Jump to content

Talk:Beijing–Guangzhou high-speed railway

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

"Fengtai Railway Station"?

[edit]

Fengtai Railway Station - what's that? Another name for Beijing West or Beijing South, or yet another terminal being built somewhere in Fengtain District? -- Vmenkov (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fengtai Railway Station is yet another rail terminal currently under serious renovation in southwestern Beijing. Python eggs (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tickets Pricing and Booking?

[edit]

Any information about the ticket prices and whrer to book in the internet??? ++--84.73.123.149 (talk) 12:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)--++[reply]

military use for the rail

[edit]

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20110721000006&cid=1101

US comparison

[edit]

File:USA_comparison.gif

Is it really necessary/relevant?! David (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly: what is it supposed to show? How is this a comparison to the Beijing-Guangzhou railway? Explanation is lacking so right now it's just confusing. Skrofler (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's inchorent as it stands now. Needs to be explained or removed. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to change it to this when I was edit conflicted. To make some of them end at cities two lines are a smidgen off though. But even at full size it's only by a pixel. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say put it back with that legend, now makes sense. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, will do. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How ridiculous. Wikipedia is not America's Wikipedia. We already have so much of American-centric view here. Do we also need to add maps to compare the line with Africa, Antarctica, or the Tranquility Base? Please stop. Python eggs (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not ridiculous. This is the English wiki. The native wiki of the UK, USA, Canada, Australia, and the other English Speaking countries. Of those only the US is the appropriate one to put the distance in context for this particular language specific wiki's readers. Distance is a main feature of this subject and making that accessible in terms the local readership can quickly grasp is a service not a chauvinism. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia in english, Not english wiki. ALe801 07:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ALe801 (talk • contribs)
Absolutely. This is an encyclopaedia for all people of all countries and nations, not just those who speak English as their first language.
I stand by my opening remark - is such a comparison necessary or relevant? "No" to either is my opinion... David (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should not include it. If we were to base it on English-speaking countries, we would use maps of the UK, Nigeria, Tanzania, South Africa, India, Australia, and New Zealand as well as the US and Canada. And this article cannot handle even one such image without messing up the appearance of the page, with vast areas of white space after the TOC on many monitors. Kablammo (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this thread is moot/closed, when it was opened there was only a schematic map of the route in China, now there's a large geographic map. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the current version is a great improvement, and the subject (for this particular item) is now more or less closed. But could I make a comment that is relevant to many similar situations.
Using specific US examples to explain or illustrate concepts is of no use whatsoever to vast numbers of Wiki users. We frequently see comments such as " equal to the area of Maryland" or "the distance from Baltimore to New York". Most people would have difficulty finding Maryland or Baltimore on a map, let alone having any feel for size or distance. And yet someone above says "only the US is the appropriate one to put the distance in context" and considers that this makes it "accessible in terms the local readership". How "local" is this to a reader in Bangladesh or Nigeria? As "David" so clearly and correctly says "This is an encyclopaedia for all people of all countries and nations, not just those who speak English as their first language."
These sorts of comparison should be in terms of global markers - in this instance saying that the distance of the railway line is approximately that from Paris to Moscow would be intelligible to a far wider readership. Baska436 (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New York City, to Key West. No diagram, just a few similar citations for North Am, South Am, Europe, Africa.
Mark Bestland (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You rather miss my point. Where (or what) is "Key West"? Baska436 (talk) 04:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese technology?

[edit]

124.188.33.97 (talk · contribs) wishes to introduce the idea that this a "Chinese system clearly based on Japanese technology". Are there any citations for this information? Λυδαcιτγ 07:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone was doing an edit war over this point 24 hours earlier. I'm not sure from a NPOV this is relevant unless it was constructed by a Japanese company, or under license from one, and we can cite this. Japan is indeed a leader in high speed train technology. Not to take anything away from them but so are France and Germany. I wouldn't be surprised if technology from all three nations and others is used in the design. The main point of the article is the line is in China. Skywayman (talk) 07:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This story from NHK World said it's "developed with technologies based on Japan's Tohoku shinkansen bullet train." 14.0.144.65 (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Underlying technologies

