Talk:High-speed rail

Purpose and directions of this article

Is this meant to be a landing point for the various "High-speed rail in [country name]" articles? Also, is high-speed rail really the latest innovation? I took the Shinkansen in 1975, before most people alive today were born. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Besides the first test run to reach more than 200 km/h with an electric train was ordered by the Kaiser of Germany in 1903... That being said, I do think there are things to say of relevance to travel that are common throughout different hsr systems. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

That's why I created the article. I think first of all, high-speed rail is definitely an attraction in and of itself for train buffs. And it is indeed a very practical way to get around where it exists. The dog2 (talk) 04:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is redundant. It is a laundry list of services in different countries and does not really give valuable travel advice, but rather wastes the reader's time by providing mundane blanket statements and is an inferior mirror of an article on the same topic on Wikipedia. We do not need an article on everything here, much like Wikipedia does not list ways of getting to or accommodation options near objects of its articles. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

What article would you want to redirect to? Rail travel seemed obvious, but it's really a landing page for more specialized links. Do you think none of the explanatory content in this article is worth keeping anywhere on this site other than country articles? Alternatively, since there are some specialized high-speed rail articles (High-speed rail in China, High-speed rail in South Korea), should this become a landing page with some basic background, with other articles about regional high-speed rail linked from here, including perhaps a new article about High-speed rail in Europe and one about High-speed rail in Japan? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

None is worth keeping on WV, unless there is someting here regarding a particular country that is not in the country article. We do not need a separate landing for high-speed rail, chances of this being sought are minimal. Redirect to rail travel is absolutely the way to go. We also do not need separate articles on high-speed rail in regions, rail travel in a region/country is enough to cover that. PrinceGloria (talk) 03:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

What do you then propose to do with High-speed rail in China and High-speed rail in South Korea? Merge and redirect to new Rail travel in China and Rail travel in South Korea articles, I suppose? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Not to delve into details, they are mostly fine as they are, as they only cover the high-speed rail travel aspect, i.e. not all railway in their respective countries. Perhaps once expanded to cover other railway modes, the article could be renamed. PrinceGloria (talk) 04:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I think this article is valuable as it is. Does it have a travel focus? Of course it does. Could there be some tweaks to it? Probably. But High Speed Rail is different enough from legacy rail travel to merit its own coverage. And HSR also has serious trainspotting and "the journey is the destination" aspects that we don't cover at all. And if you look at the average CNN piece on HSR, they at least assume that most Americans have no idea what HSR is. And I do assume the same goes for most countries that don't really have HSR. And if you really have to merge it somewhere, tips for rail travel is a much better target imho. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing different from a traveller's point of view in a high-speed train. It may run a lot faster or not a lot, depending on a particular connection, equipment etc. Some trains deemed "high-speed" in one country would be just regular in another. Except for some cases, which all need to be discussed individually anyway, the trains operate the very same way as the regular ones. Individual peculiarities, such as travel classes or booking methods, are to be discussed per geography, as there is little in common and not much value to anybody in generalizations.

Everything can be of enough interest to somebody to travel to see / experience it, be it plane- or trainspotting. We do not have an article on how to distinguish a 737 from an A320 or where to spot an A380 even if that would be of interest to some people who might at a certain point travel. We can redirect this to anything we see fit, but let us not cultivate a potpourri of poor Wikipedia mirrors on everything that somehow may be related to travel. PrinceGloria (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I still remember the first high-speed train I took: The Shinkansen from Tokyo to Kyoto in 1975. The experience of seeing Mt. Fuji with streaks on it from the speed of our motion was memorable and absolutely different from the experiences I've had of taking trains of normal speed. If supersonic flights were still being run, it would make sense to have a special article about those, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

No it would NOT, unless they were different from normal flights (they actually were in many respects). This is a case of flying and A380, and then every high-speed train is different - if the onl thing that binds them is the experience of travelling at high speed, we may add somewhere in the passing that this is pleasurable and worth recommending as an experience, but we do not need an article which at a certain points discusses plans to build high-speed rail in California that are years from completion at best. PrinceGloria (talk) 05:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Content about high-speed lines that are not yet completed or not yet under construction can be removed from the article without eliminating the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

But all the other content is either trivial or local. There is nothing we can advise the reader about high-speed rail in general that would merit an article. If one is to find out about high-speed rail as pre-travel research, we are still a second-rate source vs. Wikipedia. No need to be their poor cousin, it's as if they started a travel guide subsection of every city but limited it to 1000 characters. PrinceGloria (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the solution is to improve the article, so that it's as good or better than what's on Wikipedia, but with more of a focus on the concerns of the traveler. This is a travel guide, and high-speed rail is an important means of travel. Do you think all the articles on Flying are superfluous, too? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

