Talk:HSR-350x

Any Comments? (feed backs)

• Please have a look at WP:MOS, WP:LEAD and WP:BETTER. Also, personal comments and signatures go on the talk page, not on the actual article page. Also, have a look at WP:CITE and WP:RS; all statements added to Wiki should be sourced. Good start ! Sandy (Talk) 16:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ääääh... What train reached 352,4 km/h? According to my knowledge it was the KTX, not the HSR-350x (of which I heard the first time today). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Der fast kopflose Nick (talk • contribs) 01:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Who Contributed to this Article?

(please record your name and date if you contributed to this article.) --Kingj123 21:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This information is found in the article history. Sandy (Talk) 23:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Move to HSR-350x

Isn't that the official name?

Also, search results for "Korean G7" show

• 1 on the 1st Google pg
• 1 on the 2nd Google pg
• 0 on the 3rd Google pg
• with 775 total pages and 795,000 similar pages

while search results for "HSR-350x" show

• 6 on 1st Google pg
• 10 on 2nd Google pg
• 10 on the 3rd Google pg
• with 162 total pages and 575 similar pages.

(69.245.43.115 20:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC))

Originally, the article was named HSR-350x.--Kingj123 08:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Kingj123

Requested by Kingj123, on his talk page, I wrote the reason why KRRI's claim as "Korea is the fourth nation in the world to develop high-speed trains independently" is dubious. I guess I can repeat the reasoning (as well as my mistakes) here for the benefit of other editors.

If "High-speed rail" means the railway runs above 200 km/h, then:

• For Japan, France, and Germany, I don't think you disagree with me.
• United Kingdom: InterCity 125, one of their High Speed Trains, debuted in 1975. Its maximum speed is 125 mph, or 200 km/h.
• Italy: ETR 450 debuted in 1988. Its maximum speed is 250 km/h.
• Spain: In 1966, Talgo III ran at 200 km/h. [1]
• Sweden: X 2000 debuted in 1990. Its maximum speed 200 km/h.
• Norway: This one was my mistake. Although BM71 debuted in 1998, it's made by ADtranz, German company.
• Switzerland: This one is not correct either. ICN debuted in 2000 but it's a joint development between SBB-CFF-FFS, ADtranz and Alstom. Again, my mistake.
• China: "zh:中華之星列車", or China Star, is developed independently by Chinese, unlike other Chinese high-speeds such as Shanghai Transrapid (from Germany) or 新时速 (from Sweden). It's still in an experimental stage, but so is Korean G-7. It recorded 321.5 km/h in 2003. [2]
• And finally, South Korea developed Korean G-7. Its maximum speed 350 km/h was recorded in 2004.

So now, I have to say "there are 8 countries that have independently developed high-speed trains before 2004", rather than "10".

If "High-speed rail" means the railway runs above 300 km/h, then:

• Again, for Japan, France, and Germany, I don't think you disagree with me.
• Spain:Talgo 350 ran at 300 km/h in 1994. [3]
• Italy: ETR 500 debuted in 1993. Its maximum speed is 300 km/h.
• China: As I "proved" above, China Star recorded 321.5 km/h in 2003.
• And Korean G-7 recorded 350 km/h was recorded in 2004.

I don't have a big probrem with the current article, although it still is incorrect for ignoring China. Kzaral 11:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

In the article, there is a section dedicated to explaining this controversial matter. At least, that's what I remember. (Wikimachine 21:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC))

I don't think this is worth dwelling on particularily - clearly Korea wants to blow its own trumpet as regards membership of the "High speed club" (and rightly so), however an encyclopedia shouldn't repeat ad-nauseum (spelling?) the claims on corporate websites etc.. The topic can be covered briefly but without getting involved in potentially contentious number rankings. At some point I will delete or truncate the section to what is relevent.Shortfatlad (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HSR.JPG

Image:HSR.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The "Criticisms"