[edit]

I would like to hear about the underlying technologies, manufacturers, innovations, and performance limits. More than 'this is a really fast train that goes places'.
Mark Bestland (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and some photographs interior/exterior.
Mark Bestland (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is an overall list of rolling stock models on China's HSR system in China Railway High-speed. I understand that the faster (G-series) kind of trains are mostly from the CRH380 series, for each of the main varieties of which we have a fairly detailed article. Someone with in interest in this ought to check which varieties are actually used on the new line, and add appropriate links... -- Vmenkov (talk) 06:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How much time does it take between specific stations?

[edit]

1. Since the rail line is high speed, how much time does it take between two cities, and how much time did the conventional train take? I want a comparison, please. 2. When the train goes around a corner, does it bank or angle? How sharp is the banking? Is there a photo of the train going around a corner?Markewilliams (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes was going to start a thread for this. There doesn't seem to be a single actual travel time given. A column in one of the tables would be ideal. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 06:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both the high-speed and "conventional" trains leaving Beijing toward Guangzhou are all listed in the schedule for Beijing West: http://qq.ip138.com/train/beijing/beijingxi.htm . One of the fastest high-speed trains on this route would be G79: 

                arrive  depart  time
                                from
                                start
1 	北京西 	 --   	10:00 	00:00 	- Beijing West
2 	石家庄 	11:07 	11:09 	01:07 	- Shijiazhuang
3 	郑州东 	12:30 	12:33 	02:30 	- Zhengzhou East
4 	武汉 	14:17 	14:20 	04:17 	- Wuhan
5 	长沙南 	15:38 	15:41 	05:38 	- Changsha South
6 	广州南 	17:59 	  -	07:59   - Guangzhou South

On the "conventional" line, one of the fastest trains would be T15: 

                arrive  depart  time    km
                                from
                                start
1 	北京西 	 -- 	11:01 	00:00 	  0  km   Beijing West
2 	郑州 	16:34 	16:40 	05:33 	689  km   Zhengzhou 
3 	武昌 	21:10 	21:16 	10:09 	1225 km   Wuchang
4 	长沙 	00:29 	00:35 	13:28 	1587 km   Changsha
5 	广州 	07:32 	  -- 	20:31 	2294 km   Guangzhou

To go to Shenzhen, it takes extra 38 min on the high-speed line (G71 between Guangzhou South and Shenzhen North), or 1 h 40 min on a "conventional" T95 (between Guangzhou and Shenzhen).

Physically, it is probably possible to run trains on the old Beijing-Guangzhou and Guangzhou-Shenzhen line somewhat faster than today's fastest T-trains. I seem to recall that they in fact had some D-series trains run on parts of the "traditional" line before the corresponding segments of new high-speed line had been opened.

Note that the site does not have the exact mileage for the high-speed line; but it is known to be somewhat shorter than the old line. -- Vmenkov (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Only High-Speed Line To Cross A Border

[edit]

Wrong for two reasons. Firstly Hong Kong may be a Special Administrative Region but it is still part of China so the line does not cross a national border. Secondly, there are High-Speed lines between Lille (France) and the outskirts of Brussels (Belgium) and between the region of Antwerp (Belgium) and Amsterdam (Netherlands).--Williamgeorgefraser 15:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamgeorgefraser (talk • contribs)

Not sure about your second assertion, but Hong Kong does have separate Customs facilities so even though it is a part of China, there is a border.  –Nav  talk to me or sign my guestbook 15:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That statement has been modified to clarify that this is the first Chinese high-speed railway to cross a border, and that this is a border with immigration and customs clearance. 14.0.144.65 (talk) 04:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The future Shenzhen-Kowloon segment certainly will cross an immigration/customs border, although between two jurisdictions that are under the same national government. (This is somewhat analogous to transportation e.g. between the Northern Mariana Islands and the mainland USA, at least pre-2009; while NMI is a US colony, it used to have its own immigration law - and even now the US Congress creates special immigration rules for the islands, different from the rest of the USA - so Agaña-Honoloulu flights have to be handled much like international flights with respect to migration controls). But this is not completely unique world-wide: Eurostar passengers also have to cross a customs and immigration border between the UK and the Schengen space. I believe that Russia and Finland are also running a high-speed service of some kind (probably more akin to a Chinese D-train on an upgraded "conventional" line than to the Jingguang HSR) across their shared border as well.