BUT THERE IS NO WAY TO DO IT!!! All the info relevant to travellers is LOCAL! Flying requires going through a number of procedures that we describe in a helpful way. Travelling on a high-speed train is no different than travelling on a regular train with regards to preparations and procedures in general, and if there are special ones, they are local and best described in destination articles. PrinceGloria (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not all local. People can take high-speed trains between many countries. Anyway, stop screaming. It could be that you don't find high-speed trains special because you're in Europe, whereas I do because Americans never experience high-speed trains unless they travel abroad. I mean, Acela really isn't high-speed, so there really is no such thing as high-speed train travel in the U.S. Anyway, I'm not convinced that it's best to simply eliminate this article. Perhaps you should try to solicit more opinions by posting to Requests for comment. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree with User:PrinceGloria that there is probably too much detail about certain technical aspects of high speed rail and too much on a local level. But I also agree with User:Hobbitschuster and User:Ikan Kekek that the topic itself is a relevant travel topic to Wikivoyage, and the article mustn't be deleted just because its current incarnation is poor. As well as the excess of detail in some areas, would it be fair to say that there is not enough emphasis of the 'tourism' side of it? - the romance of the rails, the excitement of super speed, the most scenic / interesting routes to travel, the main travel destinations which can reached using HSR, and yes the fact that a large number of people are interested in and passionate about trains and railways in general. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I like your thinking. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this article could and probably should be improved on, but it should definitely not be removed. I must say that part of the appeal of high-speed rail is the amount of engineering that goes into building a functional system. If you know the history of the Shinkansen, the Japanese engineers who designed it had unique challenges that the builders of conventional rail did not, and part of the appeal of it is the creative solutions the engineers came up with to overcome these unprecendented challenges. Having been on the high-speed trains in Japan and China, I must say that the ride is remarkably smooth given the speed you are travelling at, and you definitely get to see a lot more scenery than on a plane, while still covering long distances relatively quickly. And while the streamlined shapes do serve a very functional purpose, I would say they are a pleasure to look at. The dog2 (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

And just as a starting point, I think we should come to a consensus on what to include in the list. Many of the services listed are kind of in the grey area on whether or not they can be considered high speed, such as the Polish or Russian network. Of course, these are express trains, but I have my doubts on whether you can call them high-speed trains in the same league as the Shinkansen, TGV or ICE. The dog2 (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

After reading the article fully, I'm going to have to agree with PrinceGloria and say that presently this is of almost no traveler value and is better addressed in the corresponding Wikipedia article.

Having lived in China I can say that taking a high speed train there is a different experience than taking a normal train (almost like flying) and this is addressed in High-speed rail in China. Other systems however such as French TGV, German ICE or Korean KTX are somewhat similar to the experience of a normal train.

I'd also agree that this topic should be addressed in some way. I'd suggest reducing the content to the main 'true' high speed systems in the world, and ignoring 'sort of high speed' such as the British system. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

So I read up about the Polish system as well as the Russian one and I would say the Russian one can stay, being as they have a max. speed in daily operation of 250 km/h, whereas the Polish trains (much like the British ones) only go up to 125 mph/ 200 km/h. Ironically one Polish line was built for a design speed of 250 km/h in the 1970s, but no train in revenue service has ever reached that speed. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I think average speed should also be taken into account and not just maximum speed. If you only take maximum speed into account, the Acela Express between Boston and Washington D.C. would count as high speed, but I wouldn't actually think of it as high speed since its average speed isn't particularly fast. As an example a Tokyo to Osaka train would take maybe over 6 hours on conventional rail, but takes you just under 3 hours on the Shinkansen, which as you can see, is a huge time saving. I for one agree with Andrewssi2 that we should restrict listings to true high-speed rail and not include "sort of" high speed systems.

So I'd say perhaps we should remove Belgium, Switzerland and the UK from the list, since the only true high-speed services there are the cross-border services into neighbouring countries, and not a national high speed rail network, and there is a "cross border" section where those can be mentioned. For instance, I believe the only true high speed lines in the UK are the Eurostar trains to Paris and Brussels, and none of the domestic services can be considered true high speed, but correct me if I'm wrong. The dog2 (talk) 23:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Well the fastest domestic train in Britain (using part of High Speed 1) seems to be this. And one thing about the Netherlands: It appears that Nederlandse Spoorwegen does own a couple of ICE, after the Fyra proved to be such a disaster. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Just as an idea, I notice that Trainspotting just redirects to the train travel article. I think this could be a separate standalone article and handle a lot of the technical content we want to remove from here. Any thoughts? Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I think I put trainspotting on the "wanted articles" page, so obviously it should become its own article. However, trainspotting usually does not involve riding a particular train, which is a big part of HSR. And HSR is always the "premium" product (with e.g. the Acela dramatically so) even if their speed is lacking, which is something that this article insinuates but does not fully cover yet... Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘As far as I know, at least for the Shinkansen, TGV and ICE, they are tourist attractions in and of themselves. I'm not sure about now but at least when I was younger, package tours to Japan often included a short ride on the Shinkansen, even if the rest of the tour was conducted by tour bus. So I would not be entirely surprised if an American train buff would travel to Europe or Japan primarily to experience riding on a high speed train. Anyway, perhaps this is getting too technical, but perhaps an introduction in which the engineering challenges unique to high-speed rail that are not present in conventional rail could be briefly mentioned. At least for true high speed rail, I would say that part of the appeal is that these systems are engineering marvels in and of themselves. The dog2 (talk) 04:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually found out the term perhaps we are looking for is w:Railfan , which is for general rail enthusiasts rather than spotters specifically. (Actually I didn't know about this genre before).

