Talk:Shinkansen

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

Discrepancy between this and Yellow Doctor page[edit]

In this article it says that the yellow doctor trains do not run at night, but on the main article for them it says they do. Obviously this is contradictory and should be corrected.

I edited the Doctor Yellow article to clarify that Doctor Yellow runs take place at night, and what does not take place at night is passenger service. Fg2 07:05, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Is ???? the correct translation of shinkansen? --Ed Poor

Not sure what you mean by ????, but the translations / explanations are correct.

Anyone know what series the train on the photo is? I'm no good at numbers unless they're actually written in big letters, but it seems to be a "100" series. I took the photo in April 2002 at Fukuyama (San'yo line). Ianb

Looks like a 0 Series to me -- look at DAJ Fossett's site below for the comprehensive list. --Morven 19:36, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I think you're right, thanks. Ianb

A Google search of English articles finds 59700 cites of Shinkansen and 590 of "Sinkansen". There is thus no need to place extra junk in the first paragraph; see [[1]]. Jpatokal 04:11, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have let it stand, but the way the first paragraph is written makes it sound as though standard gauge was first introduced in Japan in 1964. Maybe someone can reword this to make it clearer? Dave Fossett 22:00 (JST) 18 Jul 2005

Quite a lot of minor railways and trams in Japan have used standard gauge for decades before the shinkansen. One advantage of using the same gauge as Europe and America, is that it creates a "level playing field" when comparing the High Speed Trains of each country. Tabletop (talk) 07:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mixed-gauge track and pointwork (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) and 42) at Odawara in Japan

shinkansen is a type of bullet train in japan. duh!

Bullet train[edit]

As far as I remember, Japanese bullet trains do not stand for the bullet trains for all of the world.

This article is so messed up. Half the time, it's talking about Japanese bullet trains & its service areas. The other half is the list of other countries' bullet trains.

We need to have the bullet train article & Shinkansen article separate. (Wikimachine 02:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I know of no other country than Japan where high-speed trains are regularly referred to as "bullet trains", and I don't see the article using the term for anything other than the Shinkansen. The TGV is the TGV, the ICE is the ICE, the AVE is the AVE, the KTX is the KTX, none of them are bullet trains. Jpatokal 12:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly the Shinkansen are most often correlated with the name "bullet train," but definitely don't have a monopoly on the name. In particular, HST's that are under development are often referred to as "bullet trains," especially in print media. Try a Google News search and you'll find all sorts of projects being called "bullet trains." The Shinkansen get priority because they were first, and arguably most successful. - Sekicho 15:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"I know of no other country than Japan where high-speeded..."
Jpatokal, you don't have a statistics on that. Also, the word "bullet train" refers to any high speed passenger trains, according to princeton's web dictionary (source: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+bullet+train&btnG=Google+Search).
Those ICE, AVE, KTX, and Japanese Shinkansen are all bullet trains, buddy. Or else, this would be called Shinkansen in English (like Sushi in English) and no such word as bullet train would have been created.
Look at Encarta's article on bullet trains. Does it say Shinkansen? Just because it was the first does not mean that the entire category is called so in that name in that specific language. For example, just because the Chinese invented the paper does not mean that they are called paper in Chinese dialect. (Wikimachine 22:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Here's some statistics for you. I did a Google search on "X bullet train" (with quotes to make it one phrase), and I get:
41,600 for shinkansen.bullet.train
347 for ktx.bullet.train
186 for tgv.bullet.train
52 for ave.bullet.train
33 for ice.bullet.train
In other words, the Shinkansen is known as a bullet train over two orders of magnitude more often than any other high-speed train. Also, if you look at incoming links for "Bullet train", they're nearly all coming in from Japanese articles, cartoons and comics.
And I don't understand what you are trying to say in your last two paragraphs. The article is under Shinkansen because that's the official and most common name. But the Japanese came up with the term "bullet train" and, as you can see from the data above, it's still used often enough for the Shinkansen to make it a sensible redirect. Jpatokal 02:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because IBM ThinkPad has been sold for the longest and has sold the most (15 million units) does not mean that it is THE name for laptops. Just because you search online for "laptop", and, since English language is an international language, "laptop" comes out the most, not "laptop" in other languages, doesn't mean that "laptop" should be used in all languages as the word that stands for laptop computer/notebook.

