Talk:High-speed rail in China

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maps[edit]

What happened to the maps showing speed limits on individual lines? Why is it removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.211.154 (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC) I have the same question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.200.6.186 (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan in map[edit]

Why does the map reference Taiwan when the article is about high speed rail in mainland China?

Because people didn't want the article name to be as long as "High Speed Rail in the People's Republic of China" so then the article's name became ambiguous because of the China/Taiwan stalemate. An absurd solution. It's not like List of tallest buildings in China has Taipei 101 or List of tallest buildings in China has Foxconn.--TheJoyMonger (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

everything high-speed rail[edit]

OK, Chinese high-speed rail articles are messy this article and the China Railway High-speed article is has huge amounts of overlap. so we could either:

  • be like the TGV, or shinkansen article and make this article or China Railway High-speed the "mother article" and large subsections get their own page. which means sacking this page if the latter was chosen.
  • or make High-speed rail in China strictly about infrastructure (rails, signalling, stations, etc), China Railway High-speed about the service and travel times, and a new page on rolling stock (roster, exports, technology, etc.)

of course if there is a better idea put it here 01:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

passenger dedicated lines or passenger designated lines?[edit]

A Chinese railway specialist and planner use the 'passenger dedicated line' instead of 'passenger designated line' in his report. Actually, the former is more popular and easier to understand. Shall we change from designated to dedicated? Oceangai (talk) 03:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:CRH.png[edit]

The image File:CRH.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


High speed double deck train[edit]

I’m looking for some info (and ideally pictures) on a high speed double deck train used (or to be used) by the Chinese. Can anyone help? Thank you Chwyatt (talk) 08:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • China does not have any high speed double deck train (MOR≥200km/h) in operation at present. Chinese even produced a double-deck passenger car for a highspeed (200km/h) push-pull train called "DDJ1" 10 years ago. The DDJ1 is composed of 1 electric locomotive, 1 double-deck passenger car and 5 general passenger cars. But it has now been withdrawn and stores in Beijing. Some photos are available on Flickr: [9][10][11]---Alancrh (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It was the NZJ2 I was thinking of, which as you say isn't technically a high speed train (it apparently maxs at 180kph) Chwyatt (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction?[edit]

This article lacks one.

I think it could improve this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.131.114 (talk) 06:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Price comparison between Acela and Chinese High Speed railway shows wrong picture. European High Speed trains charge anywhere between 40-80 Euro for the same distance depending on when you book. $310 for Acela seems to be too high for comparison. Paris to Strasbourg is 488 KM and ticket for same costs between 73-91 euro on same day booking and 65 euro if booked one month in advance without any saver options. With saver options this can be as low as 50 euros. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.243.120.234 (talk) 11:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We need mph not just km[edit]

Seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChesterTheWorm (talk • contribs) 04:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any volunteers from a non-metric country? It's looks like Burma, Liberia, and the United States are the only candidates lol Ouyuecheng (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're desparate, just divide km/h value by 1.6 should give you an approx value :) 130.216.25.65 (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the speeds should use the convert template. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 02:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World's largest network ?[edit]

Is China's high speed rail network the word's largest ? Toutvientapoint (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. See the UIC definition of HSR. Ouyuecheng (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

