Talk:TGV/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Nose

I haven't found a mention that the nose of the TGV can link two TGV's together. Is this normal ? --Julien 14:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

"Trains can be lengthened by coupling two entire train units to one another, using couplers that are otherwise hidden in the noses of the power cars." This should do, no? :-)

--82.228.147.14 20:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

TGV Sud-Est

The comment above states that TGV Sud-Est runs at 270 km/h. I don't think that the case any more. If have done my homework right the Sud-Est trainsets were upgraded from 270 km/h to 300 km/h at the end of the last decenium. I think it was in this process that they units got repainted in their current blue color-theme.

-Some were, but a few were left at 270 km/h. e.g. the sets working to Switzerland. A driver on one of these sets told me that SNCF had decided not to upgrade some to save money, because only a few minutes would be shaved off the journey time as most of the journey was on lignes classiques.

On "potential speed" vs. "normal maximum running speed": he also said that Duplex sets were now operating at 320 km/h on upgraded/new lines (to Marseille). Also, Eurostar may also be capable of faster, but I think normal maximum running speed should be shown on the page.

Not sure this is the case, as the LGV-Est website says that 320 km/h running on that line will be the first in France. Willkm 23:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

No when the LGV-Est website says it will be the first 320km/h LGV in France, they're lying. On some parts of the LGV Méditerranée the TGVs have the right to go at 350 km/h (but not on the whole line : on the rest of it, it's only 320) benji 11:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Gradient?

On the Paris-Sud-Est LGV there are gradients of 35‰ and on the German high-speed line between Cologne and Frankfurt they reach 40‰ . Now I guess the actual grade isn't 40% but I can't find an explanation as to what the unit really is. Perhaps a link or something. - SimonLyall 07:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

40‰ is 4%, it sounds plausible to me. This is the ratio of two lengths (same units), so it is unitless. I have added a link to slope. Schutz 07:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I've seriously never seen it written that way before. Perhaps just changing it too the straight percentage? - SimonLyall 07:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
This is quite standard, especially for small gradients, but the use of ‰ in general is obviously much less frequent than %. I'd rather keep the ‰ but I don't have a strong feeling about this. Perhaps we could simply link Permille (although the page is pretty short) ? Schutz 08:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I've changed the first instance to link to Permille, it doesn't seem to clutter things. - SimonLyall 08:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Is there a strong reason to use 40‰ instead of the more obvious 4%? Gradients are quite commonly described with percentages, at least in the automotive world. Jpatokal 12:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
No, railway gradients are usually described as 1 in foo where foo is 25 in this case (I think) — Dunc|☺ 13:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Standard civil engineering practice dictates that gradients are expressed as a function of # of feet of rise per 100 feet of run (not 1,000), making % the proper notation. See also Grade (geography).--Lordkinbote 17:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
All: Please note that the way gradients are described varies by locale; "1 in 25" was the traditional way of describing a grade in the United Kingdom, while "4 percent" is more customary in North America; neither is right or wrong.
As a United States citizen, I may be biased, but I think "4 percent" is more likely to be understood by a layperson than "1 in 25". Perhaps the best solution is to include both forms. Since per mille (‰) is a rather obscure measurement and since Wikipedia aims to reach the masses and not only technical folk, I favor replacement with percent since that's something most people understand. — JonRoma 23:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Traction (engineering)

The article links to traction (engineering) when describing the switch from gas turbines to overhead wires. Perhaps it's just my lack of knowledge in this area, but it's unclear to me what traction has to do with the power source. Can this be clarified? Pburka 01:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

"Traction supply" is common railway terminology for train Locomotive power, going back to the fact the first trains were pulled by ropes. --JC Shepard 16:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Rail Jargon

Could somebody please translate Heavy rail (UIC 60) is used, and the rails themselves are more upright (1/40 as opposed to 1/20 on normal lines) into plain English? What doe UIC stand for? What does it mean for rail to be "upright", and what are the 1/40 and 1/20 figures all about? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

UIC is the Union Internationale des Chemins der Fer - in English International Union of Railways. It's basically an organization that sets standards and tried to promote interoperability within Europe, I think, a bit like ISO standards. Its website is here: [1]. I've linked the article. Willkm 22:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Accident photo

I think one of accident photo should be attached to the article. Example site with such photos is: http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/wrecks.html. Visor 08:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

ICE is NOT aother brand for TGV.

As stated in the first pragraph.

TGV is a trademark of SNCF, while ICE is a trademark of Deutsche Bahn. L.Willms 09:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not just a different brand but the two types of train differ in concept, technology, company that builds them and philosophy too. --Soylentyellow 17:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Train of great speed?