Nobody put it as the official name, and this is in Japanese language. Japanese is not the international language, and I've never heard of the word "Shinkansen" in my life. (Wikimachine 14:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I still don't understand what you are trying to say. What do you want to do then? Delete the article entirely!? Jpatokal 01:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to be correct, Shinkansen translates to New Trunk Line. Bullet Train is a phrase coined by Americans to describe the shinkansen, but it is NOT used in Japanese. AT ALL. The proper term for the entire category of JAPANESE high-speed trains is Shinkansen. Each individual train type has its own name, e.g. Nozomi 500 or 700. I've not ever heard bullet train used to refer to anything other than a shinkansen, but then my experience with non-Japanese high-speed trains is limited at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.191.163 (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term shinkansen refers to the japanese "new built" hisgh speed railways ... same as TGV network in france , AVE network in spain and others ... it (this page) should simply redirect from the global "high speed rail" main page at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail Bullet train is an american name for the Shinkansen so it is clearly a goo thing to simply have it redirect here. It is not necessary to mention or develop networks other than the japanese (or ones using their technologies) in this page , for that theres already the global HSR page and each other system has a relvant page dedicated to it. As a sidenotice , portuguese (in portugal) refer to the HSR as "tgv" du to french influence , brasilians refer to the HST as "trem bala" (bullet train in portuguese language) .. .so indeed othr use the bullet train expression. Sotavento (talk) 12:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article high speed rail[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.


Bullet train is a word for a train that runs on a high speed rail. None of my friends know anything about the word "Shinkansen".

It seems that the Japanese POV editors are desperately attempting to promote the fact that Japan is a leader in the high speed rail technology, and it pioneered the field the first.

But, that still doesn't mean that you people can do such thing.

If you want to have a separate article about Japan's high speed rail, then make this only for Japan's Shinkansen line.

Ok? But, rest of the article must be merged into the article high speed rail.

  • Disagree with merge -- IMNSHO, Shinkansen means exactly what it means: "New Railway" and it refers only to that new railway (which falls into the larger, more-general category of high-speed rail). Atlant 18:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree with merge -- Shinkansen is the specific high-speed train used in Japan, and deserves its own article just as much as the TGV and InterCity Express do. High-speed rail is the survey article for the overall concept. David Arthur 18:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merging --- Well worth an individual article. Fg2 19:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merging and redirect bullet train should still point at this page --Asterion talk to me 19:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge and redirect --- The Shinkansen article definitely ought to be kept separate from the High-speed rail article, which is just a general article summarizing the various high-speed rail systems (including the shinkansen) around the world. DAJF 22:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge for reasons stated above; this entire argument just reflects the increasingly silly level of Korean-Japanese enmity on Wikipedia these days. (See Talk:Japanese people for another side of it) - Sekicho 00:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. What Sekicho said. And I'm still waiting for Wikimachine to say what content he's referring to, as I still don't see any of this mysterious non-Shinkansen stuff in the article. Jpatokal 01:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your participation.


Repoint the "Bullet train" redirect?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.


2nd proposal: Make the redirect in bullet train to the article high speed rail.