Maybe the content could go in Railfan ? Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I think trainspotting and railfanning (is that a word?) should be handled in one article. And I really have not yet heard a convincing case against the existence of this article here. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree completely with you on that, Hobbitschuster, as well as with the proposed trimming down of the list of high speed services to only those which fit the widely-accepted international criteria (Wikipedia: "While there is no single standard that applies worldwide, new lines in excess of 250 km/h and existing lines in excess of 200 km/h are widely considered to be high-speed"). With that in mind, I can confirm that the Javelin train is a 'proper' domestic high speed service in south east England, unlike the other pretend high-speed services in other parts of the country (though new trains are arriving soon that could mean, with the correct signalling provision, a 140 - 150 mph service may be standard on other intercity routes a decade before the arrival of HS2 - sorry I'm slipping into jargon now). Also, although the services in Belgium are all international, it is possible to travel from A to B on HSR without leaving the country, for example from Brussels to Liege. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

It is not about which system is high-speed enough, it is about any of them being any different from regular rail and at the same time similar to each other in terms of common differences from regular rail to merit this article. I believe User:Andrewssi2 has laid a very concise argument against this article's existence and it stands. I am a big fan of high-speed rail and often travel just to ride on a particular train, and I really do not need a guide here regarding that given abundance of better sources, including our very own Wikipedia. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

If the consensus is to merge this article with something else, then I'm fine with that. But I'd like to point out that people ride high-speed trains and nostalgic heritage tourist trains for different reasons. For instance, if I decide to ride on the Orient Express (or whatever the modern incarnation is) from Paris to Istanbul, I am not looking for speed, but just to experience times long gone by, and feel like I am in the 1920's just for a few days. Hopping on a TGV or Shinkansen would be different, since it's more about being impressed by the modernity and the sheer amount of engineering that goes into making them happen. The dog2 (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

So apparently there is no consensus to merge and/or redirect. What else should be done with this article to make it better serve the traveler? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

It is just you and User:ThunderingTyphoons! who did not agree with merging of this article into another thus far. How can I further convince you we can cover this just as well by integrating into various Rail travel in... and general rail travel articles, to better serve the traveller reading Wikivoyage? Do we agree that listing technical specifics of each service is superfluous here, as we will always be infinitely inferior vs even Wikipedia, not to mention specialist sources, especially ones focused on particular services / railways in given countries? PrinceGloria (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

While I do agree that the focus should not be on technical or technological detail, I do not agree with you that any train in a given country is more similar to any given train in the same country than any given HSR train is to any given HSR train. Take Germany where you have the ICE as well as the Harzer Schmalspurbahn, a narrow gauge railway with steam and diesel operation. There are several things that are the same across different HSR operators. And as HSR is a frequently abused word (the article on Wroclaw calls a train "high speed" that probably isn't), I think it is well within the scope of a travel guide to explain the concept. Especially to those in countries that don't have it. Can you conceive of a traveler asking something like "I would like to ride High Speed Rail once". Where would you point them if this article didn't exist? Wikipedia? That's not a travel site. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

"High-speed" depends on context, as it merely means something that is faster as opposed to something that is "low-speed". It doesn't matter to a traveller if a train matches the definition or not on an international scale. If one wants to go from said Wrocław to Opole, they will find little consolation in the fact that there are faster trains in Japan than the ones available to them where they are. The discussion of this definition is pointless without context here, its place is in Wikipedia if you care to do it.

The trains are not similar themselves, as much as trams are not like buses or metro, but we tend to cover them together as public transport when describing ways of getting around in cities, as to tourists they are alternatives and often form systems together bound by common fare and ticketing arrangements.

The focus on what matters more - the traveller's convenience or encyclopedic accuracy - is what distinguishes WV from WP. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Insofar high-speed rail services are seen as attractions (and many of them are), I think they'd fit very well into a "High speed rail" section in the Travel for rail enthusiasts article. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

All HSR trains have a sleek aerodynamic look and many have adaptations for phenomena like tunnel boom. You cannot say that for e.g. trams where you have this and this. They are also almost always (scratch the almost) at the high end of the price and "luxury" range within the rail system of the country they operate in. We do have an article on First and business class flights after all. High speed rail is about getting around, sure. But it is also about more than that. And this "more than that" is mostly (or entirely) due to specifics of HSR that are the same whether you take HSR in China, Spain, France or Germany. The fast speeds, the high quality interior (at the very least compared to other trains in the same country) the extremely smooth ride thanks to smooth rails and electric traction and so on. Of course we are not an encyclopedia but a travel guide, but do you really think there is nothing a travel guide can say about high speed rail? And unfortunately the rail travel in country X articles are not necessarily all that good. The Germany one needs an update badly for instance. And many countries only have a "by train" section and no article of their own. And to be perfectly blunt: What harm does this article do if we keep it? Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Hobbitschuster, I guess you missed my point. We are not trying to ascertain if the trains covered have anything in common, this would be something to discuss in an encyclopedic article. We are trying to find if keeping them in a separate article helps travellers in any way, since they tend to go to particular destinations and the aspects that are of most interest to them are the ones by which the trains actually differ, while the minutiae that excite railway buffs like (I guess) you and I will perpetually be covered in a woefully inadequate way here vs specialty sites and Wikipedia, so no pudding for that small group of travellers either.

BTW, if you believe that "rail travel in" need updates, can't we focus on that rather discussions on what is and what is not high-speed, which seems to be where work on this article (and other backwatery types) tends to gravitate towards? Do consider this is as "harm" done by this article and other similar ones, where you often stood on the other side of the "merge or delete" debate - they siphon out editors' efforts and focus out of the core ones for WV. PrinceGloria (talk) 04:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

PrinceGloria, please look upthread. I also don't see any compelling reason to merge this article into any other. I'd rather it just be improved. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry, I thought I addressed your concerns. Would you be able to rephrase, for my understanding which I guess seems a little lopsided, how this article is of benefit to a traveller? PrinceGloria (talk) 04:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

User:The dog2 also stated that this article "should definitely not be removed". Consensus is running against your support for deleting this article. I'm not sure I have much to add to what has already been said upthread. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I would rather say I prefer to have it merged rather than deleted, but it is not about a vote, but some good reasoning along the lines of our principles. Either we find them reasonable and need to stay within their lines, and thus I truly want to peace of mind to see how this serves a traveller, or we need to have them altered. I really believe we could use a roundup here. PrinceGloria (talk) 05:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

