Template talk:High-speed railway lines

All the high speed rail navboxes - any suggestions?

Particularily about Template:High-speed rail and Template:High-speed railway lines - basically - any suggestions about getting an overall scheme that fits with the navboxes for individual country high speed railways.

Please see Template_talk:High-speed_rail#Template(s)_consolidation Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naming convention

Most high-speed lines are commonly named for the cities at their two ends, e.g. "Neubaustrecke/Schnellfahrstrecke Hannover–Würzburg". French and Japanese high-speed lines have names for the geographical region they cross. Chinese high-speed lines get a name by combining parts of the names of the terminus cities (e.g. ShiTai PDL for Shijiazhuang–Taiyuan Passenger Dedicated Line). For South Korean lines, there is no single method: "Gyeongbu HSR" combines parts of the names of Gyeonggi province and the city of Busan; "Honam HSR" is named for a region it crosses; and the planned "Suseo HSR" is named for a district of Seoul which will house one terminal.

The template currently fully respects the naming convention of French lines with an acronym for high-speed line in French, while it uses the city names for Italian, German, Spanish lines and the proper names for Japanese lines but drops "AV/AC", "NBS" resp. "SFS", "LAV" and "Shinkansen". For the Chinese lines, the "PDL" is missing, too, and the template adopts the inconsistency of the article names: some are the proper Chinese names with the conflation of terminal city names, others write out the full city names.

To create some consistency, I propose these rules:

naming (e.g. for the region or cities connected) should reflect common usage;
for lines with proper names, the acronym of the commonly used form for the rest of the line's name (e.g. "LGV") should be used;
for lines named for the terminal cities, the rest of the name can be dropped entirely to save space.

This way, most of the template can remain unchanged, including the South Korean lines the way I updated them. (By the way, unlike the existing Honam Line, the Honam HSR begins at Osong.) These guidelines could be further tweaked for the special case of the Chinese lines; going for the terminal city names is probably better there. Taiwan's THSR is also a special case; a line named for a country is not too specific.

What do you think? --Rontombontom (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. Could you make a table? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

before	after
HSL 1	HSL 1
...
LGV Sud-Est	LGV Sud-Est
...
Perpignan-Figueres	Perpignan-Figueres
Cologne–Aachen	Cologne–Düren
...
Turin–Milan	Turin–Milan
...
HSL-Zuid	HSL-Zuid
Gardermoen Line	Gardermoen Line
...
Kyushu	Kyushu Shinkansen?
...
Shitai	Shijiazhuang-Taiyuan or ShiTai PDL?
Wuhan–Guangzhou	Wuhan–Guangzhou or WuGuan PDL?
Seoul–Daegu	Gyeongbu HSR
~~Daejeon~~Osong–Mokpo	Honam HSR
Taipei–Kaohsiung	Taipei–Kaohsiung or THSR?
...
Eskişehir–Ankara	Eskişehir–Ankara

See edited table. Again, my goal was to set up some guideline for future reference, but so that most of it can stay unchanged. And there were some points where the rules I proposed were still unclear, and I asked for discussion. For example, use the short or long names for Chinese lines, knowing that the short names indicate the cities too? Or what about keeping "Shinkansen" in the name of Japanese lines? --Rontombontom (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upgraded non-high-speed "high-speed" lines

Washington DC–Boston is merely an upgraded line, with a short section for 150 mph, and the link goes to Acela Express, a train service. Methinks it should be removed. If not, I could propose several upgraded lines for addition that would be more justified, starting with Moscow-St. Petersburg. --Rontombontom (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of this, the inclusion of the Zaragoza–Huesca line is debatable, too. Although called a high-speed line, that's just propaganda for the AVE service using it: it is a dual-gauged conventional line, and the unsourced maximum speed data on the French wiki is simply wrong. Check the most authoritative source, the network statement: it's 200 km/h max until Tardienta and then 160 km/h, slower than the Barcelona–Valencia line at 220 km/h! For comparison, the dual gauge Shinkansen lines aren't included.

There is also inconsistency in the inclusion of the upgraded Cologne–Aachen line (which is 250 km/h only on two of the 3-4 tracks in the Cologne-Düren section, and then partly even just 140 km/h) and the non-inclusion of the Karlsruhe–Basel line (which is 250 km/h on two of the four tracks in the Rastatt-Offenburg section). --Rontombontom (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to hide Washington DC–Boston in Template:High-speed railway lines as too slow.

Please do not use mph.

Feel free to edit fr:LGV Saragosse - Huesca and de:Schnellfahrstrecke Saragossa–Huesca with reliable source.

Feel free to replace Cologne–Aachen by Düren-Aachen in Template:High-speed railway's display.

Feel free to add Rastatt-Offenburg or Mattstetten-Rothrist in the template.

Please add in the template any major high-speed railway lines that I would have missed. --Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Washington DC–Boston link changed to Northeast Corridor, hidden. This is the English Wikipedia, and this is the talk page, so I don't understand the mph comment. I now edited both the German and French Wikipedia pages on Zaragoza–Huesca. I edited all the German lines that combine new high-speed sections and lower-speed upgraded sections and added the finished and in-construction sections of Karlsruhe-Basel. Mattstetten-Rothrist is newly built but only 200 km/h, however, I added the two 250 km/h base tunnels in hidden mode.