(forgot to put this) (Wikimachine 19:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • I agree with this second proposal. Either rename the article "Bullet train" (because that is the English name, or change the bullet train redirect to Highspeed rail. By no means Shinkansen should be the title of an English article unless the content is directly related to the specific rail system in Japan and isn't covering general info about the bullet trains or high speed trains. This article seems to be exclusively about Japan's rail system, so redirecting Bullet Train to high speed rail makes much more sense. Masterhatch 22:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree with redirect (copied my vote from the High Speed Rail article where this vote is duplicated - "bullet train" is normally taken to refer to the trains running on the Japanese high-speed network. I have never heard of any other nation's train network being called by that name. The current article for "bullet trains"/"Shinkansen" is very good and much more appropriate for the term than this more generalised & global article. Canderra 23:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(On Canderra's comment, I would like to say that my friends have heard of the word bullet train, but never Shinkansen. Me neither. (Wikimachine 23:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)))[reply]
That is beside the point, they are just two names for the same thing (e.g. Germany and Duestchland), which is why one redirects to the other (precisely to get over the common problem of differing regional names). The proposal stated however is to redirect the term "bullet train" to a different definition, specifically that of high speed rail in general. I believe this is incorrect as the term "bullet train" refers to the Japanese high speed trains and the information displayed in the Shinkansen article, not the information displayed in the high speed rail article. Canderra 00:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sekicho for voting. Canderra, remember that the word bullet train stands not only for the Shinkansen line but all high speed trains in general. (Wikimachine 01:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I have done some research (some similar to that already done, some different), and so beg to differ. A Google search produces results which almost entirely refer to the Japanese trains (or occasionally, designs modelled specifically on the Japanese trains). The Merriam Webster dictionary states of the bullet train: "a high-speed passenger train especially of Japan" and the Encarta Dictionary states "fast train in Japan: a high-speed passenger train in Japan". Additionally, in the actual high speed rail article you wish to redirect to, the only mention of the term "bullet train" is in the title of a book specifically about the Japanese railway network. I cannot even find the term "bullet train" in any of Wikipedia's train articles other than the Shinkansen.
The common English translation of Shinkansen is indeed "bullet train", as almost every source I can find calls the Japanese train system that (either instead of or along with the proper Japanese name "Shinkansen"). Performing a Google search for "Bullet Train" along with the names "TGV" or "Eurostar" however produces very few results which aren’t referring to the Japanese system when they use the term. I could not identify any sources specifically calling the TGV, Eurostar or ICE "The Bullet Train". Finally, I know this has already been done, but to wrap my point up: My Google search for the quoted term ""Shinkansen bullet train" produced 41,500 results compared to the search for "TGV bullet train" which produced only 195 results and "Eurostar bullet train" which produced only 157 results. I maintain therefore that "Bullet train" is internationally known as an English name specifically for the Japanese High Speed Train Network and should therefore direct to an article specifically about that network and not about High Speed Trains in general. Canderra 02:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Agree with redirect. However, I believe Wikimachine needs to stop using his/her friends' ignorance of high-speed rail systems to justify screwing up a good article about Japan's. Anyone who has visited Japan or knows anything about railways knows what Shinkansen are; heck, it was one of the first 20 or so words I learned in Japanese. - Sekicho 00:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As the stats above show, people (and articles) looking for "bullet train" are overwhelmingly likely to be looking for the Shinkansen. I would, however, be OK with a "Bullet train redirects here; see High speed train for other high speed train systems" line up top. Jpatokal 01:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Jpatokal. The reason why I proposed the merging of this article with the other one was not really because I wanted to but I was upset with the fact that the term bullet train was directed to here. So I was thinking that bullet train is part of the high speed rail, supposing that the article Shinkansen is about bullet trains in general.
I don't intend to delete this article at all.
Additionally, Stats above are about either merging the article into the high speed rail or changing the name to bullet train (this is what I proposed before I knew that there was an article called high speed rail).
As for now in this proposal of changing the redirect, the ratio is 2:2 (including your vote).
Sorry for the misunderstanding. Please take a time to reconsider your votes. (Wikimachine 02:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]


Wouldn't it make more sense to use the English word "bullet train" for the article title then? I mean, this is the "English" version of wikipedia. From what i have read, "Shinkansen" is a mere translation of "bullet train". Time and time again on Wikipedia the English name is used over the local names. Why should this article be any different? Masterhatch 05:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shinkansen is not only the official and more exact name, but more popular as well: it beats "bullet train" on Google by 1.5M to 950k. Also note that every single other Wikipedia language version has opted for some variant of "Shinkansen" as the name. Jpatokal 07:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you haven't read correctly. Shinkansen means "New Trunk Line[s]" and is almost never literally translated into English. Go to Tokyo Station and the platforms say (in English) "Yamanote Line" and "Sobu Line" but "Tokaido Shinkansen." The Japanese version of "bullet train" is dangan ressha, but that term was only really used in the WWII era when the first high-speed line was being planned. All in all, "bullet train" is a general term that does not specifically refer to the Shinkansen and therefore that title should not be used for this article. - Sekicho 10:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If Shinkansen does not mean bullet train and means "New Trunk Line", there is no reason for the term bullet train to redirect to Shinkansen article. That would be the only reason why the term bullet train is redirect to the Shinkansen article. Additionally, we're not talking about how much more popular Shinkansen is. We are talking about changing the redirect on the article bullet train to the high-speed rail article. (Wikimachine 12:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons that have already been stated by others. Atlant 12:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose proposal to change redirect because I believe that most people that search for "Bullet train" on Wikipedia (or Google or anywhere else) are looking for information on the Japanese bullet trains (i.e. shinkansen) rather than high-speed trains in general. DAJF 12:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please reconsider your vote. That is the same logic as searching the term "laptop" online and since people are searching for Japanese laptops the most, the word "laptop" comes out in Japanese. When people search for the term bullet train, they are wanting the high speed trains. (Wikimachine 12:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

oops, sorry, didn't see this discussion before just redirecting bullet train. i thought bullet train was a common noun, Shinkansen being the proper noun, as in the florida bullet train, gauteng bullet train (and here) london bullet train california bullet train korean bullet train even the coors bullet train and the lego bullet train Appleby 21:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Purpose of safety barriers on platforms[edit]

