E7E:81B4 ( talk) 04:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
As you know, Tgv is a series push pull high speed trainset, should we count the trainset that use the “style” of tgv as locomotive haul? Or still count as emu?
As with the comment in the section above, there is some room to discuss the ambiguity between placing trains into the first section which has been renamed to "trains with power cars and multiple units" and locomotive hauled trains, like the TGV, ICE 1 and 2 and Intercity 225, whose locomotives are rarely detached, such as the Class 401 and 402 locomotives in the ICE 1 and 2 trains respectively, BR Class 91 with IC225, and TGV's clearly defined power cars.
Should these changes in allocation to different sections be reflected following this new naming of the sections (not sure why this was done as well) AlbusWulfricDumbledore ( talk) 20:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand the difference between trains with "power cars" and the traditional definition of multiple-unit trains. NCLI ( talk)
I chose to remove the two trains mentioned in the title, because there is currently no announced track for them to run on, and no prototype has been shown running at anything close to the announced top speed. I think that, at the very least, there should be a line under construction for a train to run on before it gets added to this list. Especially for major projects like these trains, which are claimed to be capable of running significantly faster than any train before them. NCLI ( talk) 16:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Is Acela an high speed rail?
2601:204:EA7F:220:E159:45BB:B700:8EB5 ( talk) 04:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
If someone asked me "Which train runs the fastest?", I would say "Whichever runs at the highest average speed in real service". I don't want to know that engine A hit a top speed of X once. Shushimnotrealstooge ( talk) 22:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
The speed for TGV M on /info/en/?search=List_of_high-speed_trains does not match the information on /info/en/?search=SNCF_TGV_M 130.238.112.129 ( talk) 03:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)