Train of great speed sounds somewhat stilted to me as a translation of train a' grande vitesse - I think high speed train is the most appropriate translation. It's like "glace au chocolat" doesn't mean "ice cream of chocolate", it means "chocolate ice cream". So grande vitesse (great speed, or in English high-speed is usual) leads on to high-speed train. I think "train de grande vitesse" would result in "train of great speed" when translated. Can we clear this up? Willkm 22:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, "high speed train" is the appropriate translation of the name into English. Translating "grand" as "great" in this context is just wrong - English speakers say "high speed", not "great speed". Enchanter 23:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
'High-speed train' is the most appropriate translation- but not the most appropriate literal translation (which would be 'train of great speed', or similar). As the wording stands now ('French for high-speed train' as opposed to 'literally 'high-speed train', as it previously was) the sentence is reasonable. Cheers,Badgerpatrol 14:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Hm, I still think we should just stick with "High-speed train". The literal translation isn't really necessary. Willkm 18:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Since every time I check back to this page someone has altered the translation, it seems there is no general agrrement. In the absense of consensus, the translation now includes both the literal and the common usage version. I personally think this is not a bad solution, if only to avoid non-polyglots from coming away with the idea that the correct translation of "train a grande vitesse" is "high-speed train" - strictly speaking, it isn't, but it is obviously reasonable to include the English meaning of the phrase- which is "high-speed train". My feeling is that the current wording is acceptable and all-encompassing, but of course if that is not the consensus then please modify it as necessary! Salut, Badgerpatrol 19:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
In my view, "Train of great speed" is just plain wrong, even as a "literal" translation. The word "Grand" in French corresponds literally to several English words; it usually means "Big", but can also mean "Great", "Tall", or "High" in different contexts. When making the translation, you need to choose the most appropriate word in the context. And in this case, it's very obvious that "high speed" is appropriate. Translating "grande vitesse" as "great speed" is no more sensible than translating it as "tall speed" or "big speed" - it's very clearly the wrong choice of word. Enchanter 23:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I reiterate, AS THE ARTICLE STANDS NOW (0130) the sentence reads fine (train à grande vitesse, French for "high-speed train"), however, there is no consensus. My edit (16.11, Jan 17 ) juxtaposed both the best translation (high-speed train) and the best literal translation ("train with great speed") in the hope that this would satisfy all camps and prevent constant reverts. As you say, the word 'grande' has a meaning that is at least partially dependent on context, but is usually interpreted as 'large' or 'great/greater'. I have never seen it translated literally as high (as in aim high, high jump, etc.). 'Great speed' is a more appropriate translation than 'big speed' or 'tall speed' simply because the latter two are not translations of any sort, since they have no meaning in English. The important distinction is between the best (i.e. the most accurate in spirit) and the most literal translation (which remains, 'train with (or even better, train 'at') great speed'). The most accurate French translation of 'high-speed train' would be 'trains a hautes vitesse', 'trains a vitesse eleve' or very similar (apologies for lack of accents etc- keyboard). As always, there is flexibility about translation and I suspect everyone knows that it is necessary to select the most appropriate terms from a constrained list of possibilities, depending on context. 'High-speed train' is certainly the most appropriate translation in spirit, but anyone who suggests an alternative (such as a more directly literal translation) is not actually wrong. My intention was to encompass as much of the potential variation as possible and thereby suit everybody! (Never mind!) A quick scan of the web suggests the expected variety of translations (some completely wrong), but for a few examples of what I would call the more 'literal' approach, see here, here, here and here. The important thing to emphasise is that all translations are almost always inexact- there is no right or wrong, and I did not feel it was unduly cumbersome to the article to include a clarifying statement. However, if you feel strongly, I cede to your view (although I do think it is not 100% accurate); it is not an issue I have strong feelings about, although there is obviously a spectrum of opinion based on other edits done (see history). So long as the translation does not claim to be literal, I have no problems. Cheers! Badgerpatrol 03:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
PS- You might also see this comment here from (I think) a native French speaker (I am a native Anglophone), User: Schutz regarding this edit (not done my me) for a view which I think is intermediate between our two! Cheers, Badgerpatrol 03:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I do see what you mean - I think part of the trouble is that it just doesn't read well with such a long bracketed section... It's true, some other people have translated it using "great", but not *that* many (compare this and this...) Anyway. I'm just going to leave it now and see what happens... :) Willkm 23:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Low axle weight

One important feature of the TGV trainsets is missing, the low axle weight, which is more important than the articulation (which is mentioned) and keeps track wear and tear at manageable and affordable levels.

I did not come across this article before it was featured, but I think this aspect needs to be included even now.--Klaus with K 10:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. This is the main point behind the unusual "tripod drive" that connects the body-mounted traction motors to the wheelset axles. But this is Wikipedia, so you know what to do: be bold!
Atlant 23:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Not a NIMBY movement!

Lyon Turin Ferroviaire [..] has been the subject of demonstrations in Italy. While most Italian political parties agree on the construction of this line, a NIMBY-inspired movement is vehemently opposing it.
Sorry guys, this is wrong. The concerns are not related with a Not-in-my-backyard concept: the Susa Valley is crowded with infrastructures, and no one cares. Actual protests are due to serious environmental issues that were badly ignored for political interest. The works on the line should have begun in Jan 2006 to have access to european funding: the design of the line involved the mining of a mountain rich of uranium and asbestos. The engineers intended to store the material in open air, in the most windy and inhabitated valley of Europe, to save on operating costs and to reduce times to get the money. This is an inacceptable thing, because is very dangerous for health of the people living there and in all the north-west part of Italy.
Moreover the Turin-Lyon line is an economical nightmare: it's very expensive and will not have a return within the next 40 years. There are 3 old lines departing from Turin to Lyon, and improving them would have been much cheaper and less dangerous for environment. Building the new line in the way proposed is just a mean to charge a huge debt on Italian government, while the profits will be managed by private companies for ne next 40 years. Just like the Eurotunnel failure.
Note that I'm Italian (not from Val di Susa), and I'am a railway engineer. Please fix the statement, is deeply incorrect. (I am not changing it: my english is not good enough, sorry) 84.222.104.212 15:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC) (an italian wikipedian)

Your English may not be absolutely perfect but definitively is good enough to be well understood. Why don't you write a short passage (neutral point of view of course), usually a native speaker will come along and correct minor mistakes. I could do that as well but then I am not a native English speaker either.--Klaus with K 17:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Done. Please someone check it out. 84.222.40.130 10:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Have tidied it up. It was pretty good to start off with anyway; keep editing! One thing I removed was the statement that passenger trains will not use the line; this is apparently not the case according to the LTF website... Willkm 22:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I've tryed to shorten the article and to give it a more neutral pint of view form. Uranium is a serios danger this time but a solution could be easily found by using appropriate techniques (and spending more money). The movent against all TAV lines is active from the early 90's and is trying to exploit protestors lawful worries. As it is well kwown there isn't an uranium problem in other TAV lines so this NIMBY movement is against TAV on the whole. Apologize for my English. If you have something to suggest please tell me. Armando82, 20 January 2006
Armando, I think that the part I wrote was NPOV enough. As I wrote the protests are not against the TAV passing through the valley: the solution proposed by protesters is a rail shuttle service for trucks that *will pass through the valley*. So it is NOT a Nimby movement. Protests are against the operative choices of the builders. You removed the part related to the police charge: it was on newspapers, and if you are italian (it seems from the name) you should know this. That's important because it says a lot on the handling of the problem by Italian government, an issue very debated both in France and in Italy for over 2 months. At least this part should be recovered, IMHO. 82.61.131.41 00:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! About Nimby: The article does NOT say that Susa Valley movement is Nimby but only that the already existing Nimby movement (not related to the popular movement of Susa Valley) and some small political parties are trying to exploit this protest. Remember that NO-TAV movement concerns are not in general related to health risk but only to a different view of human development that imply a total refuse of big structures on the whole. About police: What You say is really true but I think that part comply more with a news article that with a TGV encyclopedia article. A lot of protest (some with more than 1000 protestors like old article was saying) have take place but TGV article is already oversised. A detailed chronology of protests against TGV/TAV could be added but in a new specific article. Moreover I must say that if police bahaviour was wrong on one side, some protests like motorways blocking are absolutely illegal under Italian law. P.S. Why don't you register to Wikipedia and use your Username? Now you use an IP address and I don't understand if I'm speking with the same person of the previous time. Armando82, 21 January 2006
registered. After all I think that an article related to the riots against TGV/TAV would be interesting and shouldbe linked in this page. I do not want to write pages for en.wiki. I'm writing a lot for it.wiki and have not enough time to follow both. I'm checking the EU documents related to the Turin-Lyon. Some of them say it is a pure freight line, some says is a pax TGV line... weird. --Jollyroger 19:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Foreign affair