(starting at the left again) If I understand this whole debate correctly, this is not so much about our principles or any written policy per se but about questions of interpretation and scope. The only "policy" I can see touched here is "we are a travel guide". You argue that this precludes us from dealing with the topic of high speed rail, which you deem to be more of a subject for an encyclopedia. Instead you'd prefer it mentioned in rail travel in country x articles. I (and apparently some others, but I would rather let them speak for themselves) say that a travel guide does indeed have need and interest in covering this subject and there are enough things HSR in different countries has in common in the experience of the voyager to have it covered in its own article. If I misinterpreted you, please do cite the specific policy this is about. And as for my deletionist stance in some debates... Yes, this is mostly when it comes to hamlets and other places of little interest to anybody but bots dumping census summaries. But maybe this is also my personal pro-urban bias showing... Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Goals and non-goals#Non-goals #11 - PrinceGloria (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The rest of us don't agree with you that high-speed rail is the exclusive province of encyclopedias and consider it a travel topic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Locomotives are merely a fad and will never replace the horse. What does any of this have to do with travel, anyway? </sarcasm> K7L (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I am biased about this because I am a scientist myself, but perhaps we could expand the history section and give a little more detail about the unique challenges faced by HSR engineers that the engineers of conventional rail didn't experience. If you've watch documentaries about the Shinkansen or TGV, you'll see what creative solutions the engineers came up with to solve these unique problems, both in the interest of safety and passenger comfort. The dog2 (talk) 05:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It depends which of those are really fit for a travel guide. I for one am still horrified at the incredible stupidity of whoever decided to put streetcar tires under the ICE1 which was the main cause of the Eschede derailment, but discussing that really has no place in a travel guide. However, the sleek "noses" (or more yet the distinctive "duck" snout of some Spanish trains) that are a result of the tunnel boom are immediately evident to even casual observers. As are the incredible feats of engineering that "tamed" the Alps and other difficult areas to build a rail line through... At any rate, we are a travel guide and the focus should be on the travel angle, even though there seem to be disagreements at times what that angle is. I for one believe HSR is a mode of travel just the same as flying is one and distinct from regular rail travel just the same big airliners are different from bush planes... Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Guys, do take a step back and see how you are turning this into a bit of a shared editorial on all topics remotely related to HSR rather than a practical travel guide. Your creation will hopefully be a good read, but not a good travel guide, and that is my problem. PrinceGloria (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Some of us have a relatively broader or narrower definition of the scope of travel topics. That's nothing new. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree that we could rework the content of this article. For example I'm not going to skim the article as it stands and say "Hey, Russia has HSR! St Petersburg here I come!", but what would would a HSR travel experience actually be and how would we describe it here better? Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

does the Acela count?

Currently the article claims hsr only exists in Europe and Asia. However, the Acela reaches speeds in line with most definitions of hsr, even though its average speed does not sound very hsr. (Though neither does the travel time between Wittenberg and Nuremberg). Besides that does anybody know whether the project in Morocco is open for customers already? Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC) Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I've never taken Acela, as it costs much more than regular trains from New York to Boston or DC, without that big a difference in time. And that's if it arrives on schedule, which is by no means a sure thing. This article is relevant. Key points:

"The Acela and the Northeast Regional trains saw on-time rates of 74 and 75 percent, respectively."

"Take the Acela, for instance. You're essentially paying twice as much for a 75 percent chance of arriving 30 minutes earlier, compared to a standard Northeast Regional trip."

So is it really a high-speed trip? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

First of all, Amtrak's on time performance is truly atrocious (BTW what is the definition of "on time"? I have heard Germany uses five minutes whereas Switzerland uses 60 seconds). If Deutsche Bahn (famous for being "always late" among many Germans) had an on Time performance like that, there'd be riots and sternly worded letters to the editor... that being said: which on time percentage is the minimum for something to be called high-speed rail? I know that way back when an Euro-City could lose the designation as an EC if it was late too often Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

To answer the Moroccan question, according to French WP, service will start in 2018. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Any way to tell how old that information is? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The reference led to a news article from 3rd July 2015. Apparetly there was an initial plan to launch services in 2016, but there have been delays, like almost always when something big/new is under construction. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

indeed. Big complex things tend to take longer than planned Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Asking Wikipedia : w:High-speed_rail it states " While there is no single standard that applies worldwide, new lines in excess of 250 km/hr and existing lines in excess of 200 km/hr are widely considered to be high-speed, with some extending the definition to include much lower speeds (e.g. 160 km/hr) in areas for which these speeds still represent significant improvements."

Given w:Acela_Express reaches 240km per hour, it seems to reach that definition. Punctuality has no bearing on this definition whatsoever. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I guess it does by some definitions, but it definitely pales in comparison to the high-speed rail you have in Europe and Asia. The Acela express takes just over 3 1/2 hours to travel from New York City to Boston. Taking a Shinkansen in Japan, a TGV in France or an ICE in Germany would cover that same distance in under 2 hours. So while it is definitely "high speed" by American standards, it still does not come anywhere close to the high-speed services you get in Europe and Asia. The dog2 (talk) 04:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The question is "Is the Acela a HSR service?", not about whether it stacks up well against a Japanese bullet train. I'd say "Yes it is HSR" Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I got your point that it is a HSR service by the US government's definition. I am aware that the US government defines anything that hits a maximum speed to 125 mph as high-speed rail, regardless of what its average speed is. But then again, in Europe and Asia, high-speed rail generally results in significant time savings over conventional rail. In these places, many high speed rail lines have dedicated tracks only for high speed trains for much of the route, so the average speeds you get are significantly higher than conventional rail, while the Acela Express does not run on even a single dedicated section of high-speed track. So while it does briefly hit high speeds, its average speed is not that much faster than conventional trains. We'll see what others say, but in my opinion, whether or not something should be listed should depend on whether it is high speed from the practical standpoint of a traveller. In other words, does it offer significant time savings over conventional rail. In that respect, I think the Acela Express falls short. The dog2 (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