Why have we moved this article to something with a longer name than before that added virtually nothing to the clarity? At the very least this needs to be discussed properly. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 01:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was moved because it does not discuss high speed rail in China; it discusses high speed rail only in the People's Republic of China. There has been an enormous amount of edit warring in the past over the use of the term China, which eventually resulted in a consensus being reached. This is set out at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese), which states:
Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. Text should treat the Republic of China as a sovereign state with equal status with the People's Republic of China. Text should not take a position on whether they are considered separate nations. Text should not imply that Taiwan is either a part of China or not a part of China. Text should not imply that Taiwan is a part of the People's Republic of China. Text should not imply that mainland China, Hong Kong, and/or Macau are part of the Republic of China. As a general rule of thumb, the official political terms "People's Republic of China" or "PRC" and "Republic of China" or "ROC" should be used in political contexts (that is, to describe the existing governments or regimes) rather than the imprecise and politically charged terms "China" and "Taiwan." For example, "Hu Jintao is the President of the People's Republic of China" is preferred over "Hu Jintao is the President of China." Likewise, one should write "one must be an ROC citizen to vote in the ROC presidential election" as opposed to "one must be a Taiwanese citizen to vote in the Taiwanese presidential election."
If the article were to discuss the situation in Hong Kong, Macau and the Republic of China, then there would be no problem. However, it doesn't. As it stands, it infers that China equals the People's Republic, and on Wikipedia we take a neutral stance on what exactly constitutes China.
I fail to see what your problem is on this one. It is the method that we use throughout Wikipedia for this type of article. See the following:
Your opposition to the move is particularly incomprehensible, given that this page is a subpage of Transport in the People's Republic of China, which already uses this format. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All you are doing by calling China "the People's Republic of China" is making the name longer. Its very clear what you are referring to when you use the name 'China'. If you want to refer to Taiwan you call it Taiwan as that's its name and its totally unambiguous what you are referring to as well. There's no reason not to call a spade a spade.
And its not as if those aren't the names that are mostly used to refer to those two states by everyone else in the world - see for example this article from this weeks Economist.
If you wish to file a move request on this matter feel free, and I will oppose the request, but I will abide by consensus if people disagree with me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No Taiwan is not what you call Taiwan. It is a province within the Republic of China which also includes territory that is not Taiwan. Admittedly, it covers the vast majority of the Republic of China, but Wikipedia has a very clear policy on what the various entities purporting to be China are named, and it is not for you to arbitrarily overturn that policy. If you wish that policy to be changed, then you should raise the matter at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). Skinsmoke (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on Wikipedia's current policy towards China related articles as I only have a very small number of China related articles which I'm interested in. However if your case is as good as you claim then you should easily get consensus with a move request. Personally I don't see the point in making the article title less concise for little gain, but I'm more than happy to see what other people think. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of claim that China's HSR network will be longer than the rest of the world combined by 2012[edit]

An earlier version of the article introduction cited a Washington Post article which claims that China will have more high-speed rail track with 250+km/h HSR service by 2012 than the rest of the world combined. This is a bold, speculative and ultimately unreliable claim, which I have removed. According to the Chinese Ministry of Railways, by 2012, China's HSR network will reach 13,000km. According to High-speed rail by country, 17 other countries in the world currently have combined HSR track length of 13,345.7 km. Most but not all of these tracks can carry service at 250+km/h, but this figure does not account for growth from the rest of the world, including Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the United States in the coming years. The claim is speculative at best and inaccurate at worst. It is unnecessary. Even without the claim, there is ample factual information in the article to convey to the reader that China has a large HSR network that is growing quickly.