Dear Train-o-holics,

just a line from fair Italy to advise a look at it:TGV which is going to become a Featured Article owing to a lot of new and good technical information from a very skilled user who started from en.wiki's article but only as a jumpstart to enlarge it with new material. --εΔω 20:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Economics

Since this is a featured article is should include some basic info the economics of the TGV (investment cost, amortisation, profitability, ticket prices, ridership, capacity utilisation, externalities, land restructuring ...)unsigned edit by Special:Contributions/137.222.40.132

I agree. I came here hoping to find some information about that, having heard elsewhere that the French state subsidizes the TGV and wondering if that was true and to what extent. A very important aspect that is missing from the article. --RenniePet (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

TGV/SNCF Website

The official website of the TGV network (at least where TGV refers to the French network) is not tgv.co.uk. This is a ticketing agency for UK Residents run by RailEurope. The official website is tgv.com run by SNCF (who run most of the rail networks in France) - I added their site to. I know this may seem a little commercial but both sites are in 6 languages and provide a wealth of information. 202.7.183.131 12:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)SpeedFreak

Standing Waves

"The front power car is supplied by a cable running along the roof of the train. Eurostar trains are, however, long enough that oscillations are damped sufficiently between the front and rear power cars that both pantographs can be safely raised. On lignes classiques slower maximum speeds prevent oscillation problems, and on DC lines both pantographs are raised."

What's the connection, if any, between the standing wave problem and the use of DC power? Or does DC power require the use of both pantographs, irrespective of any potential standing wave issue? Clarification here, if possible, would be appreciated. 71.131.226.106 16:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we're speaking of much lower voltages when operating on DC, leading to higher currents leading to the need for both pantographs to handle the current. I think the speeds are much lower as well.
Atlant 23:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Eurostar photo

I'm sure a better Eurostar photo could be found. The Eurostar is amazingly long (20 carriages!), and the current photo doesn't do it justice. 217.18.21.2 18:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Arnaud


Future Lines

There seems to be a discrepancy between the planned and projected lines section on this page and those on the French version. I haven't yet checked other languages. Some of these would appear to be highly unlikely to be built in parallel - for example here we have the "LGV Barreau Picard" going directly from Paris through Amiens to Calais and London, whereas the French LGV fr:Ligne à grande vitesse page talks about the "Arc Picard" with a line running from Rouen to Reims, serving Amiens from a junction with LGV Nord Europe. I think where these projected lines are discussed some citations are needed, otherwise we are just publishing Usenet rumours. Also it is important to distinguish between official projects and studies (e.g. those where the planning process has started) and projects that we may describe at this stage as wishful thinking, such as the above Picardy lines. If any native or good French speakers are here, can we work with the French page to sort out fact from fiction please? -- Dave 11:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

For the Picard part, the LGV Barreau Picard is a real project from the French authorities, while the "Arc Picard" is a fantasy project from a few French TGV fans. I think the list which is here in the English wikipedia is correct and comprehensive (except the LGV Normandie, which I think is dead). The additional projects we can find on the French page are fantasy stuff. Hektor 16:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


Italian Direttissima - before TGV?

The TGV was today pushed back to being the world's third commercial high-speed rail service in the article, behind the Italian Direttissima in second. However, this site [2] suggests (as far as my Italian stretches) that the line was limited to 180 km/h until at least 1985 (in part due to signalling limitations) - doesn't that mean that strictly it wasn't, despite the claim on the cited website ([3])? Is anyone with better Italian able to confirm? Willkm 23:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Correct, the site states that up until June 1st 1985, the speed limit was 180km/h. The day after, the limit was raised to 200km/h due to new signalling and new suspension on the trains. However, the site still refers to the line as a High-Speed line, the first one built in Europe. --PkerUNO 00:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll change it back, as I think that site is being optimistic: it's not actually a high-speed service at 180 km/h, or even at 200 km/h. Willkm 14:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Composition of POS trainsets

As indicated in the main page, the POS trainset is a bit strange, as it is composed of 8 "Réseau" cars and two "Duplex" power cars. Why ? Because Alstom is now only able to produce Duplex trainsets. However, predicted traffic on the LGV Est is not as high to operate Duplex trainsets with decent frequencies. That's why SNCF booked for Duplex trainsets, then consituted the mixed trainsets with existing Réseau passenger cars. Due to this constitution, the opposite effect appears with a new strange trainset, composed of a Réseau power car, and Duplex passenger cars. The conversion has already started, as I took this picture ( http://frodary.free.fr/trains/PICT0038%20(Large)%20(2).JPG ) in the Paris-Gare de Lyon station yesterday. You can notice the new livery, and new numbering for the power cars (beginning at 600).

Note that this type of conversion was already envisioned 15 years ago. The TGV Reseau power cars were designed from the beginning with enough auxiliary power capacity for a bi-level trainset. Nice forward thinking. Great photo! --Ctillier 05:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't know this anecdote. It's not surprising though, as Duplex and Réseau power cars motors are 8,800 kW.
Thanks for the pic, I can upload the full resolution pic (6Mpx) if needed.

Texas debacle

I am surprised to see no mention of the Texas debacle. Shouldn't we talk about it in the "TGV outside France" paragraph? --WhiteEcho 17:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Article split

The current version of the article is 52kB in size, and I feel it is too long. Further, it would good if there was more material on the LGV network (as a whole, rather than on individual lines). So, I propose creating LGV network, using material from the section entitled 'Network' (and possible the 'Signalling' and 'Tracks' sections). What do people think? Tompw (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that might be useful. This article in its current form is something like "The TGV success story". There is material in it for one article on the high-speed trains conceived and built by Alstom, known under SNCF's trademark "TGV", another one on the high-speed rail lines and network in France, Europe and beyond, a third one on the TGV train runs by SNCF (whose TGV network is not limited to the LGV network). We have here the confusing case, where one tradmark is used for various things; the same applies to the ICE trains and network in Germany (with links to Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, and soon France).
L.Willms 09:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The explanation of Articulated trainset as in the fourth paragraph should be moved out into an article in its own right. people who don't understand this term (as I did before reading it) could refer to that article. That's the way Wikipedia is supposed to work, in my opinion.
L.Willms 09:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah! Found! There are articles on Articulated vehicle and Articulated car and I have added Wikilinks to both of them in two different sections of this article. Still I think the discussion of the relative advantages and disadvantages of an articulated trainset should be moved to Articulated car or a new article created as suggested by me above.
L.Willms 10:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be hard to split it along the lines of "trains", "high-speed routes and tracks" and "routes on which TGVs operate". The article is about the whole TGV "system" and I think covers it well. It would be incomplete without a section on each of the main topics (History, Tracks, Signalling, Stations, Rolling stock, Network) and I would hesitate to separate any of these completely. I don't see 52kB as too long for an article of this nature, but if it does need pruning, I would suggest doing this by pruning sections which already have "Main Articles", as many of them do. The rolling stock section, for example, may be too detailed when each of the types has its own article. Willkm 00:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
When I wrote the article looks "like 'The TGV success story'", that also meant it looks like a Alstom/SNCF promotion brochure.
L.Willms 09:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
It has been very successful - it's hard not to paint a picture which is rosy... any ideas? Willkm 21:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents position

I think that the contents should appear earlier in the article, so that you can see it without scrolling down the page, i think that it is too late in the history section. Any reason why it is there? Johnwrw 10:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should appear earlier but that could make the beginning appear cluttered. The logo and a picture of a TVG also belong up there so they shouldn't be moved. I don't see a solution to the problem but it might be an idea to align the contents box to left so it is a little more prominent. --Aaronsharpe 12:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of the logo, think it's worth mentioning the hilarious accident in its design? ~ CZeke 21:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Price?