More on American high-speed rail

There are plans for high-speed rail in California. However, I was shocked to find out that it is planned for 2029! Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I am following the cahsr issue quite intensely and some service seems to be planned for the 2020s (though not SFO to LAX). What it has going for it though is that a bond measure has passed some years ago (guaranteeing about a sixth of the planned costs) and the current governor has committed himself to the project. Also part of the cap and trade money has been dedicated to hsr. And of course actual dirt has been moved already, which usually generates both momentum and structural inertia in favor of the project. But given the anti rail state of mind of the GOP, the jury is still out... Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Here in Manhattan, a lot of work was done on the Second Avenue Subway in 1977, and then they suddenly ran out of funds and caved everything in. Only in the last few years did they finally revive the project, and it is way behind schedule, over budget, and in danger of being contracted in length once more. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Green credentials of HSR

I noticed and removed the following:

"High Speed rail In addition, its also one of the most environmentally friendly ways to travel long distances, with the carbon footprint being less than half of that when flying or driving your own car."

While taking a standard train is definitely 'greener' than flying or driving, the situation around HSR is somewhat more complicated. Due to travel at high speeds the HSR trains actually consume significantly and disproportionately more electricity than their standard counterparts, and the construction of HSR infrastructure also has an exceptionally high impact on carbon emissions. It is just too simplistic to say that taking HSR is a green option. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Couple of things: First, all hsr (if you take 250 km/h as the cutting of point) runs on electric traction. Hence when converting energy use into Carbon emissions you have to figure in what the energy is produced with. France for example has a lot of nuclear power plants. Secondly according to press releases the Siemens Velaro (new train running in Spain, Germany, Turkey, Russia and on Eurostar) takes the equivalent of 0.3 liters of gas per 100 km per seat. Now even if we assume 40% occupancy (low end for hsr) we still get numbers no car can even hope to beat. If you have different numbers you can of course post them with source. The main reason for China to go down from 350 km/h to 300 was energy costs though. Above a certain speed current steel wheel on steel rail technology becomes a fuel hog... That's precisely why those speeds are reserved for PR and record runs. An unmodified Velaro can easily do more than 400 km/h, but it would be the rail equivalent of the Concord at that speed... Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I found this link Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to start a debate or win a particular point of view, just pointing out that the statement is not by any means clear cut. Additionally given your calculations, it doesn't take into account the construction and maintenance of HSR over its lifetime compared to that of highways. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

First of all, highways do need regular maintenance as well. But in any case, in general, electric traction uses less energy than diesel locomotives per passenger, since in diesel locomotives, you need to spend energy transporting the engine as well as the fuel. So at least at high capacities, electric trains are far more efficient than diesel trains. And at least based on my readings, rubber tyres produce far more friction on the road than steel wheels do on the rail, so in that respect you have energy savings as well. Of course, I also understand that rail travel only makes sense when there is sufficient capacity to keep the trains at a minimum occupancy level. The dog2 (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Given what the link I quoted says, even the statement normal trains are more energy efficient than hsr is doubtful. Especially if you compare hsr to Diesel traction. And as for the maintenance: to reach the same capacity as a highway, hsr needs a third of the surface area. And ballastless track (increasingly common for new hsr) has among its main advantages its low maintenance costs... Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem is there isn't a neat math formula that says HSR is 50% more efficient than cars/planes. Diesel trains obviously produce a lot of carbon, but if the HSR electricity is produced by coal/gas power stations then a lot of that benefit is lost. (France for example can power its TGV network with Nuclear, but Germany not so much).

I'm just saying a conclusive statement about carbon benefits can not be made, although it could be a part of wider arguments for using HSR. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

According to this image (used in de-WP on this page) German trains were using roughly 22% renewables in 2011. Given that DB is heavily marketing its "green" electricity and the general trend for renewables in Germany has been growth, it is likely that this number is higher for 2015, as DB either procures electricity from the national grid or via power plants owned by them or subsidiaries. I think what we can say is that HSR is better than flying and (in almost all cases) a car. Some buses might sometimes (assuming 90% occupancy for the bus and less than 50% for the train) have lower energy consumptions and if what goes into the grid is mostly coal there might be less CO2 at the end of the pipe for the bus in some cases. As for infrastructure construction and maintenance, I think it's more or less a wash between rail and road, and I even think rail is more energy efficient in terms of maintenance... What we can say is that part of the innovations at the bleeding edge of HSR is the increasing of efficiency (as most countries that have HSR have high and rising electricity costs) and some of those gains in efficiency (e.g. regenerative breaking) are either unique to HSR or to electric traction (which in some countries is uncommon on non-HSR tracks) Whether a slower train is actually "greener" also depends on too many factors for us to definitely say. Among other things the energy used for heating / cooling lighting and other non motion energy uses will be higher on a six hour ride than a three hour ride, regardless of speed or distance traveled. And in some cases they can even be more energy intensive than the actual moving of the train... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what conclusions I can reach from your research. It really just points to the efficiency of each individual country and service. HS2 that is being built in the UK has established that journeys will not be not be more carbon efficient than the equivalent car journey. Other countries will undoubtably yield different statistics.