What is more interesting than arguing about definitions is actually finding out how customs and immigration formalities will be done on the Shenzhen–Kong Kong HSR. (And how they are done with today's Guangzhou-Hong Kong trains, for that matter). I suppose HKSAR can run both entry and exit controls at their Kowloon station, since the trains won't stop anywhere else within HKSAR. But where would the mainland entry and exit checks be conducted? If the HK-mainland trains were simply running non-stop to a single mainland stations (such as GZ South or Beijing West), it would be easy enough to run the controls at that station. But if a train from HK is actually to run all the way to Beijing like a domestic train, with half a dozen stops along the line, then things would become complicated. Having the train stop on the border for an hour or more would largely defeat the purpose of direct HSR service; while having the train arrive to a "segregated" "international platform" at every station from Shenzhen to Beijing West would be messy. Of course, having the mainland immigration/customs service set up a preclearance station in Kowloon would be most logical, but that may cause other problems, more of political nature... (And how would you do mainland exit checks this way?). It would be interesting if they'll manage to run checks on the running train, the way some European countries do... -- Vmenkov (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vmenkov your questions were actually debated extensively in Hong Kong's Legislative Council. The Hong Kong Government said immigration and customs facilities will be available at several stations in Guangdong, and therefore there should be several international platforms. For long-haul trains, passengers will have to get off for the clearance of the People's Republic of China somewhere in Guangdong. It isn't only a political matter to have preclearance in Kowloon. It's also a constitutional issue since law enforcement agencies of the People's Republic cannot actually operate in Hong Kong. (There's probably also a problem with on-board clearance, People's Republic's concern over entry and exit or people on one hand, and western countries' concern over strategic technologies on the other.)
Currently Hong Kong has immigration and customs facilities at its Hung Hom Station, and the People's Republic has the facilities at the Guangzhou, Foshan, Zhaoqing, Shanghai and Beijing West stations. Trains to Guangzhou, Foshan, Dongguan and Zhaoqing don't stop at other stations. Trains to Beijing and Shanghai are connected to other compartments at Guangzhou East, and the trains do stop along the way, but the doors of the compartments from Hong Kong are closed until they arrive at Shanghai or Beijing West. Before 2003, all passengers between Hong Kong and the People's Republic have to get off and go through the clearance of the People's Republic at Dongguan's Changping Station. 14.0.144.65 (talk) 04:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think it would be quite useful to cover these arrangements (if not in this article, then in the specific article on the HK-GZ link). I assume there are some published sources, online or otherwise. -- Vmenkov (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added some text. As of right now, the issue of how immigration will work has not been settled, but it's unlikely that we will have joint immigration. West Kowloon is designed with joint immigration control in mind, but there are constitutional issues. I'll look for a reference for this, but the fact that HK is part of the same country as the Mainland makes the legal issues more complicated. If you had two different countries, they could come up with a treaty that allows one countries agents to clear customs in another (for example US customs operate in some Canadian airports with the agreement of the Canadian government). Because HK and the Mainland are part of the same country, and because HK's separate customs and immigration system is part of a national law, HK can't agree to have Mainland customs people operate in HK, even if they want to, since HK is technically a local government. To change this would require basically a constitutional amendment to the Basic Law, and that opens up a lot of issues.
It's a lot easier for HK customs to operate in Mainland territory and there is one place where that happens (Shenzhen Bay). It's easier because the national legislature just needs to pass a new law allowing that rather than changing an old one.
I think the problem with on-board clearance is more political than technological. Suppose someone that the Mainland officials want to detain (say a famous political dissident) gets on the train. You do the exit clearance on the train and then find that it's someone that the Mainland officials don't want to leave the Mainland. What happens next? Stop the train? It gets worse if he ends up in West Kowloon. Famous dissident gets off the train. The Mainland customs won't let him pass, but then they don't have the authority to detain him and meanwhile there are hundreds of news reporters taking pictures.