ContinentalAve (talk) 00:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is quite a lot of that track is less than 250km/h. Take Britain (as a particularly extreme example), it has 1500km of 'high speed track' and has some trains faster than 250km/h, but in reality there is only one line faster than 250km/h - High Speed 1 which is about 120km in length. Additionally Wiki's table isn't sourced very well so it should be taken with a large pinch of salt.
That said I don't really understand how the Washington Post got their figure from their table so I don't care if its claim is removed or not. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say is that Washington Post is considered a reliable source. And on the Post article it clearly says: "By 2012, just four years after it began its first high-speed passenger service, China will have more high-speed train tracks than the rest of the world combined." What methodology the author used to derive this estimate is not given, but this claim is not far-fetched at all. I am usually not supportive of superlatives, but in this particular case it may be necessary to highlight the sheer size of China's HSR operations. Colipon+(Talk) 04:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Post is a reputable newspaper, but the Keith Richburg article has got some problems that undermines its authority on this subject matter. [12] The headline strikes a sensationalist tone: "China is pulling ahead in worldwide race for high-speed rail transportation". A race? China is not in a race to build HSR with any other country. No Chinese official has ever characterized the campaign as a race with anyone. Nor is there evidence that any other country is in some kind of John Henry-esque track-laying competition with China. Whatever race there exists is in Richburg's imagination.
The article starts off with references to China's automobile output overtaking that of the U.S. and its "aggressive" expansion to commercial aviation to compete with Boeing and Airbus. These ominous-sounding developments are completely unrelated to the subject of HSR expansion. If anything high-speed trains help reduce the need for auto and air travel. Then Richburg suggests that China is breaking into the exclusive HSR builders' club of Japan and France, neglecting to mention Germany, Italy, Sweden and Canada among others. Aside from the oversight, the article completely fails to mention the fact that all of China's high-speed rail trains run on core technology imported from one of those countries! If there's any race going on, it's the competition among the foreign train makers to get a greater share of the China market.
Then the article makes three true assertions (1) China's trains are the world's fastest, (2) its network of tracks the longest and (3) its expansion plans the most ambitious. But the correction section erroneously states that China only has the fastest conventional HSR trains and suggests that the fastest train is actually a maglev in Japan. The JR-Maglev MLX01 in Japan is a test train that runs on a test line. The Shanghai Maglev remains the undisputed fastest, commercial train in the world. China has the world's fastest trains in commercial operation. Period.
Then, 89 words into a 1,029 word article, he makes the claim at issue here -- "By 2012, just four years after it began its first high-speed passenger service, China will have more high-speed train tracks than the rest of the world combined." The article itself does not actually say how long China's network is expected to be in 2012 nor define how "high" is "high-speed" . In the United States, for example, the Federal Railroad Administration defines any train service that exceeds a speed of 180km/h (110mph) as HSR. By that reckoning, the rest of the world already has more HSR than what China's own Railway Ministry has planned for 2012.
Even if we go with the WaPo's sidebar box to the article, which mentions 155mph (249 km/h) rail lines, it's still far from certain that China will have a longer network than the rest of the world. Richburg is characterizing it as a certainty -- it's not China is expected to have a longer network than the rest of the world. It's China will. That assumes everything in China goes according to plan and plans in the rest of the world do not change. What if one of China's HSR lines fall behind schedule? -- see e.g. the Yichang-Wanxian Railway, which was supposed to be finished by 2008, but it's still not done. What if projects in other parts of the world get finished ahead of schedule or new projects are introduced? Is Richburg even aware that Morocco is building a high-speed rail line between Kenitra and Tangier? This is a claim that relies on many variables -- too many for the author to account for to make a claim with such certainty.
Is it plausible that China might have a longer network than the rest of the world combined in 2012? Sure it is. Is it a reliable claim? Hardly. And what does it matter? It's just like the fanfare about the so-called race. China already has the world's longest network and will continue to. Whether it gains a 50% plus share of track length over a certain speed by 2012 or not is hardly a material concern for the reader. It's enough to know that China is the most populous country in the world. There is no need to add that more people live in China than all of Africa.
The HSR article needs a lot more content about what has already happened, and what may be happening. In my opinion, it's not worth putting in a plausible but speculative claim about the future that is drawn from one poorly researched and written newspaper article written by a non-expert. ContinentalAve (talk) 07:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick Google and I found quite a few sources saying the same:

-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ps I've just realised they are just saying China's will be bigger than Europes, which isn't the same. Still the sources are good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the research. The Independent article from Nov. 2009 cites a rail industry report as the basis for stating that China's HSR network will overtake Europe's as the world's largest in 2012. The China Daily and CNET articles from March 2010 both say that China's HSR network will be the world's largest in three years. This is a modest claim. The Wikipedia article says China is already the biggest. None comes close to the WaPo claim. ContinentalAve (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, you have done quite some due diligence so I do not feel that I should push further on this issue. Thank you for your hard work, and this article is one that requires quite the upkeep, especially when we get closer to 2012. I'm glad we have a team around who is willing to update and scrutinize. Colipon+(Talk) 05:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your understanding. You're absolutely right. This is a subject area that's going to change a great deal and attract a lot of attention in the coming years. Already we're seeing news articles that appear to draw facts and analysis from wikipedia. See e.g. [13] ContinentalAve (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harmony[edit]

I just noticed that there is no mention of the common or knickname "Harmony" as used for modern chinese EMUs as well as locomotives.

I couldn't find any mention in the China Railways CRH1 etc articles. It's definately official, [14] and appears in news reports. Can it be put in somewhere?Sf5xeplus (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there is a line called "harmony" from Chongqing to Chengdu, but I don't think it is HSR, and it ought to be, seeing the importance of the two giants within greater Sichuan. ---何献龙4993 (talk) 07:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Harmony" is also nickname of 120km/h class chinese freight locomotives, ie: HXD1,HXD2,HXD3,HXN3,HXN5 series Tigersandys (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Siemens - contradiction?[edit]

See [15] Seems to suggest Siemens did not get an order, yet China Railways CRH3 exists. Please explain in article.Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reading -- the following passage answers your question.
The following year, Siemens reshuffled its bidding team, lowered prices, joined the bidding for 300 km/h trains and won a 60-train set order. It supplied the technology for the CRH3, based on the Velaro design, to its JV with CNR's Tangshan Railway Vehicle Co. Ltd.
ContinentalAve (talk) 02:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry totally missed that.Sf5xeplus (talk) 08:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

High-speed_rail_in_China#Chinese_MOR_CRH_trainsets_order_timetable[edit]

Just tidied the references - couple are from wiki sources eg zh.wikipedia , others from baidu. I don't think we can use these as a final reference. If anyone can find another source that would be good.