I do not like this section. It sounds dangerously close to technological hyping and 'tech fanboyism'. None of it is cited, and it basically only had one point on that the train is locomotive-based rather than an EMU and is therefore somehow inferior/old-hat/second-rate. I've rewritten it to be more nuetral, but as a wikipeida page we should be recording OFFICAL criticisms of the train, not uncited opinions of no-name detractors. As far as I am aware, there has been no formal flak on the 'locomotive instead of EMU' system and it has all been cooked up by an overeager wiki writer. I may be wrong, but it should be formally cited. We're a recordkeeper of criticism, not a self appointed manufacturer of it. 81.111.115.63 (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree, I'm currently tidying the article, so expect to see this section dissapear or change in the near future. I won't be leaving anything in this section that can't be confirmed by reliable and competent third party sources.

G7/ HSR-350x

I think this issue has come up before. I assume that the article covers both the G7 project and the HSR-350 train. Is this correct.? (No answer means yes :___) Shortfatlad (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Image question

[[:Image:TUVASAS-ROTEM HSR-350X.jpg|thumb|250px|Inauguration ceremony of the EUROTEM (TÜVASAŞ-ROTEM) factory in Adapazarı, Turkey, which will licence build the HSR-350x trains that can reach a maximum speed of 352.4 km/h]]

Can anyone show that the caption in this image is true - as far as I can tell the eurotem factory has not yet said anything about making this train? only suburban emus???Shortfatlad (talk) 05:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Total re-edit

The old version of the article was badly organised, full of dead links (including the main source for the data, a pdf brochure on the KRRI website that was replaced by another focused on the HEMU-400X), imprecise details, and some marketing talk apparently lifted directly from sources. So at long last I combed through a truckload of sources and completely re-wrote the entire article.

I tracked down sources for every detail in the old version, some of which led to corrections (f.e. brakes, power). I did not find non-dead-link and reliable sources (reliable: no blog, nor Wiki in another language that is unsourced itself) on the seating arrangement of the HSR-350x, and it's an experimental train crammed with measuring equipment rather than passengers anyway, so I dropped this from the old version. In the section on test runs, I decided to drop the details on going from 60 to 300 km/h and to detail the increases from 300 to 352.4 km/h instead: the linear progression in the first doesn't add anything, but the slowdown in the programme and the successive domestic speed records are noteworthy.

Sometimes I used both the English and Korean version of the same document as source. This is because on one hand, WP:NONENG advises that English sources be preferred, on the other hand, sometimes the English translations leave off important details.

I dealt with the issue of the multiple names (G7, HSR-350x, Hanvit 350) that confused many, as discussed by some editors above. There is one remaining issue in need of an explicit source, and thus not mentioned in the current version: the fact that the name "Hanvit" did not catch on (even KRRI returned to "Korean Tilting Train" resp. "HEMU-400X").

I did find the sources for the ambition to sell in Turkey, China, Taiwan, the USA and Brazil. However, these ambitions came to naught in the active time of HSR-350x, and it's not clear when the basis for the selling effort shifted from the HSR-350x to what became the KTX-II, so I left these out of the article.

The main bone of contention, on this Discussion page too, was the recurring claim about the "fourth country to develop a high-speed train". Some version of it (usually with a more quantifiable criterion than reflected in the discussion further up, like 350 km/h) appears in almost every government, research institute or manufacturer press release I came across, as well as conference presentations, research articles, or Korean newspaper articles, so the claim would be noteworthy. However, I left it out completely, and for now am against its inclusion for the following reasons.