Roadrunner (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the dubious tag. -- Roadrunner (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roadrunner I'm afraid HK's customs and immigration system isn't part of the national law. It's part of the Basic Law and of the Joint Declaration between the UK and the PRC.
Basic Law is National law. The Joint Declaration between the UK and PRC is international law, which makes things even more difficult to change. My point remains. Even if the HK authorities wanted to give Mainland custom agents power in HK, they couldn't do it without changing national and even international law. HK's autonomy is guaranteed by national and international law, and HK can't change it even it it wanted to.
Also there are ways I can think of to make immigration checks work with the Joint Declaration, since having Mainland officials check peoples passports if they are going into the Mainland doesn't violate the Joint Declaration. The problem I see is the part that says that HKSAR officials are responsible for public order. No problem with entry, lots of problem with exit controls.

Roadrunner (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further, in "Shenzhen Bay" (the body of water is actually known as Deep Bay in Hong Kong) the HK immigration and customs facilities aren't located in "Mainland territory". Rather, the area on which the HK facilities are located has become part of the special administrative region.
Wrong. The HK immigrations and customs facilities are in Mainland territory. Under the "Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on Authorizing the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to Exercise Jurisdiction over the Hong Kong Port Area at the Shenzhen Bay Port" http://www.npc.gov.cn/englishnpc/Law/2008-01/02/content_1388025.htm passed by the NPCSC and the Chapter 591 The Shenzhen Bay Port Ordinance http://www.legislation.gov.hk/blis_ind.nsf/CURALLENGDOC/06B06C1A9D15BEDE482572E300139C23?OpenDocument and the Official Reply of the State Council Concerning the Area of the "Hong Kong Port Area at the Shenzhen Bay Port" Over which the HKSAR is Authorized to Exercise Jurisdiction and the Land Use Period http://www.legislation.gov.hk/blis_pdf.nsf/4f0db701c6c25d4a4825755c00352e35/6EE4DB81D4E4AB7F482575EF00290EC4/$FILE/CAP_2210_e_b5.pdf , the HKSAR is authorized to apply HK law in it's section of the Shenzhen Bay port facility, but it is legally part of Shenzhen and not part of the HKSAR.
The boundaries of the HKSAR are specified in Order 221 by the State Council http://www.legislation.gov.hk/blis_ind.nsf/CURALLENGDOC/F346D7A4FFE6A272482575EE000E9312?OpenDocument as authorized by Instrument 10 http://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/en/basiclawtext/images/basiclawtext_doc10.pdf and do not include the Shenzhen Bay Control Point. This order was not amended by the NPCSC, HKSAR was authorized to extend its laws to the control point. HK Law applies at the Control Point, but it still Mainland territory, and that's fine.
There is no constitutional problem with letting HK police operate in the Mainland or to have HK law operate in non-Hong Kong areas. There are huge problems with having Mainland police operate in HK since that violates the Basic Law and the Sino-British Joint Declaration. China never promised that they wouldn't apply HK law outside of HK. They only promised that they wouldn't apply Mainland law in HK, which is why the Shenzhen Bay solution won't work.Roadrunner (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Btw it's better to look for Hong Kong news sources too, since state-controlled news websites like China Daily are known to tell only the views of the pro-Beijing or pro-government HK lawmakers. 14.0.144.97 (talk) 07:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or to use original sources from Legco. I don't think that there are any POV issues here, and none of the sources I cited were biased in any way that I can see. Of course, more sources the better.Roadrunner (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also if you can put references to Legco debates where this was discussed, that would be wonderful to add material to it. Roadrunner (talk) 11:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Beijing–Guangzhou–Shenzhen–Hong Kong High-Speed Railway. 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, 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Beijing–Guangzhou–Shenzhen–Hong Kong High-Speed Railway. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 05:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beijing–Guangzhou_high-speed_railway&oldid=1206223140"