It might be interesting to do a comparison of ticket fares and travel times of the TGV vs. air travel. Even with disclaimers for "as of such-and-such date" it would still be informative.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 18:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Possibly an idea but care needs to be taken it doesn't fall into OR. Especially since fares can be complicated things depending on who you buy them from, how far in advanced, the travel dates etc (especially for airfares) Nil Einne 19:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Needs clarification

When trains enter or leave LGVs from lignes classiques, they pass over a ground loop that automatically switches the driver's dashboard indicators to the appropriate signalling system. For example, a train leaving the LGV for a ligne classique has its TVM system deactivated and its traditional KVB (Contrôle Vitesse par Balise, or beacon speed control) system enabled.

This section needs clarification either directly or with appropriate links. Lignes classiques I guess translated as classic lines or some such and from reading the article further, it appears (as one would assume) these are the more traditional lines used by more ordinary/traditional trains. However this does need to be clarified perhaps with a wikilink. KVB/beacon speed control isn't clear. From reading the earlier part of the article, I guess it means the driver looks at external beacons rather then the trains internal info but this isn't clear and should similarly be clarified either with a wikilink or further discussion here Nil Einne 19:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"No recorded fatalities at high-speed"

I have found that, sorry to be morbid, there has been deaths when train were travelling at a relatively high speed. So i this worth a mention? See TGV_accidents#Serious_Incidents. Simply south 12:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I believe you are referring to the 28 Sept 88 level crossing accident. The train was travelling at 110 km/h (68 mph) which is not high speed. Also, your edit to the article mentioned a few fatalities at speed while you "reference" only one. That said, I reversed the edit pending additional citation or evidence. Christopher Jost 14:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, saw you change it to "few fatalites" as unqualified by speed. The original gave a qualified statement of none at high speed. To say only that there are few at any speed lacks definition. I would suggest either saying how many total passenger fatalities to simply saying few and then break out by high-speed and low speed. Just saying "few" is nebulous. Christopher Jost 14:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I have changed it to none over 100mph, which i believe to the rest of the world qualifies as high speed. Simply south 14:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Meh, it's more like 250 km/h (155 mph) according to High-speed rail. I'd still like you to replace "few" with a number. Christopher Jost 14:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Number of dead = 7, however 5 of those = terrorist bomb accident. Simply south 14:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
      • The implication is supposed to be that there have been no fatalities attributed to the fact that the trains are running at high speed. For example, any of the level crossing accidents or bombings could have happened to any train and are not a safety weakness of the TGV, whereas if a TGV had derailed and crashed at 250 km/h+ it is likely that there would be fatalities which would not have occurred had the train been running at a lower speed. Willkm 15:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Journey time from Calais to Marseille

This cannot be 3h29m as stated - the av. speed in this case would be 190mph or 306kph!!

I suspect that it should be about 5h29m, as the line between Marseilles and Cannes is slow, as is the initial stage leaving London.

I think you may have muddled the two sets of figures (London-Cannes, Calais-Marseille): they're two separate records. Willkm 16:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Willkm, you're right that I started to confuse the two records, but I'm still perplexed as to how the TGV can do 663 miles @ av. speed 189mph to do Calais-Marseille in only 3h29mins. Perhaps someone on here knows the answer? DW 194.206.158.60 13:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a very simple answer: The train was allowed to average 189mph for the special run! Don't forget these trains are allowed to operate at ~200mph in daily service and have capacity in hand. Dpeilow 19:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree - not sure what the problem is. For a TGV record, this does not sound unreasonable at all. An average of 189 mph is distinctly plausible. Badgerpatrol 23:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It did indeed do it in 3h 29min. It was a special train as part of an SNCF publicity stunt, so normal speed limits and traffic constraints didn't apply. It wasn't a Duplex set, so I've changed that bit of the article. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1354047.stm> Wheeltapper 16:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Length of TGV network

The article says that "France has around 1,200 km of LGV". I have updated it to "around 1,700" according to the figures at <http://lgv2030.free.fr/ligne1.htm#SudEst>. This counts the newly opened LGV Est (first phase) but not the second phase. Why were 200 km added from out of nowhere - did I double count something. Also, am I correct in excluding purpose-built links to the existing network? Can someone please check this. Andrew_pmk | Talk 06:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Designer

The article states that the TGV was designed by "Jacques" Cooper. In fact his name is Jack Cooper and he is British :-o —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.192.10 (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

"The TGV was the world's second commercial high speed service, after Japan's Shinkansen..."

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Intercity 125 the second, predating the TGV's Commerical Service by four years, the HST coming into use in 1976 while the TGV going into service in 1980. On launch, the speed restrictions weren't down at 125 MPH like they are today, so they actually did travel above this threshold (the threshold seperating high speed travel from regular in most people's definitions, including up strongly put forward by the wikipedia article on the subject) on suitable track, on several noted occasions exceeding 140 MPH (nothing compared to the TGV's regular speed but still). Wouldn't this make the TGV the third, or am I missing some obvious as the criteria for this? 86.155.132.194 (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Was just doing some research and I came across the "The TGV was the world's second commercial high speed service" phrase in a Masters Thesus located here: http://ardent.mit.edu/real_options/Real_opts_papers/petkova%20thesis%20final%20version.pdf
HOWEVER, it is not reliable. The Thesus is full of basic errors, some even an amature can spot. For instance in regards to the Intercity 125, it reported that the train was hitting speeds of over 150 Km/h by 1985; I'd say so too, considering it travels at 201 Km/h by design...(for those interested, it was hitting recorded speeds of 230 Km/h by 1985). It is full of sloppy factual inaccuracies; such as claims that tilting trains are an unproven and unreliable technology, making reference to seven trouble struck tilting trains in the Czech Republic; yet failing to make any mention to Virgin Trains a company that has been operating hundreds of tilting trains for the last eight years, it practically owns nothing but tilting trains, how much more proven does it need to be if a company has based its entire fleet on it. Basically what I'm trying to say is that the source of this statement, dispite being an MIT Master's Graduate, is littered with mistakes and half-truths, and as such is (violating the simple idea that academia=topdog) not a suitable basis for selecting facts from, unless you want those facts to be highly at odds with the reality we actually live in. I'm quite shocked by the mistakes in this document, an impressive work but silly, silly flaws.81.111.115.63 (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Power Supply

Who knows more about the single phase AC powerlines, which can be seen on http://www.justmystage.com/home/overheadtml/france1.html for the power supply of the substations? Are they fed from the public grid or from special generators? Which voltage is used?