1. As a statement of fact, I consider none of the above mentioned sources to be reliable and having a neutral point of view. Even KRRI is no authority on high-speed rail in (all) other countries, and the claim appears as a statement of national pride from all Korean sources.
2. Indeed the claim is factually wrong. If the criterion is the achievement of 350 km/h in tests, it forgets about the USA (LIMRV, 1974) and Spain (Talgo 350, 2001). If the criterion is 300 km/h in regular service, as it became when the KTX-II came out, then in addition to Spain, they forget Italy (ETR 500 P, 2005) and arguably China (CRH2C, 2008). The "domestically developed/designed" criterion is rather cloudy, too: no high-speed train in the world was built entirely from scratch with 100% domestic technology, so they'd have to claim some cutoff level.
3. To simply state the above in the article (as opposed to this discussion of sources and content here) would violate WP:OR.
4. I think that the fact that this claim is made in so many Korean sources is noteworthy in itself, as a sign of the national ambition behind HSR-350x (it was not a simple company product but a big government-led project, after all). However, to add it as such, to not violate WP:OR, I'd need a source explicitly discussing it, and pointing out that the claim is erroneous. However, rail industry sources like Railway Gazette International tend to just ignore the claim, and the only source I found so far is a site that appears to be self-published (and Japanese, which by past experience I'd expect to be challenged as biased). Fortunately, the national ambition is emphasized enough by the explanation of the G7 project name. --Rontombontom (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your good work, and thanks for removing the "4th developer of HSR" claim - such statements of national pride are understandable, but don't really have a place in an encyclopedia.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HSR-350x/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: Seven links to irail.net return blank pages, it may be that server is down. I will check again tomorrow. Two links to kicttep.re.kr transfer to a https site and my browser reports unsafe connection using Firefox, loads OK with IE. Ref #9{http://www.jrtr.net/jrtr48/pdf/f30_Lee.pdf] is a dead link.

I updated the irail links (they were migrated to the krri.re.kr site), and made a webcitation.org archiveurl for the link on the non-dead but apparently badly configured JRTR site. I'm still trying to find out what to make with the kicttep.re.kr links. --Rontombontom (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The lead should fully summarise the article as per WP:LEAD

   As far as I can see, the one section not summarized by the lead is the one on technical details. I added a sentence and a half. Is adding a sentence or two on that sufficient, or do think the summaries of the other sections need to be expanded? --Rontombontom (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

   When South Korea started its high-speed rail project, rolling stock and infrastructure was built in the framework of a technology transfer agreement between GEC-Alsthom (today Alstom), the main maker of French TGV high-speed trains, and South Korean companies. Ungrammatical and unclear.

   "was" is frequently used where "were" would be correct.

   Further progress with the testing programme was slow, because line capacity on the finished test section of the Gyeongbu HSR was limited due to the priority of the commissioning tests of the KTX-I trains. Clumsy and ungrammatical

   The train was used for some more tests next year, and by February 2008, it ran a cumulative 207,000 km (129,000 mi). again very poor phrasing and grammar.

   These are just examples. Overall this is badly written , over technical in its language. Recommend a thorough copy-edit, preferably by someone who can turn this into good plain English, with explanation of technical terms.

   OK, will ask someone. --Rontombontom (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Ref #9{http://www.jrtr.net/jrtr48/pdf/f30_Lee.pdf] is a dead link.

   Other problems with on-line references noted above

   Other references appear OK, no evidence of OR, assume good faith for those in Korean

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The first part of the History section fails to provide any background. Why was the project started?

   Which project? The high-speed project (which is not the topic of this diary, but I could add it from Korea Train Express), or the G7 project? The reasons for the latter are discussed.

   Well, as I said the prose is poor and it is not clear. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

   Well, I'm trying to find out what's not clear :-) If the prose is poor, then it needs a copyedit, but above, you are saying that something is missing. --Rontombontom (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

   What the article lacks is context. Background. Why was such a large sum of money invested in this project? Who proposed the project? Was there opposition? What were the conclusions of the project? Is any further development being undertaken? If not why? If yes why? Why, specifically was it felt necessary to develop a Korean project, what were the alternatives? What did the press say? Was it a political issue, etc. etc. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

   Well, I am again at a loss here, I thought the article addresses all of that, as far as reliable sources allow for it. (This is not a FAC nomination where the requirement is comprehensiveness and thus a nomination can be failed even if there is a lack of sources.)