Another problem was the source http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2004-12-02/13004413007s.shtml for the 20 Oct 2004 order - I only found a very brief mention of the order - it's not very clear. Maybe I missed it. This needs checking, or a more specific references.

All the others (the ones that have been converted to cite web format) seem good. In some cases there appeared to be an explicit mention of the type ordered, but the other data was there. Might be worth looking at if article is being got to A or FA standard. Also worth checking is whether I've copied the chinese language titles correctly - I think I have but can't tell..Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on citation standards. We should avoid citing to other user-generated encyclopedias or all other encyclopedias for that matter. As an aggregator of information, we should strive to cite the original report / news report. Getting the article cited for A or FA is a good idea. How is that done? Right now the article has Start-Class on the quality scale. It's pretty apparent that we are way past that level.
ContinentalAve (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to B class. It needs more sources really, though you could ask for a Wikipedia:Good article nominations - though it will probably need some more work. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Thank you for updating. ContinentalAve (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some update to the refernces and none of them are from other encyclopedias,I'll try to find more reliable sources. Tigersandys (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you 06:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ContinentalAve (talk • contribs)

TABLE: CRH Service on High Speed Lines[edit]

The table listing CRH Service on High Speed Lines is a welcome addition to the services section of the article.

Line
(route) 		Length
(main line) 		Travel distance
(between starting/terminal stations) 		Trains per day[1]
(aggregation of both direction) 		Designed speed Average Trip Speed
(By fastest train) 		Trains in service
Wuguang PDL
(Wuhan-Changsha-Guangzhou) 		968 km 1069 km[2] 160 350 km/h 331 km/h[2] CRH2C CRH3C[3]
Huning PDL
(Shanghai-Nanjing) 		296 km 301 km[4] 170 350 km/h 247 km/h[4] CRH1A/B CRH2A/B/C
CRH3C[5][6]
Jingjin ICL
(Beijing-Tianjin) 		117 km 120 km[7] 178 350 km/h 240 km/h[7] CRH3C[8]
Zhengxi PDL
(Zhengzhou-Xi'an) 		455 km 505 km[9] 18 350 km/h 259 km/h[9] CRH2C[10]
Yongtaiwen PFL
(Ningbo-Taizhou-Wenzhou) 		268 km 270 km[11] 54 250 km/h 222 km/h[11] CRH1B/E CRH2A/B/E[12]
Wenfu PFL
(Wenzhou-Fuzhou) 		298.4 km 294 km[13] 40 250 km/h 205 km/h[13] CRH1A/B/E CRH2A/B/E[14]
Fuxia PFL
(Fuzhou-Xiamen) 		274.9 km 256 km[15] 68 250 km/h 190 km/h[15] CRH1A/B/E CRH2A/E[14]
Shitai PDL
(Shijiazhuang-Taiyuan) 		190 km 222 km[16] 26 250 km/h 202 km/h[16] CRH5A[17]
Changjiu ICL
(Nanchang-Jiujiang) 		135 km 135 km[18] 34 250 km/h 188 km/h[18] CRH1A CRH2A[19]
Hewu PFL
(Hefei-Wuhan) 		351 km 364 km[20] 20 250 km/h 185 km/h[20] CRH1A/B CRH2A/B[21]
Hening PFL
(Hefei-Nanjing) 		156 km 156 km[22] 24 250 km/h 173 km/h[22] CRH1A/B CRH2A/B[21]
Jiaoji PDL
(Qingdao-Jinan) 		362.5 km 393 km[23] 42 250 km/h 177 km/h[23] CRH2A CRH5A[24]
Chengguan PDL
(Chengdu-Guanxian) 		67 km 65 km[25] 40 250 km/h 130 km/h[25] CRH1A[26]

It shows the frequency and actual speed of train service on the lines now in operation. The table perhaps could be improved with the following:

  • resolving the difference between line distance and trip distance. Right now, there is a discrepancy between the two distances; in some cases, the former is longer than the latter; in others, the latter is longer. This is confusing and warrants either an explanation or the removal of the line distance column.
  • adding a column that shows trip time.
  • adding wiki-links to the table contents.