All I was trying to say was that the environmental benefits can not be summed up as an easy sound bite ("all HSR journeys produce half the carbon of planes/cars") Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I know we are not Wikipedia, but I still would like to have a source for your claim. The sources I could find that actually quote numbers (and don't just assert stuff) come to a significantly better result for HSR compared to air and car travel and in some cases even regular rail. Although to be fair HS2 is probably the most expensive (in per km cost) High Speed Rail project to ever be seriously discussed... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

New banner?

The existing banner (in my opinion) doesn't even look like a train at first glance.

Would something like Rail_travel_in_Japan be more relevant and appealing? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I can tell for sure that it's a Shinkansen train being, but then again, I have actually been to Japan and ridden on the Shinkansen, so I don't know what it looks like to someone who has never been on a high speed train. I don't think we should use exactly the same banner, but perhaps we can use something similar of say a French TGV or German ICE train. After all, when most people think of high speed rail, it is usually the Shinkansen, TGV and ICE that come to mind. The dog2 (talk) 04:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the intention of the guide is for people who may not know the subject, hence I feel an alternative more obvious image would be better... --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Come to think of it, it would be nice if the image had the streamlined bullet-like nose that is characteristic of all high-speed trains. Unfortunately, I don't have a suitable image myself. Why don't you contribute one? The dog2 (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Too Anglosphere-centric?

The following paragraph

"Currently, high-speed rail lines only run in Europe and Asia. While plans for high-speed rail services have been mooted in the United States, Canada and Australia, the popularity of private car ownership and air travel, as well as political wrangling over the massive amount of capital required for such projects, mean that for now, high-speed rail is likely to remain a distant dream for the forseeable future. The only exceptions are on the one hand Amtrak's Acela Express on the Northeast Corridor between Boston and Washington where trains briefly achieve 240 km/h (150 mph) and either narrowly make or miss most definitions of high-speed rail, though its average speed certainly lags far behind high-speed rail services in Europe and Asia. On the other hand actual dirt has been shoveled and contracts awarded on a new High-Speed line in California, though continued political wrangling means that it remains to be seen whether the project will be completed on time, if at all. Projects in other states are either farther from completion or not actually high-speed."

appears to be centered on English speaking countries (especially the US) quite a bit. There have been plans and announcements for HSR in almost every developed country and in some "emerging economies" (e.g. Brazil, South Africa, Mexico), yet we mostly deal with proposals in the US and Australia. One possible way to deal with that is to only list actually running trains or maybe include projects where we can reasonably expect trains to run within the decade (e.g. the Moroccan one) Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The other way, it seems to me, is to cover all the other plans and announcements. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry for asking but which benefit for the traveler would that bring? I mean mentioning a line under construction in a destination or region guide is obviously useful, but given that even over at WP the "high speed rail in country x" articles are horribly outdated ("construction will start in 2008 with the first trains to run in 2013"), I fear mentioning plans announcements and early phases of construction in an omnibus article like this one is bound to confuse people... Of course projects that are so far along that only a political earthquake could "derail" them might be a different story... But the latest CNN story about China announcing a Bering strait rail bridge? Nah. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm shocked that a WP article is that outdated. Anyway, I agree that only lines that exist or are under construction are really worth mentioning, except that the story about the Bering Strait bridge could make for enjoyable reading, but nothing more. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I maintain High-speed_rail_in_China#Future_International_Routes mostly because the Chinese system is being developed very fast. It isn't of practical value to a traveler going to China tomorrow though. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Status

This is currently rated at "outline" - what would be needed to change that? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

It's probably Usable already, but I think it would help a lot to link the names of each high-speed rail service to its official website's URL. That would definitely increase the usability and user-friendliness of this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

True. Though in most cases the link to the railway company operating said service makes sense as well. I.e. linking to ÖBB for the railjet. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, either, whichever is more useful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Infrastructure for HSR

So as can be seen in the edit history, there has been some wrangling about how to formulate this. And I am now saying the following: It is somewhat intellectually dishonest to focus on this. True, building new HSR lines involves a lot of major construction, including concrete pouring (which for chemical reasons produces CO₂). But - streets don't grow on trees. Highways take even more space per transportation capacity and unlike rail routes which in some cases are only semi-impervious surfaces, roads are entirely made out of concrete or asphalt. And in addition to that roads have a shorter half live time than comparable rail infrastructure. So I think a full assessment would obviously have to look at all aspects, but ceteris paribus HSR actually comes out on top compared to road transport in the infrastructure department. As for air travel, airports also take land (though a lot less than roads), but a full live-cycle assessment would than have to include the production of the planes (or the cars buses or trains) as spread out over their design live, any environmental impact of failures or repairs and so on. And if we want to be really exact, we also have to account for the generation of the oil and/or coal that is burned to provide the motive power (either directly in internal combustion engines or in power plants). And if the train runs on nuclear power we have to ask where the Uranium is mined and how and... I think we won't get to any good point for a travel guide discussing all that. What is relatively easy however is calculating the amount of energy a given mode of transport takes for a given distance if we assume given occupancy (40%-60% in HSR, 70%-90% in planes, 9/50 - 40/50 in buses, 1.2/5 in cars), and on that, the Velaro D is unbeatably good. German airlines claim 4 liters of gas per passenger per 100 km. Cars take somewhere around 7 liters in total per 100 km. The Velaro D consumes the equivalent of 0.3 liters per seat per 100 km. Let's make it 50% full for ease of calculation and we get 0.6 liters. Beat that with a stick. But anyway, I like trains so I might well be a victim of my biases, but part of the reason why I like trains is that they are so efficient. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not know how important the infrastructure is, but focusing on consumed fuel (or any one aspect) easily leads to wrong conclusions in many comparisons. We should get away with saying as little as possible, but once we say something is "green" because of low CO₂ emissions we do open the can of worms – as in the case where electricity is produced by nuclear energy and the emissions therefore low. I'd be happier if we talked about energy per seat and had some confidence in other factors not upsetting the result.