The Safety section implies that safety barriers have been introduced at stations to prevent suicides, but I don't believe this is the case at all. Safety barriers are used at stations such as Sakudaira (and Shin-Kobe) where trains pass through non-stop right next to the platform rather than on a central through track. DAJF 11:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtless they serve both purposes, although ordinary passenger safety is probably the more-important.
Atlant 12:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Train in Chris Sawyer's Locomotion[edit]

There is a train in Chris Sawyer's Locomotion called "Shinkansen Series 0 Powered Carriage", taken from Chris Sawyer Software Development, I've seen the Shinkansen Series 0 Powered Carriage, but you need the product for it (add-in not supplied with Chris Sawyer's Locomotion). --RCT Loco Wiki | Talk 22:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Conventional Rail in Picture[edit]

Shinkansen 0 Series at Fukuyama Station, April 2002
Linimo train approaching Banpaku Kinen Koen, towards Fujigaoka Station
Maglev in Shanghai

Why do the pictures here show conventional tracks, and not the maglev ones? I thought they "couldn't be integrated with existing infrastructure". These three technologies look very different: the last two are from Maglev train, the first is from this article. While I'm here, is anyone able to explain why they are un-intgrateable? martianlostinspace 15:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Shinkansen is a standard gauge plain old steel rail system, not maglev. As the maglev article explains, maglev systems need special magnetic track to keep the train floating above it. Jpatokal 20:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? That's intrigueing, I thought Shinkansen was a maglev train. Then why would there be a section on Japanese maglev in the maglev train article, or would that just happen to all be research? martianlostinspace 08:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Shinkansen is not maglev. The JR network (which runs the Shinkansen system) has experimented with maglev technology, and there's a picture of one of those experimental trains in the maglev article. adamrice 14:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting me. I get confuzzeld, confused and somehow confussed a bit, begin to pismonounce my worms and my vails (apologies to the Two Ronnies). My mind somehow wobbles (apologies to Beatrix Potter).martianlostinspace 19:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sanrio[edit]

An intresting bit of trivia is that the Sanrio company has a line of kawaii themed (an apparently official) Shinkansen things. English link Japanese link Calicore 07:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

223mph?[edit]

Something is wrong. This article says the FASTECH 360 only does 223. This article says otherwise.martianlostinspace 13:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Fastech's speed in service will be 360 km/h. Exceptional speeds achieved in testing aren't very relevant for the main article. Jpatokal 06:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shinkansen technology outside Japan[edit]

found this on Japan times today: Monday, Jan. 29, 2007 Shinkansen-based trains debut in China HANGZHOU, China (Kyodo) High-speed trains modeled after the sophisticated Hayate East Japan Railway Co. bullet train made debut runs on Chinese rails Sunday. http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20070129a3.html Grmf


Speed Discrepancies[edit]

According to this article on Japan Today the TGV just achieved 574.8 km/hr on a test run which is a record for any sort train functioning on conventional rails, which I believe the Shinkansen is one of as well(The video can be found here). That means there needs to be some editing done to the first paragraph of this article which states that the Shinkansen has touched 581 km/hr which would contradict the Japan Today article. Hope someone will be able to make that change . Almost forgot to add. Apparently its the Maglev_train that touched the figure of 581.

Love Bioskope 00:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article correctly mentions the shinkansen speed records of 443 km/h for conventional rail and 581 km/h for maglev trainsets. I don't think the wording here is particularly misleading or needs editing. DAJF 01:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, this article understates that the maglev is shinkansen, but it is not. This is misleading. I gona edit it, btw. Aleske 22:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maglev technology in Japan is being developed for use on the planned Chūō Shinkansen line. DAJF 23:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding features of Shinkansen[edit]

I think the next step to improve this article is to explain major features of Shinkansen. For example,
- Low noise level at a high speed, and the technologies that enabled it from the shape of the body, which is in part handcrafted, to new pantographs.
Indeed, without these technologies, any high speed trains will not be allowed to run in Japan which is very populated and has many tunnels.
- Stability
- High acceleration ability, which is also required in Japan
- Integrated traffic system
Hrkoew (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superexpresses do not exist[edit]

According to the Japanese Wikipedia, the name "Shinkansen" applies to both track, train and the entire system: [2]

新幹線は、‥東海道新幹線を初の路線とし、現在JRグループが運行する高速鉄道路線およびそれに用いられる車両、並びに関連する鉄道輸送システム全体をも指す呼称である。

And there is (officially) no such thing as a "superexpress": [3]