ContinentalAve (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The disparity between the two distances inflicted by the following situation, 1. the travel distence is within the HSR line, ie the Wenfu PDL, 2. the actual travel distence includes the total length of the HAR line plus it's linking line or existent railways to the stations, ie the Wuguang PDL.
I think we should remove the line distance column and just add a general note to the travel distance column, which may lead to less confusing.
the idea of adding travel time to the table is good.--Tigersandys (talk) 06:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
speed should be worked out using actual distance, not the fake distance MOR claimed for propaganda and a higher ticket price.

References

  1. ^ "123查/中国火车时刻表在线查询" (in Chinese).
  2. ^ a b "Train No.G1001 timetable".
  3. ^ "京广高速铁路武广段开通运行". society.people.com.cn (in Chinese). 26 December 2009.
  4. ^ a b "Train No.G7102 timetable".
  5. ^ [1]
  6. ^ [2]
  7. ^ a b "Train No.C2001 timetable".
  8. ^ "京津城际动车组列车将统一车型" (in Chinese).
  9. ^ a b "Train No.G2009 timetable".
  10. ^ [3]
  11. ^ a b "Train No.D3107 timetable".
  12. ^ "71调图甬台温所有交路车型情况" (in Chinese). 23 June 2010.
  13. ^ a b "Train No.D3107 timetable".
  14. ^ a b [4]
  15. ^ a b "Train No.D3201 timetable".
  16. ^ a b "Train No.D2015 timetable".
  17. ^ [5]
  18. ^ a b "Train No.D6342 timetable".
  19. ^ [6]
  20. ^ a b "Train No.D3052-D3053 timetable".
  21. ^ a b [7]
  22. ^ a b "Train No.D3054-D3051 timetable".
  23. ^ a b "Train No.D6002 timetable".
  24. ^ [8]
  25. ^ a b "Train No.D6111 timetable".
  26. ^ "成都铁路局最新CRH动车组详细配属情况" (in Chinese). 17 July 2010.

removed section CRH Service on High Speed Lines[edit]

The table was mainly on average travel speed on different lines, but the figure it used was wrong, especially "distance", "travel distance", and "average speed" columns. Speed should be calculated by "distance", not "travel distance", which actually not travel distance, but "rate-making distance". Python eggs (talk) 07:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can just remove the section "Travel distance", "Average Speed" & "Speed", since the other sections showing the service infomation of the main HSR routes.(UTC)Tigersandys (talk) 08:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be okay. But keep in mind that, wrong data is worse than no data. Python eggs (talk) 06:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV-pushing[edit]

Is it just me, or are the PRC Chinese pov-pushing by including Taiwan on File:China Railway High-Speed .png? It sort of makes people assume the ROC is a part of the PRC. 90.37.124.23 (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption and safety issues[edit]

So who is controlling this page to remove info about safety issues that poor quality hardening chemicals have been used in the cement...and the tracks will buckle in 5 years? 116.240.160.200 (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Double track counted twice?[edit]

I'm Japanese and I edit Japanese page of this (ja:中華人民共和国の高速鉄道). In the table "The Six "Speed-Up" campaigns (1997–2007)", it's written that double track counted twice. I read the websites in its references with my little Chinese knowledge, but I couldn't find that. Is it true? What's the basis for that? --218.223.144.62 (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. During the sixth speed-up in 2007, double track was counted twice. You can find detailed sections that were upgraded in the article. Later data were not counted twice. That is why you heard 6003 km of 200+ km railway in April 2007, but less when the data was published in 2009. Python eggs (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After I found this page　[16], the problem was solved. Thanks. 218.223.144.62 (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV-pushing: Acquisition of Foreign Technology section[edit]

This section is far too strongly worded. Examples:

"With the exception of Siemens which refused to lower its demand" why so harsh?

"The State Council turned to advanced technology abroad but made clear in directives that China's HSR expansion cannot only benefit foreign economies.[16] China's expansion must also be used to develop its own high-speed train building capacity through technology transfers" This sounds like a propaganda piece.