I also added several newly built Chinese lines that were put in service at 250 km/h or 350 km/h in the past two years, and I'm not sure I didn't miss some in Central China. Regrettably, the Wikipedia links for some of those I added were deleted recently, so they are now red. You can find all of these lines reported in reliable sources like Railway Gazette, or indeed in the on-line timetable. There are dozens more in construction or planned (China is real high-speed rail monster), but I didn't bother to add all of those in hidden mode. --Rontombontom (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answers and the template's improvments. I will see later if there is something I disagree with, but at first look I see nothing plain wrong. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I won't edit the French version of the template myself, but here is a suggested correction. The currently in operation Beijing-Tianjin and Shanghai-Nanjing lines won't be part of the Beijing-Shanghai PDL: they are "intercity" lines parallel with it. The Beijing-Tianjin "intercity" link deviates from the old line to the east while the PDL is to the west. The Nanjing-Shanghai "intercity" link is almost completely on a viaduct on the northern side of the existing railway, while the PDL runs further north. I would have to look where I saw a map, but you can also see them on Google maps: here between Beijing and Tianjin you see the "intercity" line curving away from the old line on top right and the PDL curving on bottom left; and zoom in at the parallel bright white lines on both sides of an airport here between Nanjing and Shanghai. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continental division

I undid an edit placing Turkey with its sole completed line, which is in the Asian part, into the Europe group. However, on second thought, maybe it makes sense to change the group name to "Europe & the Mediterranean", and include not just Turkey: after all, future lines in Turkey, Morocco, Algeria, and possibly Israel are/will be built to European standards, too, and may eventually be linked up with the EU network. (Also, if no one else does, I'll add the in-construction high-speed lines of Turkey in hidden mode sometime.) --Rontombontom (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, the same grouping of Turkey in Europe has been has made in Template:High-speed rail (by continent and country). Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For your information: de:Triade (Wirtschaft). Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I undid myself, also thinking of the planned Istambul–Edirne line in Turkey's European part. However, I still think changing the category name to include Morocco and other projects around the Mediterranean would make sense, also from the Triad consideration. --Rontombontom (talk) 12:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is US Northeast Corridor specifically excluded?

I can understand that the US rail systems are lame but when the International Union of Railways (here) specifically accepts that the US Northeast Corridor is of the world's high speed lines in operation, then we should add it. The International Union of Railways document is verifiable and it comes from a highly reliable source. Z22 (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since no additional comments after a week, I am making the change to the template to fix it based on the latest info from the UIC. Z22 (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because the Acela Express is mentioned in the "High Speed Rail" and it's stated that the NEC is a conventional which hampers its speed? If the claim that the NEC is "conventional" is false, then all those other places need editing to remove this reason for AE's speed. It's either a fastish conventional line or a slowish HS line. You can't have it both ways and deciding which has implications for which WP articles the NEC is relevant. AadaamS (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the claim is around the fact that a major portion in Connecticut which is a part of the Boston to New York City segment is on a conventional line. I think that might be the reason why UIC's document has it as "North East Corridor ([Boston –] NY – W)" such that the Boston – NY segment is not a real HSR. In any case, the UIC (as the most internationally recognized and the most authoritative entity on the HRS definition) confirms that Northeast Corridor (at least the NY – W segment) is a HSR line, then we should just get over with this debate. If we want to be nit picking, we can also change in the template to look something like "Northeast Corridor (New York City–Washington, D.C.)" Z22 (talk) 04:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think being accurate is a good thing in an encyclopedia so go ahead and change it to your suggestion since that is exactly what your source supports. AadaamS (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Z22, in another discussion here I checked your reference again. Actually on the first page it says "Lines or sections of lines in which operation V > 250 km/h" with a footnote saying " 1:There are some exceptions." and then on page 12 it says that the NEC top speed is 240 km/h. This would then lead me to conclude that the NEC is ons of those exceptions referred to on page 1. So in my opinion your reference does in fact not support your claim that the NY-W part of the NEC is a HSL. Do you have another reference, if not the NEC should be deleted. AadaamS (talk) 07:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Er, read somewhere else that older upgraded lines with Vmax>200 kmh are still considered HSL, which would mean that the NEC is still considered a HSL thanks to that exception. Then again so would many many other lines be. Should they all be added? AadaamS (talk) 07:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that UIC makes some exceptions to include some lines that have lower max speeds into the HSR definitions. Like you said before they are like slowish HS lines. However, UIC, which is an international body, insists that HSR is not just about speeds. It's about the whole "system" [1] which includes infrastructure, rolling stock and operating conditions. That means the slowish HS lines are still HSR, and the fastish conventional lines are not HSR. All the HS lines that made to the exceptions are already included in that UIC document. The exceptions are not in a large number. Only one line in Germany, a few in China, a couple "mini" shinkansen in Japan, and the NEC line in the US. My point is that we, as Wikipedians, should not just redefine the definitions of HSR ourselves. As the top international entity already maintains the list of HS lines, we just need to present that to Wikipedia by referring back to the reliable sources. Z22 (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]