Talk:High-speed rail in Europe

Is this article necessary?

What purpose does this article serve that is not already covered by High-speed rail by country? I could understand the need for an article discussing the ongoing integration of services and networks between countries, but that's not what the article currently does. Alcuin (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That's precisely what this article should do eventually, as the unique situation with Europe attempting to harmonise and increase high-speed rail across international borders means an article is called for which delivers far more than the brief overview of the other article you mentioned. However, whilst it grows, most of the information here will be culled from other articles, so it will take a while for it to stand on its own feet as it were. Grunners (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I intend to shape the article so that it focuses on the emerging European HSR network, then. Alcuin (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is a mess currently. This should not be a historical summary with sections like 'France leads the way', rather, it should be a summary of high speed rail in Europe per country. After all, people get directed here from the High-speed rail by country article, and expect to find a summary of high speed rail in Europe here. If you want to discuss the integration of the European high speed rail network between European countries, I propose to do this in a seperate article. --Joop20 (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Future transport developments are not usually kept in a separate article when there is already an existing article covering the subject. Future integration of European high speed rail belongs as a sub-section of this article. MickMacNee (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the High-speed rail by country article? And what exactly do you mean with future transport developments? These should be discussed in the Planned high-speed rail by country article.--Joop20 (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The European push towards integration of existing networks for a pan European HSR network, not entire planned new systems by country, hence 'in Europe'. It's explained in the lead paragraph. MickMacNee (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I get you now. However, according to me the push towards integration of existing networks in Europe should be discussed in a seperate section of this article, just like the history of the European high speed rail network. The main goal of this article is not to describe integration of the European rail network, rather to summarize high speed rail in Europe per country. Joop20 (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I think the history section of this article should be deleted. The main High-speed rail article already contains a history secction, and it is more appropriate here. Moreover, the current section does not contain any information on the history of high speed rail in Europe in specific.--Joop20 (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't a clue what you're trying to do actually, but these three articles could all be merged into one. There is no reason for me to split countries with planned systems from countries with systems with planned extensions, if everything is to be listed by country, and no need to contain planned extensions and systems in Europe in one article. MickMacNee (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Haha, and I haven't got a clue what you're saying now. First of all, which three articles are you talking about. Secondly, sometime the choice was made to discuss high speed rail in Europe in a seperate article from the High-speed rail by country, see the discussion above. I don't agree with it being seperate articles, but we have them now. Regarding planned systems, these are discussed in the Planned high-speed rail by country article. And notice I've was talking about sections in this article, not about seperate articles, in my previous two comments.--Joop20 (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible merge and restructure

of:

• High-speed rail by country
• Planned high-speed rail by country
• High-speed rail in Europe

Basically, all three seem to duplicate sections, and considering most of the countries have their own, 'high speed rail in X' country articles. I propose the following:

1. Merge all 3 into 'High speed rail by country', with the parent article high-speed rail
2. Basic copy edit it into sections:
   1. Übersicht
   2. Existing systems by country
   3. Systems under construction by country
   4. Planned systems by country
   5. Pan European Integration Project
   6. Any other cross national projects
3. Mercilessly copyedit to remove all duplication between articles with their own country article
   

MickMacNee (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Mick. However, I propose the merger of:

• High-speed rail by country
• High-speed rail in Europe

The Planned high-speed rail by country article clearly has another goal; here, proposed or planned high speed railway projects are discussed, which you will not find in the High-speed rail by country article. In the parent article high-speed rail, there is also a distinction between high speed rail per country and proposed high speed rail per country.--Joop20 (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Just from my reading all three over the last hour, whatever the actual intentions, the actual articles did not give me the idea behind their differences well enough. A planned new line in Italy goes in one place, but a planned line in Egypt goes in another article? And there are also differences between in construction, planned and proposed systems, and hence where they go. And America can basically be considered two separate countries regarding planned/proposed, such are the differences and distances involved. With a proper eye to removing duplication, it would all fit logically into one article, 'HSR by country', with no confusion. The differences between exists/under construction/planned/proposed is what tables of contents are for. MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough. However, merging the three articles into one coherent article is going to take quite some time, and there are alot of missing sources as well in the information in the current articles. I've only started making contributions to wikipedia since today, so I have no idea what and how to do this. And who is going to take responsibility for it?Joop20 (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone, that's the beauty of WP. MickMacNee (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Does the merging of articles or the closure of articles have to be announced somewhere, or can you, me, or someone else just start with the job?Joop20 (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It can be listed at requested moves if you want. Basically, you can be bold and merge whatever you like, but obviously people who object can easily reverse it, so you can list it to save wasted effort, although if no-one is bothered, it can be a waste of time. MickMacNee (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There are too much HSR systems in europe so a separated article doesn't seem to be problematic. Sotavento (talk) 12:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Map errors