The bit about Japan expecting to get the contract for the entire system is not very accurate. I read the Chinese article and it doesn't seem to imply that.

Overall I think this article villainizes foreign companies far too often, like they should be gracious China allowed them to sell there. Perhaps if there was a bit about the concern over Chinese companies using technology transfer to outbid the foreign companies in the future? This would bring both sides to the table. 121.15.93.49 (talk) 07:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is too long[edit]

I think some sections of this article can be splitted into several sub-articles. For example, those tables can be consider to move to a article titled List of High-speed railways in China. Wo.luren (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - a better title could be High speed railway lines in China
Also it might be worth creating High speed trains in China, including a lot of the background discussion on the technology transfer etc. Some of this info is duplicated at China_Railway_High-speed. China Railway High-speed should be merged into this article after it has been shortened. I think. Imgaril (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wo.luren - What about High speed railway lines in China? Railman2015 (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:CRH380A test, 28 Sep 2010.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:CRH380A test, 28 Sep 2010.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

facts that contradict[edit]

Somewhere in the article it says: In all, the state plans to spend $300 billion to build a 25,000 km (16,000 mi) HSR network by 2020.[60][61]

In the opening paragraph it says: The entire HSR network will reach 13,073 km (8,123 mi) by the end of 2011[4] and 25,000 km (16,000 mi) by the end of 2015.[5]

So which is right?

Chinarailfan (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crh1 inside.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Crh1 inside.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Crh1 inside.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect speed claim[edit]

"By that measure, China has the world's longest high-speed rail (HSR) network with about 9,676 km (6,012 mi)[1] of routes in service as of June 2011 including 3,515 km (2,184 mi) of rail lines with top speeds of 1,040 km/h (646 mph).[citation needed]"

Top speed is surely not 1,040 km/h, but more likely 350 km/h, reduced to 300 km/h after Wenzhou accident.

Lead[edit]

The lead needs some reworking; some improvements were already made. Currently, it's just too much focusing on some selective issues, which are not even mentioned in the main body. The lead needs to summarise the whole article. Citation is not necessary, unless we are dealing with some controversial facts or biographical points of living people in the lead. Best to read the lead section guidelines. Mootros (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shanghai-Nanjing Intercity Railway as part of Shanghai–Wuhan–Chengdu High-Speed Railway[edit]

Presently, Template:Shanghai-Nanjing Intercity Railway redirects to Template:Shanghai–Wuhan–Chengdu High-Speed Railway: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Shanghai-Nanjing_Intercity_Railway&redirect=no , and the list of stations of the Shanghai-Nanjing Intercity Railway is shown as a section of Template:Shanghai–Wuhan–Chengdu High-Speed Railway. That is, we state that the section of the Shanghai–Wuhan–Chengdu High-Speed Railway is the Shanghai-Nanjing Intercity Railway. (As opposed to claiming that Shanghai–Wuhan–Chengdu High-Speed Railway and Beijing–Shanghai High-Speed Railway share tracks between Shanghai and Nanjing.)

The above approach seems to be largely confirmed by published schedules: pretty much all Shanghai-Wuhan and Shahghai-Yichang trains that stop anywhere between Shanghai and Nanjing do so at the Shanghai-Nanjing Intercity Railway's stations (e.g., http://qq.ip138.com/train/D3002-D3003.htm , Shanghai Honqiao-Wuhan). However, there are a few trains from Shanghai to Hefei and Lu'an that actually appear to use the Beijng–Shanghai High-Speed Railway, e.g.

Besides, a few trains of this kind simply have no stops between Shanghai and Nanjing, so one can't determine which line they actually take by just looking at the schedule.

Are there any official statements about this designation in China Railways' plans? (In practical terms, of course, they may end up maintaining a good degree of flexibility, directing Shanghai-Wuhan (and, later, Shanghai-Chingqing-Chengdu) onto either line, based on capacity, maintenance work, etc. This would seem quite a smart solution, and in this case trying to decide which tracks between Shanghai and Nanjing are the "true" Hu-Han-Rong is somewhat beside the point.) -- Vmenkov (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does the fastest trains in the world work ?[edit]

in this series of acticles Wikipedia who I have always loved and received much good information in the past can't seem to get past the long winded political pompus opinions of the cost over runs and as many little usless facts about the cost of fast trains when all I want to know is what is the technology that allows these trains to go over 400 kilometers per hour I would have perfered to not even start reading this waste of time the least you can do is make it shorter or put a warning on it like (The same people who flooded the gulf of Mexico with oil wrote this) →§65.41.142.232 (talk) 01:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).[reply]