Trains have potential for being very energy efficient (and cars of today are indeed not), but if comparing HSR with traditional rail and buses we should be vary careful. For one, we have the feeder traffic issue. I am no expert in this specific field, so would prefer not to mess too much with the article, but I hope we get a wording we can trust has no serious pitfalls.

--LPfi (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I dunno, is the relative green-ness of high-speed rail relevant for a travel guide? To me, it seems best to leave a discussion like that to Wikipedia. -Shaundd (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I would say yes, it's relevant, and I'd note that we have a Responsible travel article, so if it's not relevant here, it's certainly relevant there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree it's relevant to Responsible travel, and my own thoughts are it's better to discuss it there. If the relative green-ness discussion needs to stay in this article, can we consider moving it to its own section? My main concern is reader-friendliness given it's the second paragraph of the lede. Not everyone is going to care about how green HSR is, and the nuances of whether the infrastructure is green seem pretty heavy for a section that's meant to draw the reader in. -Shaundd (talk) 06:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Not sure the amount of discussion we have here is entirely appropriate. The greenness of high speed rail is important for travellers, and we need to acknowledge how efficient train travel is when compared to virtually any other mode of transport, but at the same time we don't need to write a thesis on every single argument and counter-argument around the idea. For example, saying the initial construction of the railway is somewhat environmentally-damaging must surely be a case of Captain Obvious. Also, I really don't think we need to worry too much about where the railways get their power from.

I can see other potential issues with this article too which I will raise sooner or later if necessary, but for now I'm focusing on the spelling, grammar and readability.

Smile, it's Saturday :-) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The issue was originally the blanket assumption that all HSR is green and responsible, and the real answer is unfortunately that 'it is more complex than that'. I'd agree however that environmentally responsible travel is certainly a valid area for Wikivoyage. Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

(starting at the left again) I think we might wish to remove the paragraph from the lede and move it elsewhere. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I definitely agree --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Do we need consensus for that or can someone just plunge forward? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone will object. Go ahead. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Tilting trains

I think a discussion on tilting trains and their possible negative effects (motion sickness) should be included into this article. Where would you put it? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Out of the headings right now in the article, Stay safe is probably the closest one. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we should make a separate heading? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Russia

The Russian Sapsan was removed in this edit - I thought it does meet the definition, or at the very least it meets it more than the Acela does. Also, the rolling stock is basically the same as the second generation of the German ICE 3. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Sapsan shouldn't had been removed. --ϒpsilon (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

So should we add it back in? Or await consensus first? Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

It runs at 250 km/h, which by any definition is high speed. I say reinstate.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Ypsilon, 200 km/h just about counts as high speed when referring to older lines that weren't built to the modern high speed standard. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Well there is no one official definition, but usually trains that top out at 200 km/h or 125 mph are not counted, but those that reach higher speeds on upgraded legacy lines (even if just for a short time) are counted. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

So are we saying Strizh doesn't count? It might be worth a mention as a 'nearly high speed' service such as has been done with British intercity services. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I think we should have a consensus on this, but my inclination is to not count it. What about Kazakhstan, though? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

[1] indicates the project is a long way off completion, but if you know better, feel free to add something for Kazakhstan. If I say I'm happy for Strizh not to count, then we've got a consensus, at least among participants of this conversation, since Ypsilon has already said "feel free to delete [if it doesn't count as HSR]."

Apparently I confused it with Uzbekistan. Sorry about that. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is my comment for the record. I don't have an opinion on whether 200 km/h qualifies as high-speed rail. WP seems to classify Strizh as just an express train, while Sapsan is high-speed rail (on Russian WP too). As said, do as you like. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I think mentioning it in the way it is currently mentioned is fine. If and when services to Berlin ever become a thing we can discuss that then. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Website for Russia

The Website for Sapsan deadlinks (presumably because it has changed) but it appears that http://eng.rzd.ru/ is the corporate website, regardless. Where is the official website where one could book tickets? (i.e. the equivalent of bahn.de) or do Russian railways only do that via resellers? By the way, the Russian website still mentions the 2014 Olympic Games in Sochi and overall leaves an impression of atrociously bad web design...Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

http://pass.rzd.ru/main-pass/public/en ϒpsilon (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

What would be needed to get this to Guide and FTT?

Basically what it says in the headline... Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I tried staring at the article until I would come up with something. Is there something to say about the travel experience onboard a high-speed train as opposed to a regular train? ϒpsilon (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

It's generally a lot smoother (the rails have to be smooth for high speeds and traction has to be electric) and a bit more airplane like than on slower trains. They also go through more tunnels and over more viaducts and less frequently take the "scenic route"... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, high-speed trains are (as flagship services of the rail company) often more modern overall and offer more amenities than other trains. I think we could have a "Go"/"Travel"/"Onboard" subsection with a few paragraphs on what to expect when you've stepped on board the train. --ϒpsilon (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Map size

We could even increase the maps to a huge 1000px and have them at the top of their section, before the corresponding text. Then people wouldn't have to "click to enlarge". --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

High speed rail maps

Swept in from the pub

This edit added what purports to be a map of the Spanish high speed rail system, which to me however seems highly incomplete. Do we want those mapshapes in country article dynamic maps? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Since there's no way for a casual reader to even know what that funny black line is, I suggest not. The UK map is particularly strange looking, highlighting our woeful HSR infrastructure, but ignoring the actual main railway lines which serve the country. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

London has a tail! And it links it to "the continent"... Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Spain shouldn't have a dynamic map anyway, as it already has a static one. I've deleted the redundant map accordingly. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd remove it on the basis that such a mapshape is more in its place in an article specifically for (high speed) rail travel in Spain rather than the article for Spain itself. If infrastructure should be highlighted with {{mapshapes}} on country articles, then I'd argue that that should be highways instead, but personally, I'm not in favour of adding that either.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed.