I've had to remove the current addition, we can't cite that as it is. Basically, it has no more authority, even if it is correct, than a forum post or a blog, it won't do for reliable citation of fact. I'll try and look into this, but I don't speak French Kyteto (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


Sorry for english mistakes, this is not my mothertongue! Note that in this answer, the word "current" refers to the type of current used, characterized by 3 parameters: DC/AC and frequency (unit = Hz), intensity (unit = A for Ampere) and tension or voltage (unit = V for Volt).
Electricity in France is produced by nuclear power plants (ca. 80% of the production), conventional power stations (fuel, dam on rivers) and renewable energy stations (wind mostly). All plants are run by the EDF company a former state agency now a private company, the stocks of which being however mostly owned by the State.
Electricity is transported by a grid-like netwwork owned by RTF (a subsidary of EDF) by main power lines as shown on the picture as 50 Hz AC current at various voltages. Mostly 225 000 and 400 000 V are in use for long distance transport between connecting nods of the grid and/or dispatching centers. A secondary network transports electricity mostly at 63 and 90 kV (all these are regarded as "high tension") to regional transformators that generate "medium tension" (20 and 25 kV) for local delivery or directly for industrial facilities. Localy, voltage is reduced by transformators to 200V/380V for domestic use.
TGV and more generally train lines operating under 25 kV are fed by RTE at various stations (3 on the novel TGV-est (east) line) that reduce 225 000 V to 110 000 volts, next dispatched to sub-stations (19 for this line) that reduce the tension to 25 kV and "inject" this current into the catenary.
Hope it helps. Yves.

Citation needs

This article was previously a featured article, however it was stripped of that status a while back because it lacked necessary citation. Can we please all make an effort to put in reliable, plentiful, and properly coded citation links? Try looking at the Eurostar article, as an example which has excellent citation, in both formatting and numbers. That is only one sub-devision of TGV, yet it has been honed to a fine degree by dedicated individuals with an interest. The same could easily be accomplished here.81.111.115.63 (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

TGV Services

The article, as it currently stands on May 3, 2009 is quite long, and has much technical and historical details about the TGV system in France. However, unless I am missing it, we don't have much information about TGV services. By that i mean, if you think of a customer perspective, we don't talk about where TGV trains go, what stations they stop at, routing, whether they cross borders, travelling outside LGVs, amenities onboard, or even competition. (I think ICE, TGV and Thalys compete at this point) We seem to cover technical details very well, but not services.

I don't know enough about TGV to even start a section like this, but i think this is information that we ought to have to make a complete article, and also to inform readers who are not concerned with technical details, but social ascpects about where the TGV is having an impact.

As samples of something we could have:

And if you look at Air France, it has sections for Destinations, Cabin classes, and Services.

I realize that TGV services are probably more complicated than Air France or Shinkansen, but i'm sure that we could have some text covering topics about the service TGV provides. Cheers —fudoreaper (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Lines in TGV network: include lines outside France?

HSL-Zuid and HSL 4 were removed from the list of lines since "there are no plans for the TGV to run on them"; however, the Thalys will run on both starting December 2009, with direct service from Paris to Amsterdam, and the Thalys is a rebranded TGV train covered by the article. I think the lines should thus be listed, but perhaps with a note that, while served by SNCF high-speed services, they're located outside France. For the same reason, the Belgian HSL 1, 2 and 3 should also be added. Jpatokal (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you have a good point, but according to the first sentence of the article:
The TGV (Train à Grande Vitesse, French for 'high-speed train') is France's high-speed rail service, currently operated by VFE, the long-distance rail branch of SNCF, the French national rail operator
Will VFE/SNCF operate services on HSL-Zuid and HSL4?
"TGV" is not just rolling stock; it's a system - rolling stock, high-speed lines and signalling, organisations, ticketing, &c. If the "Network" section of the TGV article includes any route used by trains derived from TGV trains (not just LGV), regardless of how those trains are used or which organisations are involved, then we should also include the Korean KTX routes, various non-high-speed parts of the British rail network which were used by "spare" Eurostar rolling stock, planned infrastructure in Morocco and Argentina, and so on. Are these actually part of the TGV network?
I agree. Thalys trains may in actuality be TGVs painted red, but it's a different brand, a different operator, and where do we draw the line? We can't put a TGV/LGV label on everything that has some Kevin Baconesque connection to TGVs. Thalys also reaches Cologne using two Belgian and one German high-speed line, do we include those? I'd say that as far as this article is concerned, a TGV line is where silver-and-blue trains marked "TGV" run at 300km/h. SergioGeorgini (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I would like to keep links to infrastructure such as HSL Zuid, but perhaps under a different heading (ie. under "Thalys"). Maybe "TGV technology outside France" could be expanded/changed to accommodate this? Do we need a separate section or article for LGV? Bobrayner (talk) 07:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmm-m. How about we listed the LGV lines used by Thalys in the Thalys article, and add a pointer from TGV? Jpatokal (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
SNCF is a majority shareholder in Thalys (62%) and a major shareholder in Eurostar (35%) and Thalys/Eurostar are technologically 100% high-speed TGV-compatible, so they're TGV in my book. KTX, Morocco, Argentina and British lines other than High Speed 1 fails one or more of these two criteria. Jpatokal (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I tend to agree that the "TGV network" should refer to the one owned and operated by SNCF within France. We should mention but distinguish the lines outside of France as being compatible, interconnected, but not truly part of the French national high-speed rail system. (it seems like this problem of distinction will only grow more confusing, as rail operators in Europe continue to interconnect, and use each other's infrastructure). —fudoreaper (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

Someone thinks that Eric Pieczak deserves a nod. Can it be incorporated here?Vinithehat (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the article Eric Pieczak should be merged into this one. PDCook (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done PDCook (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Better picture of the TGV lines

Not sure if you're allowed to use it, but here it goes: [4] --Hritcu (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

With out explicit permission (and release under a suitable license) from rail-europe we cannot use it.Shortfatlad (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Development section

I reverted an edit to re-summarise the first couple of paragraphs of this section. Maybe that section should be shortened but it should probably be discussed here first as the old content looks pretty good and interesting to me, and a lot of detail was removed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ammenities?