Definition of HSR in China[edit]

Because High-speed rail in China is not defined, the article's lede sentence provides a definition for the scope of the article -- that is, HSR in China may refer to any commercial train service with speeds above 200 km/h. Also, China Railway High-speed is not a branch of the China Railway Corporation; it is a designation for HSR rolling stock operated by the CRC. Since this article also mentions maglev in China, which is not operated by the CRC, the opening sentence should not characterize HSR in China as an exclusively CRC operation. ContinentalAve (talk) 05:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

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:

  • http://www.railway-technology.com/features/feature124824/
    Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/beijing/
    Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/lanzhouchongqingrail/
    Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.railway-technology.com/features/feature-the-longest-high-speed-rail-networks-in-china/
    Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If 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 11:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 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 21:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on High-speed rail in China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on High-speed rail in China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on High-speed rail in China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on High-speed rail in China. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on High-speed rail in China. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4+4 national HSR grid to 8+8 national grid[edit]

The 8+8 national HSR grid was introduced in July 2016 as a broader framework to organize and present the future HSR network (based on the foundation of the 4+4 grid). The passageway concept is novel and not intuitive. The 2016 Revisions to the Mid- to Long-Term Railway Network Plan describes the passageways only in broad strokes. Some passageways contain a single HSR line, while others have multiple parallel lines, connectors and branches. Some passageways appear to incorporate the 4+4 grid, new HSR lines, existing regional HSR lines, existing Intercity Railways and existing Class I railways. It is also unclear whether in certain places, a passageway is referring to an existing ICR line or a new HSR line built to run parallel to the ICR. Just the name, "Beijing-Harbin to Beijing-Hong Kong-Macau Passageway", for instance, requires considerable explanation to account for what this passageway means. Why isn't it called the Harbin-Hong Kong Passageway? In short, the 8+8 grid by itself, is vague and prospective outline of China's HSR network.

Ideally, each of the passageways should detailed treatment with descriptions and a table of constiutent lines (with length / speed data, construction schedule). But such details are simply not available for many parts of most of the passageways. Without more details, the 8+8 grid cannot adequately describe the current state of HSR in China. The track network is an integral part of the HSR in China (the subject of this article), and requires a fuller account than a vague blueprint for the future, along with a link to a separate list of China HSR lines. I have moved content from the list back to the main article so as to allow readers to appreciate how China's HSR lines have been planned, built and organized, the extent and reach of the network (and its components) and the progression of the network and organizational framework from the 4+4 to the 8+8. ContinentalAve (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lede[edit]

The effort to simplify the lede sentence, unfortunately, leads to imprecision.

High-speed rail (HSR) in China is passenger-dedicated railway carrying multiple unit trains at speeds of at least 200 km/h (124 mph).

The foregoing sentence obscure the main intent of the state's definition of HSR as covering the 250-350 km/h range. It is also factually incorrect because the state's official definition of high speed rail (a) includes non dedicated passenger rail lines, and (b) allows train service at 200 km/h to be considered HSR only if provided on a line that can be upgraded to 250 km/h. In other words, if a train travels at 200 km/h on a rail line that cannot be upgraded to 250 km/h, the train service cannot be considered HSR. Thus, there is a reason why the lede sentence sounds technical; the alternatives are not precise enough.

Also, this Rail Gazette article does not support the proposition that the HSR network length of over 22,000 km refers to passenger dedicated track length.[17] In fact, this article does not refer to the 22,000 km figure at all. Chinese sources that do mention the 22,000 figure do not indicate whether the figure covers PDLs only. ContinentalAve (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I draw the inference for the current 22,000 km from the statement in the Railway Gazette piece that by 2025 there would be 38,000 km of PDL routes. So you are right this isn't an express source. But I think it's a reasonable inference and also Railway Gazette is a credible source for these kinds of details. Muzzleflash (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on High-speed rail in China. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on High-speed rail in China. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on High-speed rail in China. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

negativity![edit]

This whole article excretes negativity. For such much amasing accomplishment, phenomenal engineering and project execution, all this article's negative context requires replacement!