I've traveled around in Europe by train a bit, and the trip from Hamburg to Freiburg, the speed rarely dropped below 300km/h (they have information monitors on the trains showing speeds), so the map of Germany seem outdated. Also with Norway, the map shows parts of Vestfoldbanen (south of Oslo) as high-speded (>200km/h). This rail standard there doesn't allow these speeds, even if the trains servicing there do. Rkarlsba (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I travel the north-south route very often (the last time about two weeks ago), and I know it never reaches more than 250 km/h. These tracks are constructed for a maximum speed of 280 km/h - more would not be allowed by the federal railroad administration. I think you mistook some numbers there. Maybe you looked at the screens when you travelled the Frankfurt-Cologne-Line? (Sorry for not logging in, it somehow doesnt work right now). 129.206.185.112 (talk) 11:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The north-south line in italy is now complete so the speeds should be raised to reflect that I believe. Olyus (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, darlings, where's information about Poland xxx :* http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szybka_kolej_w_Polsce —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejedef (talk • contribs) 12:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

According to new info posted on the the Finland section, the line as far north as Oulu is being raised to up to 200km/h. This will be interesting because the map will have to be expanded quite a bit, as Oulu is not too far south from the artic circle. Olyus (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The 350Kmh Madrid-Valencia line and the Madrid-Albacete branch are finished. Trial trips finished last week. First official trip with politicians etc. ran last Friday 10 Dec 2010. Commercial trips will begin next Saturday 18 Dec 2010 and Wednesday 15 Dec 2010 respectively. http://www.europapress.es/economia/transportes-00343/noticia-economia-ave-reyes-inauguraran-ave-valencia-principes-conexion-albacete-20101210123611.html Please update map! --Megustalastrufas (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Additionaly work has started on LGV EST phase and the map should reflect that. Olyus (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Make sure that this article and the country articles are updated, becasue they (and de:Schnellfahrstrecke) are used as source for the map, with some delay, to make some change time to be accepted. Right now High-speed rail in Spain is not updated. --BIL (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint, High-speed rail in Spain is now updated. :) --Megustalastrufas (talk) 09:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I see the map has been updated somewhat recently, it looks great but LGV Este phase two still isn't shown as under construction. I'd do it myself but I don't have experience in these things? I realize this maybe isn't the place, but which programme should I use for fixing the map? any tips? thanks. Olyus (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Eskişehir-Ankara not in Europe

Currently the article reads: The first line aimed to connect İstanbul to Ankara (via Eskişehir) reducing the travel time from 6 – 7 hours to 3 hours 10 minutes. Eskişehir-Ankara line has started operating regular services on March 14th 2009 with a maximum speed of 250 km/h being the first High Speed Rail Service in Turkey making Turkish State Railways the 6th national rail company to offer HSR services in Europe.

Although part of Turkey lies in Europe, this stretch of rail lies entirely in Asia.Ordinary Person (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

When talking about raillines you shouldn't be looking at the Geography map. You should think of the Economic regions since Railways are always built with economic interests. Railways are not natural like rivers as you can talk about a river being on some continenet exactly.. Railways are networks so you need to check which network does a specific rail line belong to. You may take UIC (International Union of Railways) as a reference to see which area is Turkish railways included. Just for brainstorming i would like to ask which part would you include Georgia if one day they propose a HSR line? Halfalive (talk) 04:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Turkey is one of the founding members of the Council of Europe since 1949 and has been an "associate member" of the European Union and its predecessors since 1964. The border between Europa and Asia is arbitrary, and has changed over time. The idea that the Bosphorus is the limit is a creation of the 18th century devised by Philip Johan von Strahlenberg at the height of the Ottoman Empire, and is purely political. Geographically, Europe is not really a continent but a subcontinent of Eurasia.

Think of Cyprus, a member of the European Union, yet to the south-east of Anatolia.--Megustalastrufas (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

internet coverage

Is there internet available on tracks other than Deutsche Bahn ICE trains?--78.48.177.201 (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
http://www.bahn.de/i/view/GBR/en/trains/overview/wi-fi-access.shtml

Yes. For instance, it's available on some thalys and AVE services iirc, and it's being rolled out on some TGV services. Are you interested in any particular route? Should the article be updated? bobrayner (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You should be aware that internet is generally available through public mobile networks almost anywhere. --BIL (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh! I got caught in the trap of careless phrasing too. Onboard Wifi, then. ;-)

However, the article is a bit deficient in this area. It only talks about infrastructure & rolling stock, and almost completely ignores other aspects such as the traveller's experience (for instance, ticketing is barely mentioned) or maybe the environmental aspects, the political, the NIMBYs... Os there room for some improvement? bobrayner (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

200km/h removals

I notice in the last week two sections for croatia and bulgaria have been removed because the lines they deal with are 200km/h and the deleter felt these were not "really" high-speed. whilst I agree that 200km/h isn't really modern high-speed rail, my understanding is that 200km/h is the threshold used by wikipedia to define high-speed rail. as such, I will revert the edits if no one objects?Olyus (talk) 13:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Revert away! --NorthernCounties (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

eurostar voltage

The UK section of this article claims the eurostar supports two voltages but the article on the trains (British Rail Class 373) claims they support four... 80.0.68.41 (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)