Can anyone provide detailed information on what it's like inside the trains on the TGV system?

This sounds like a good idea, and I can't see any content on it on the page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggested re-name

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: A new article High-speed rail in France would be a good idea, but the article TGV should remain substantially as it is.. Shortfatlad (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


TGV → High-speed rail in France — This article provides a good coverage of all aspects of High-speed rail in France, including the lines, the rolling stock, future expanstion etc. The article name would suggest this article is primarily concerened with the acutal rolling stock, not the whole big picture. Therefore, I proposed moveing this article to High-speed rail in France over the exsisting redirect. I appreciate this might be controversial, hence my use of the above notice.Tompw (talk) (review) 17:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose the TGV name is widely known, and used to represent the rolling stock and the network it runs on. You can split off and start an article on the redirect location for the non-TGV named systems. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
    What do you mean by "non-TGV systems"? Tompw (talk) (review) 03:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose but not very strongly. I think "TGV" is a well-known brand and synonymous with high-speed rail in France. Why must a nationalist categorisation take precedence over the name that people actually use?
    Also, although TGV's "heart" is in France, there are plenty of cross-border services, and some rail services mostly/wholly outside France have inherited a lot from TGV (the rolling stock being the most visible, but not the only, example) - which I think would not fit as comfortably in an article which is explicitly about high speed rail in one country.
    The TGV term, and this article, both cover the whole service, not just the rolling stock (although personally I'd like to see more detail on other aspects). Bobrayner (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support "TGV" is the name of just one rail company, not Thalys and other rail services in France. It's like having Southeastern (train operating company) and Southern (train operating company) under just "Southeastern", well its not as they are diffrent brands and should be shown as that. TGV is not the parent company or name of every high speed rail service in France, so have it as "High Speed Rail transport in France" or "SNCF". Likelife (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Or Split The TGV page has High Speed fleet of TGV, Eurostar and Thalys so I propose a split into two articels: "TGV" and "SNCF High Speed fleet"Likelife (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the links in {{High-speed rail}}, most countries are of the form "High-speed rail in XXX". This article is probably the most high profile not of that form (Japan being the other). Tompw (talk) (review) 17:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
other comment AGV will exist soon - meaning that high speed rail in France will indeed not be entirely TGV.
other comment high speed TAV trains will run in France from June this year (2010), even before the AGV.Kowart (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
other comment high speed ICE trains run currently in France (already for a couple of years).Kowart (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • support new article in principle - with the aim of creating a series of high speed rail by country articles.Shortfatlad (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
It looks like three articles are needed
1. For TGV services
2. For TGV (and TGV derived) rolling stock
3. For high speed rail in France.Shortfatlad (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
That looks like a better idea, to me (I'm not 100% convinced, but it looks like it would help solve a couple of problems, including the "Lines in TGV network: include lines outside France?" question). Are there any possible drawbacks, apart from having to write new articles? ;-) Bobrayner (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
support new article - In many countries, the history of high speed rail is the same as that of the national rail operator. E.g. Shinkansen in Japan, ICE in Germany, TGV in France. However, things are changing in Europe such that already France has 3 international operators (Eurostar, Thalys, ICE) which are not really "TGV" services. Seems we should have an article talking about high-speed rail in France generally, and another one about TGV specifically. —fudoreaper (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose the common term for high-speed rail in France and abroad is still TGV. I am willing to support a new article at High-speed rail in France that would incorporate all the high speed services (both present and future), but not a move.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose - per Labattblueboy. Parsecboy (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I took the liberty of closing the discussion as a consensus seemed to be clearly forming. If anyone wants to discuss the way the proposed new article (above) should be organised please feel free to continue.Shortfatlad (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

See also recent changes of High-speed rail in Spain. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Auto archive

This talk page is getting rather long, are there any objections to setting up 90 day/minimum of 5 posts auto-archiving? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

NIMBY again

Sorry to open up an earlier issue, but the statement: "but a ten-year-old NIMBY national movement against the TAV is trying to exploit inhabitants' legitimate worries to criticize the development of high-speed rail in Italy as a whole " is seriously POV. The Wikipedia link to "NIMBY" points out that it is a pejorative. "trying to exploit" also obviously reflects the writer's viewpoint. I propose to rewrite it as: "This is opposed by a national movement that opposes the development of high-speed rail" RFB

This seems to refer to something in Italy. So that should probably be mentioned on the High-speed rail in Italy article -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

LGV Outside France

The Network section lists lines in Belgium, UK and Netherlands as LGV, but all LGV are French, right? How about rephrasing to respect national boundaries and say that LGV Nord connects to compatible high-speed lines built by those countries?
Prari (talk) 06:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ridership

The table in ridership section indicates that ridership increases with 2-4 million passengers per year. Except for 2007, when it increased with a whopping 23 million, an increase of over 25% over the previous year. Are these numbers reliable? AadaamS (talk) 06:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

LGV Est, opened in July 2007, apparently pulled in >1M/pax month [5] so that explains a fair chunk of the increase. Jpatokal (talk) 06:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
It explains a quarter of the increase ... 1M passengers/month times 6 months only equals 6 million passengers, while certainly respectable it still leaves 17M passengers unaccounted for, an increase which still is 4 times larger than previous years. Of course it can be correct because the TGV system is very popular but I think that number deserves a comment as to why the increase was so high for 2007. AadaamS (talk) 09:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
You are right, the number is a misinterpretation of the source: the 128 million number includes non-TGV long-distance services. I'll remove it. --Rontombontom (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: clarify what 'LGV' is

As a reader, I came here from the Flying junction page where the term LGV is used without explanation.

In this article, I first see the term LGV used near the end of the Development section, with no explanation or link. It is then used extensively throughout the article. I think this article could be improved by explaining the term, and/or linking to a page elsewhere on Wikipedia where it is explained. Benthatsme (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


The above question brings up a problem in the opening paragraph of the TGV article. The article confuses and fails to distinguish between three different things:

(1) 'TGV' which stands for Train à Grande Vitesse which means 'High Speed Train' in French, referring to a physical train;

(2) 'LGV' which stands for Ligne à Grande Vitesse which means 'High Speed Line' in French, referring to a rail line designed for high speed (the principal characteristic of such a line is curves of very large radius);

(3) Services operated by high speed trains. In France such services often have 'Brand Names' such as Thalys which is the name of the service of high speed trains between Paris and Brussels in Belgium, Amsterdam in Holland, and Cologne (Koln) in Germany.