187.143.69.160 (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC) baden k.[reply]

Beijing–Zhangjiakou intercity railway missing?[edit]

The Beijing–Zhangjiakou intercity railway, which will be completed next year, appears to be missing? Jpatokal (talk) 12:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does the upgraded track fit into the overall picture?[edit]

We define high speed rail as "passenger-dedicated railways designed for speeds of 250–350 km/h (155–217 mph)" which seems to preclude the upgraded track. However, there is at least 6,000 km of upgraded track according to our article. So it is worth mentioning somewhere how this major component fits into the overall picture. Muzzleflash (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The neutrality.[edit]

I doubt the neutrality of the article. There are multiple words misused. For example:

High-speed rail developed rapidly in China over the past 15 years thanks to generous funding from the Chinese government, especially the economic stimulus program during the Great Recession.

Is the word "generous" correct? Shouldn't it be more neutral? ----Ný(rönn)-Holtredéþch-Deskrúð / NyholtredehnDiscussion! 08:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed above to be more "neutral" is there any other? These are minor wording changes that don't need a NPOV banner.Terramorphous (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Separate history section[edit]

Anyone else support moving the history section to a separate article and shortening length in main article by 3/4th? Muzzleflash (talk) 04:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Shandong Line (Rizhao West-Qufu East section) opens today (Nov 26)[edit]

Rizhao-Lankao High-speed Railway (a.k.a.Southern Shandong High-Speed Railway):

  • Section Rizhao West-Qufu East(operating 300km/h) opens 11:50 Nov 26 (UTC+8)

Source:

ibicdlcod (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Status of Taiwan in the Leading Image[edit]

Greetings folks,

I couldn't help but notice that there have been a number of disagreements about this map.

Should Taiwan be included in the map? LittleCuteSuit (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to change map[edit]

I propose we change the map in this article from the current one to this one.

This is because the current map is a few years out-of-date, while the map I propose is just as detailed, and more up-to-date (it was last updated in February 2022). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratata6789 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

npov[edit]

I was about to revert this myself after the investigation was complete, but it seems Pieceofmetalwork had beaten me to the punch and reverted the sock. But I guarantee FobTown, JadeKrusade, DragonLuv22 and whatever new account he later cooks up, is later going to try to add this back in so am addressing it now for future reference. Adding in Wenzhou incident (that only happened once and approx decade ago) and giving it major coverage space on the intro, as if it represents the gist of the entire topic is both disingenuous and obviously of bad faith editing because it’s just there to misleads people. That addition is not fit for an intro lede. Because as NYT wrote not long after, that the "statistics suggest that China's high speed trains have actually proven to be one of the world's safest transportation systems so far". So you need to take in perspective of its overall safety record and not misresprent is as if it's the most dangerous in the world. [18] Unless china has a shocking safety record, it is not neutral to give so much weight to a one off single incident in such a large topic, and spin the whole article up as if it’s one of the most dangerous railways that can never be trusted, and it shows you are not here to build an encylopeda but just boosting dishonest propaganda. The facts are is that it’s actually one of the safest railways in the world when relatively compared to european states who has a far higher crashrate history. To put into perspective, Germany has many incidents of 294 in just 2020 alone [19] including and not limited to a similar crash killing and injuring quite a few in 2020. [20] Yet on the current wikipedia page for Germany's railway, the intro only talks about its “overall” good safety performance and it does not cherrypick and zone in on a single event as if it represents everything. Because it doesn’t. So consider due weight when editing and not make it seem like one incident actually represents its "overall" safety record, as it doesn't. [21] Dragonkingluv23 (talk) 11:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update on future design prototypes[edit]

It appears in just this past week alone, there are two big news reportedly of even faster train designs in the works including a 1000 km/hr "electromagnetic sledge". "Chinese scientists are testing a much faster system that reportedly can zoom at over 80% of the speed of sound" or 1030 kilometers an hour (640 miles). [22][23] As well as having being the first country to have successfully tested a hyperloop-like train system and are planning to build trains traveling through a vacuum that can travel 1,000 Km/hr. [24] [25] Such info is not currently in the article because it's very recent news, but could be worthy to add in later. Dragonkingluv23 (talk) 11:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 201 - Thu[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lbw119, BartonRei (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Lbw119 (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:High-speed_rail_in_China&oldid=1202708820"