MSG17 is the user who has been adding the HSR to dynamic maps, and (s)he deserves to have a say here. @MSG17: What say you? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd say that it's fair to move or remove them - there's not any real identifying marks for the lines (no specific colors or anything), and since the lines are not very important to trip-planning due to the concept of through services (the lines don't really matter if trains can shift lines or transfer cars to different trains), it doesn't really help the traveller. The "funny black lines" comment is apt and accurate. It might be better to move the lines to corresponding high speed rail pages, especially since the European lines are rather interconnected. There are some exceptions, such as the Taiwan HSR (only one line connecting major cities) and maybe some more regional projects (like the Hainan ring railways), but for the most part it may be better to move lines to the corresponding rail articles. I will start moving the lines out of the current dynmaps at least - they can interfere with clicking on regions. Thanks for the ping - this discussion is great. MSG17 (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your flexibility. We don't have many High-speed rail articles - just the main one, and one for China and South Korea. The static maps on those pages are kept well updated, so unless a dynamic map could offer something more, I can't see a need for them.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@AndreCarrotflower: Where is that discussion we were having about this issue (static and dynamic maps on the same page) a few weeks ago? I can't find it anywhere.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@ThunderingTyphoons!: - User talk:AndreeBot#Duplicate maps. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that's the one. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't highways show up anyway if you zoom in enough? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Gauge

I removed the thing about the gauge of the Shinkansen because while it is of utmost importance to people with an interest in engineering, I don't think the average traveller really cares about whether the Shinkansen or regular trains have a broader gauge. While I do understand the concept of stability afforded by a broader gauge because I took physics in high school, I highly doubt the average guy without a high school physics background would understand the significance of it. As far Average Joe is concerned, I think all he is interested in knowing is that they are faster, and often more comfortable than conventional rail. Therefore, I really don't think information about the gauge is of much interest to the traveller. The dog2 (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

first of all, this is not the Japan article but explicitly a rail article so we may go into some detail and assume people know and care about some of it already. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we also mention Spanish gauge somewhere either here or on another page. It is of course relevant due to interoperability issues if nothing else that hsr uses standard gauge with next to no exceptions even where there would be good reasons not to (INDIA) Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Seems unnecessary to me. This is a rail article, but it's a rail article in a travel guide. I doubt Japan will have to worry about interoperability with other countries, unless they build a bridge first. ARR8 (talk) 02:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

If that's why the train is smooth at high speeds, it could be mentioned briefly. Going into depth is for encyclopedias, but a cool fact in passing is fine in a travel guide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The reason why the train is smooth at high speed is because the Shinkansen has continuously welded rails. Most older railway lines had rails that were joined in discrete sections, and you can actually see gaps at where the joints are made, but those will make the ride very bumpy at high speeds. Therefore, continuously welded rail was the innovation that the Japanese needed to come up with to allow the Shinkansen to travel at such high speeds without compromising passenger comfort or safety. So the broader gauge has nothing to do with smoothness and everything to do with stability so the train does not topple over. The dog2 (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I see. It could still be worth a very brief mention in that regard, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Besides of course the problem of interoperability with the legacy network (in much of Europe HSR uses existing lines in or near urban areas where speeds would be constrained anyway), there is indeed some talk of linking Japan up to another network of a different gauge... See here. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Color me surprised. Never thought they could get over the Kuril Islands issue. ARR8 (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Well it is still very much at the "talk talk talk" and not on the "actually getting stuff done" level... But I am neither fluent enough in Russian nor in Japanese to know whether the talk is more serious than the talk about e.g. Irish Sea Fixed Links... Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

California HSR

Just so you know, the California HSR has been truncated so it will not actually run from Los Angeles to San Francisco, officially due to budget concerns. It will now only run from Merced to Bakersfield. Kind of sad to be honest, since I believe the the West Coast has a huge potential for such a line with just the right distance between cities from San Diego all the way up to Vancouver, but well, it is what it is. The dog2 (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The way Newsom worded it there might be a door reopening if and when more money becomes available, but I don't think that's more than lip service... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Some of this needs an update

"Saudi Arabia is planning to become the first Arab country with HSR"

Either they were or weren't, but apparently, they have a high-speed train between Mecca and Medina and I noticed that Morocco also has TGV. Please update as appropriate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

where is this outdated information? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Third paragraph of "History". Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Giruno

https://www.sbb.ch/de/bahnhof-services/waehrend-der-reise/unsere-zuege/giruno.html Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Laos

Wouldn't it make more sense to write Laos as a separate country section under Asia? Even if the line has been designed as an extension to the Chinese system, if no cross-border services have yet run (and who knows when they will, given the "zero COVID" strategy?), then from the traveller's POV, it's essentially a domestic high-speed railway. If one day the border opens up, it will still be a line that links that links the country's capital with some of the main sights.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I suppose actually at 160 km/h, the Laos section is too slow to count as HSR.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)