As examples:

(1) TGV Duplex and SNCF TGV Réseau are examples of high speed TGV trains;

(2) LGV Atlantique and LGV Rhin-Rhône are examples of high speed lines;

(3) Thalys and Eurostar are examples of high speed TGV services.

Now, it is true that 'TGV' is also used informally in France as a name for the domestic French TGV services. But properly speaking this is a loose term (la service TGV.....).

To answer Benthatsme's question, the TGV article should spell out what the initials 'LGV' and 'TGV' stand for (I have done so above), and the opening paragraph should make clear the distinction between the services and the different types of TGV rolling-stock.

I won't attempt to do this myself, but perhaps someone might attempt to make the article clearer.....

Prospero10 (talk) 04:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

long tons, short tons, stones, and furlongs per fortnight

Why does an otherwise acceptable article have to be polluted with a bunch of unit conversions? The trains were all designed and operated in SI, so those are the only units we should see. 41.63.137.173 (talk) 08:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see those units used anywhere in the article ("ton" does appear twice, but it is unfortunately not clear whether or not those are meant to be metric tonnes). If you are instead referring to the somewhat more common units of feet and miles per hour, then their usage is recommended by Wikipedia's manual of style, particularly the section regarding unit conversions. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Chinese trains, speed restrictions, and records

There seems to be a bit of a dispute. Shall we try to find some kind of consensus on the talkpage, rather than editwarring?
The original text of the article said that TGV had lost its record for the fastest scheduled train service (a Chinese rail service took the record). FlyAkwa then changed that to say that TGV still holds the record, due to the announcement that the Chinese rail minister had ordered a slowdown of rail services during the crash. I think this is wrong, because:

  1. The first source cited by FlyAkwa explicitly contradicts them and supports my point; timetables still show trains scheduled at higher speeds than 279 km/h. I'm glad that FlyAkwa asked me to read this; if FlyAkwa had read it they would not have assumed that it supported their point.
  2. The second source cited by FlyAkwa is about a cap of maximum speeds, not average speeds between stops on a timetable. 300 is still significantly higher than 279. The source says nothing about the speed cap being permanent, and nor should it, as a kneejerk reaction following a rail accident.
  3. Neither source retrospectively changes the speed of trains which have run for the last couple of years.

As and when a reliable source actually says that the TGV has regained its record, I would be happy to update the article accordingly. I expect more details will be available in the media in the next few weeks... bobrayner (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

From 2008 to July 2011, speed on the Wuhan-Guangzhou High-Speed Railway was 350 km/h. The best time was "Wuhan-Guangzhou North" in about 2h56, with an average speed of 313 km/h and max speed of 350 km/h.
Actual timetables give us as best time Wuhan-Guangzhou South (no more North) in about 3h33, with an average speed of 275 km/h and max speed of 300 km/h.
I have lot of other sources about this subject, but in french, it's why I don't cite them.
In my sources, lower speed is definitive, with reasons :
- To reduce too high energy-consumption
- To reduce too high wear
- To reduces prices (for travelers)
- To raise security.
I must be noted that fastest travel from departure to terminal station is still Chinese (it's the travel Wuhan-Guangzhou South, average 275 km/h), but fastest travel from station to station is french (Lorraine TGV - Champagne TGV, average 279 km/h).--FlyAkwa (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
If you have sources in French that are better than what you're working with now, then feel free to present them. See the guideline on citing non-English sources. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
OK.
• Here is an extract in french of a news published in the major paper "[Libération]" : "Pour rendre les trains plus sûrs mais aussi moins onéreux, le ministère des Chemins de fer a limité, à compter du 1er juillet, la vitesse maximale de l’ensemble des trains à 300 km/h, contre 350 km/h auparavant."
• On this tour operator portal [PagTour] : "On est loin du triomphalisme des dirigeants chinois annonçant il y a moins d’un mois des vitesses de croisière de 380 km/h pour ces trains ! On a dû réduire (à 300 ou 250 km/h) la vitesse… soit-disant « pour faire des économies » mais le pouvoir lui-même dut reconnaître après quelques jours d’exploitation que c’était « pour améliorer la sécurité ». "
• In this official Chinese online paper "[peopledaily]" : "ministre Liu Zhijun, a dit que les trains à grande vitesse rouleront à une vitesse de 300 km/h à compter du 1er juillet prochain, contre les 350 km/h annoncés précédemment.[...]seules les quatre lignes principales Est-Ouest et Nord-Sud du réseau ferré à grande vitesse seront équipées de trains roulant à 300 km/h."
• On this news website dedicated to ecology, [greenetvert] we can read "La nouvelle qui circulait depuis le début du mois a été confirmée officiellement par le ministère des chemins de fer. Les trains qui circulent aujourd’hui à 350 km/h sur les trajets Wuhan/Canton, Zengzhou/Xian et Pékin/Tianjin par exemple vont passer à partir de juillet à 300 km/h."
Etc. If you want more links, don't hesitate to ask.
I'm sorry, the TGV Duplex/POS is REALLY actually the fastest train in the World.--FlyAkwa (talk) 09:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I will add this anecdote : the new "LGV Est" Paris-Germany, is limited to 320 km/h, and is used by french TGV POS and Germans ICE 3. In fact, ICE 3 have lot of difficulty to travel this speed, with lot of reliability problems and fragility. The chinese CHR2 is an ICE3.--FlyAkwa (talk) 09:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
The CRH2 is based on the Shinkansen... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, CRH3, not CRH2. Theoretically capable of 350 km/h, but in fact 300 km/h is the limit for profitable use.--FlyAkwa (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
If you look at the timetable between the various stops the Chinese train is only about 2km/h slower between stops even now, so I've taken it out of a note. Its perfectly possible that the Chinese will raise the speed slightly on some of their services and become ahead. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