   • "Such a large sum" – relative to what?
   • The first question is answered by "to increase the domestic added value, and to further improve the technology", and I could add something on hopes for export (but that's not central and more relevant to the KTX-II, which is discussed in its own article).
   • Sources I can find do not identify who proposed the project, coverage starts with the announcement of the project. (As a meta-comment, joint government-private industry projects in South Korea didn't excel in transparency in the past.)
   • Regarding opposition, if you think of NIMBY protests, this wasn't an infrastructure project so NIMBY protests are irrelevant; if you think of don't-waste-taxpayer-money type protests, I found no report of one. The only criticism I came across was about the technical failures in the first year or two, which is mentioned in the article.
   • The 'conclusions' of the project were the technologies adopted in the commercial version, the KTX-II, discussed in its own section.
   • Further development was done first in the KTX-II development and then the HEMU-400X project, again as mentioned in that section.
   • The Korean project question goes back to the first question, to which the issues of national industrial policy and national prestige can be added. There would be a story to tell about close government–private industry cooperation in South Korea to boost the national industry, but, when connected to the G7 project, not much is possible without WP:OR, and what is possible is covered in the section on the naming.
   • The one alternative would have been the continued import of French technology, and that alternative is obvious from the text even if badly written, I would think.
   • Beyond reporting the facts, the press didn't do much more than highlight project achievements as national achievements, echoing government press releases. But why would you think there would be more? This article is about a single experimental train, part of a project that was more or less a product development, and in that category beans compared to say a commercial airliner's development – not something big and by default controversial like a multi-billion-dollar infrastructure project.

   So, in conclusion, it appears to me that the context and background you are missing is either already there, or not available in reliable sources and of little importance. This may again be the result of bad writing (which I plan to address by asking some copyeditors), however, here I am trying to ascertain what if anything needs to be added to the article. --Rontombontom (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

   What is happening now, most of the references are rather old. Is this train in service now? The artcile appears to need updating.

   The article does say that this is an experimental train, so no service. It also says that the research program is over, and the Commercialisation section discusses what came after. There are no reliable sources I can find on where and how the train is stored, certainly not in English. The last event with a source is for the additional tests in 2008, in the last sentence you gave as example for poor phrasing. Later sources only mention the train as the ancestor of the KTX-II, the testing of which was concluded. --Rontombontom (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

   Again clarity is needed in the writing. Currently it just looks like out of date information. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

   I didn't refuse the clarity of writing criticism. Here I was trying to get confirmation that no content really needs to be added, as opposed to re-phrased. --Rontombontom (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Licensed and captioned

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article needs considerable improvement to meet the WP:GACR. Copy-editing, updating, providing a background to the project. I think this is likely to take some time so I will not be listing this at this time. I would suggest that when work has been done, take this to peer review for futher comments before renomination. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Jezhotwells issues with clarity - I wonder if moving the information South Korea's Ministry of Construction and Transportation (MOCT) started a project named G7 to develop domestic high-speed rail technology to a more visible (ealier) position would help readers get a handle on "what it's all about" - the G7 section currentlt jumps in at the deep end.Imgaril (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Minor point

Quote : The variable voltage variable frequency (VVVF) inverters are voltage-sourced with pulse-width modulation (PWM) control, rather than current-sourced with phase fired control (PFC) as in the KTX-I. - as a far as I know it's not practicably workable to use 'phase fired control' for a VVVF supply - as I understand it the phase fired control in the KTX-I is a choice related to available technology at the time and the use of synchronous motors. It may not have been intended to suggest that 'phase fired control' was used/suitable for VVVF supply; but the wording is a little vague.

Or I may be wrong and phase fired control can be used for VVVF supply if so examples please for my own benefit :) Otherwise could somone double check the sentence for possible misinterpretations. Thanks.Imgaril (talk) 13:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, although the meaning of PWM will be clear to many in this context, it might be better to disambiguate here (as Phase fired controllers as are form of PWM) - I assume it's Pulse-density modulation to perform the frequency synthesis ? (Has someone got a reference for that?) article doesn't describe what I was thinking of Can someone clarify the type of PWN used for the VVVF drives. Thank you. Imgaril (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2011 (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/contractors/diesel/voith/press74.html

  Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.railway-technology.com

  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 ^Notify_Online 13:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)