OK I've gone and checked the data again and according to the French Wikipedia the distance between Lorraine and Champagne stations is 167.5km. The fastest train I can see takes 37 minutes between those two stations. This gives an average speed of 271.6km/h. This is slower than the Wuhan Line which has a maximum speed of 275km/h and slower than the Beijing Shanghai line between Beijing South and Nanjing which takes 3 hours and 39 minutes on train G1 which according to the Wikipedia article is 1018.6km which works out at an average speed of 279.1 km/h. Thus the Chinese are still faster I'm afraid. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry : the TGV n°5400/5401 from Lille-Europe to Strasbourg, on 17 and 24 September, achieve the 167.5 km in 35 mn, with an average speed of 287 km/h, far beyond your Chinese trains. You can verify with Voyage SNCF. --FlyAkwa (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
And that previous speed is slower than speeds achieved by Chinese trains in recent months. What is the basis for your comparison? Timetabled speeds next week? The fastest operational speed achieved in the past? Or something else? bobrayner (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
OK I downloaded the timetable and the French do have a service at 8:23 on a saturday morning from Champagne to Lorraine which only takes 35 minutes. However its only one train a week in one direction. It could easily be that someone made a mistake with the timetable, or that the French want to win the contest of having a scheduled train that's the fastest in the world. Either way while it meets the letter of the criteria (and even that's dubious as they only manage that speed in one direction, if you add the fastest journey times in each direction they get to 279.2km/h) it doesn't really meet the spirit - the Chinese have several trains a day which are as fast as the G1 and they all run every day.
There is also the issue that the timetable only goes to the nearest minute and really for the kind of detail being requested here you need a more accurate timetable for the French - the Chinese not so much as their fastest run is for 1000km which is much further so the average speed doesn't change as much, but even so it would probably be useful.
I think the best solution is to say that the French lost the record in 2009 which is true and then not worry about the later record as basically both trains are equally fast. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Guys, we are speaking of fastest schedule. Not fastest daily, hourly, monthly, yearly links. Else we can detail for every days, or every minutes. Schedule = somewhere in the timetables.
Actually, in the timetables, the TGV has, for certain dates, a relations in 35mn for 167 km. SNCF travel-times are often different every days, without real "cadencement" like Swiss or China.
I'm working for SNCF, and I can assure you there is no mistakes in the timetables.
At least :
•this article is about TGV, and does not become a support for China propaganda or advertising.
•As we are unable to decide between the fastest trip
•As we are playing with one more or less minutes on a travel (35, 36, 37mn)
•as you haven't NO RELIABLE SOURCE (Chinese source is not reliable)
I propose to delete this entire paragraph.
--FlyAkwa (talk) 09:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
With regards to the schedule sure, but with speed records you always go both ways down the track so I fail to see why we shouldn't with the schedule records as well. With regards to mistakes, while there may be no known errors its guaranteed that there are errors in the timetable - no-one could possibly create such a document without errors. With regards to Chinese sources they are perfectly reliable for this kind of thing. Watches aren't illegal in China. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by the argument that "Chinese source is not reliable" on the subject of Chinese trains, especially since FlyAkwa originally brought Chinese sources. bobrayner (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Also the bit that's unclear is the status from 2011 which I suggest we avoid mentioning. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure things will become clearer over time. Probably best to avoid mentioning the current situation directly; when sources start giving us a clearer message we can update the article again. No? bobrayner (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear FlyAkwa, I have edited the sentences which are the subject of this discussion, where you have raised some valid points (see below). I believe that my August 20 revision states the facts objectively.

On a related issue, to FlyAkwa: the French Wikipedia article "Accident ferroviaire de 2011 a Wenzhou" is very weak, the French Wikipedia administrators are requesting that the article be improved. The English Wikipedia article "Wenzhou train collision" is much better (confession: I wrote the "signalling" section of this article). As a fluent French speaker, perhaps you might be interested in expanding the French article, using info in Wenzhou train collision as a source? This is an important issue - the Wenzhou accident has caused a major slow-down of China's high-speed rail program, which is a competitor to the TGV.Prospero10 (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Prospero10. Thank you for your intervention, and for reverting the pages, against Chinese propagandists.
As you says in your last sentence, all speed in china has been lowered in two steps :
• After the supplanting of railways minister Liu Zhijun, maximum speed has been lowered from 350 to 300 km/h for lot of reasons (high energy-consumption, high wear, prices, low security).[13827873.htm|link]
• Following the Wenzhou accident, << Sheng Guangzu, the Minister of Railways, said that railways with a maximum speed of 350 km per hour (kph) will run at 300 kph, while those with a maximum speed of 250 kph will run at 200 kph. He added that railways whose speeds have been lifted to 200 kph will be slowed down to 160 kph>> [131043781.htm|link].
You're right about the "Wenzhou accident" french page, and I will try to work on it, from the English version.
I will add a personal opinion : Chinese uses (or copy) European and Japanese technology, but in these countries, maximum speed is 300 kph. But Chineses don't wonder about that. --FlyAkwa (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

What a controversy! I updated the sentence in 'Milestones' on 'highest scheduled speed' on August 20, WITHOUT CONSULTING THIS TALK PAGE (sorry!) but using the up-to-date 'China Train Guide' timetable which gives a fastest Wuhan-Guangzhou time of 3 hours 33 minutes. The helpful French links given above indicate that this slowdown occurred as of July 1st, and not following the Wenzhou train collision of July 23 as I thought.

I suggest that we cool down this battle, it's not a major issue. Since July 1st, 2011, the fastest Chinese trains have the same cruising speed of 300 km/h as do nearly all TGV's, except on the TGV Est where 320 km/h is authorized. Differences in point-to-point speeds are no longer major.

In the future, it will be interesting to see whether the Chinese trains are speeded up over 300 km/h. Both Siemens (CRH3 trains)and Kawasaki (CRH2 trains) have reportedly warned that this would create risks. Again, I suggest we tone down this discussion.Prospero10 (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

km/h to mph inconsistency

Throughout the article, 320km/h has been converted to both 199mph and 200mph (likewise 160km/h has been converted to 99mph and 100mph). I think there should be more consistency. Best part is, 320/1.609~=198.88, so I'd say 199mph is more accurate than 200 (even though it's so tempting to use a "nice" number such as 200)... Nineko (talk) 04:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

One of Wikipedia's finest templates is {{convert}}; I've corrected all the velocities to use this template so at least all the conversions will be consistent. There's still tons of manual distance conversions that still need updating to {{convert}}. I feel bad for whoever did all of those conversions manually... Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Ridership in 2008

There seems to be contradiction, the table says 114 million yet the text above the table says 98 million. AadaamS (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

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/projects/frenchtgv/
    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 11:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

European system map

I added the map "Networks of Major High Speed Rail Operators in Europe" (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Networks_of_Major_High_Speed_Rail_Operators_in_Europe.gif), which I created myself, to the article. Previously, no map showing the entire line network was included. The map cites its sources (see Wikimedia page above), shows interchange points with other high speed rail systems in Europe and, to the best of my knowledge, accurately reflects the current situation. --Silvercowcreamer (talk) 08:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on TGV. 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 13:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Differences between Sud-Est, Atlantique, and Réseau

Besides the years of production, what are the differences between these generations? Externally they look identical, but I couldn't find anything in the article which distinguished them otherwise. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Broken link

This link is broken: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view//wuhan-guangzhou-line-opens-at-380-kmh.html (reference 14) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKBDre (talk • contribs) 11:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on TGV. 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 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on TGV. 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) 07:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on TGV. 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) 21:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

This feels strangely written

The layout of many parts of this are strange. While writing about the TGV, I have had to rewrite like 5 sentences because the info is presented strangely TTTime05 (talk) 11:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:TGV/Archive_1&oldid=1190818162"