21世紀初頭の現在の日本の鉄道では、「超特急」という種別の列車は正式には存在しない。

I've changed the article accordingly. Jpatokal (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about any other lines, but, I'm pretty sure that the lady's recorded voice on the Tōhoku Shinkansen says "Welcome aboard the Tōhoku Shinkansen. This is the hayate ## superexpress bound for ...." in transit between each stop. Next time I ride, I'll pause the iPod and pay a little more attention. Neier (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct, and that is why I removed the "occasionally" from the sentence in the article saying that "Superexpress" is still used in English-language announcements. --DAJF (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Customers[edit]

There's little discussion of who uses these trains. I'm guessing they're mostly passenger trains, but... Imagine Reason (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Shinkansen, like the TGV, Intercity Express, and other such high-speed network, is a passenger service. I don't know the specific demographics of Shinkansen passengers, but I believe they carry more daily commuters than their European counterparts because of Japan's density. David Arthur (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

L.A. Times plagiarism?[edit]

We should probably look into this. -- Morrell Maddie (talk) 03:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously Biased[edit]

Shinkansen has been heavily critized for its heavy cost of operation and for its fares being more expensive than air fares. But I did not find any word regarding this issue on this article, not even the word "expensive." This article obvious is in favour of Shinkansen. -- 69.243.94.166 (talk) 05:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? The tone of the article seems pretty neutral to me. While I don't think anyone would call shinkansen fares "inexpensive", the steadily rising ridership figures would seem to indicate that fares are not unreasonably expensive either. Could you provide some specific sources supporting this "heavy criticism"? --DAJF (talk) 05:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just spent some time looking for sources, but had trouble finding anything other than positive assessments, including [4] and [5]. (Hardly neutral sources, mind you, but the facts within are indisputable.)
Ooh, this one is good though: [6]. I've added a few bits, but it's mostly about how Shinkansen crippled JNR, not the cost to passengers themselves. Jpatokal (talk) 05:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think shinkansen is that expensive either.
-Amtrak Acela Express: NY-DC (~200 miles), 2h 48m, $221
-Shinkansen Nozomi: Tokyo-Osaka (~340 miles), 2h 25m, $135 ($190 Green seat)
See [7]. Shinkansen is making tons of profits so its cost of operation is not "heavily criticized". Ohiolight (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only the Tokaido Shinkansen is making "tons of profits", and that's in no small part because the Japanese taxpayer got stuck with a ¥20 trillion bill... Jpatokal (talk) 02:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually all of the Shinkansen make "tons of profits" operationally. The Tokaido and parts of the Tohoku Shinkansen probably could have paid for their capital costs. They didn't have to as JNR was state owned and profit maximization wasn't part of its operation procedures, therefore arguing that they couldn't because they didn't is not valid. 93.104.44.97 (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About DAJF[edit]

DAJF should not join the edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.164.204.239 (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please try and stick to discussing this article and how to improve it. More importantly, could you explain why you think this article needs such an extensive image gallery now containing images of every shinkansen type and even tenuously relevant trains such as the British class 395? --DAJF (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name "Shinkansen" applies to both track, train and the entire system. DAJF behavior is groundless. DAJF is a suitable case as the editor. 114.164.204.239 (talk) 12:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Class 395 is described in the category of Shinkansen in Japanese wiki. Moreover, it is described as a "bullet train" in the mass communication in Britain. 114.164.204.239 (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DAJF that the gallery is not appropriate for the main Shinkansen article. But why not turn the List of Shinkansen train models section into its own article, and put the pictures there? (In table format, though, not as a gallery.) Jpatokal (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jpatokal. Making it into a table-format list in a separate article would work well. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good Job! Making and playing by oneself, Mr.DAJF! Class 395 has been treated as "Shinkansen" also in Japan and Britain. 新幹線 114.164.204.239 (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You must be confused, Mr. IP. I am not DAJF. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Half a century soon[edit]

2014 will mark 50 years of service since Shinkansen start in 1964. Will there be big celebrations, like a "fleet review" of famous trains and locomotives invited from all around the world? 91.82.138.77 (talk) 10:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any update on this one? Will Japan celebrate the semi-centennary of Shinkansen ops in any visible way? If yes, that info should go into the article! Some rail fans would probably travel to Japan in 2014 just to be there. 91.82.35.73 (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam[edit]

I heard that Vietnam cancelled their shinkansen project in 2010, but the article does not reflect this. Cla68 (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page about Vietnam Railways contains fresher information about it, so this page could be updated too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.221.16.98 (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with company names in route map[edit]

The route map (File:Shinkansen map 20110312 en.png) recently re-added by its creator User:Hisagi unfortunately includes references to "JR Kyūshū" and "JR Hokkaidō" with macrons, even though these are not used by either company in their official names.
To clarify for the hard of understanding:

  • checkY JR Hokkaido ☒N JR Hokkaidō (see [8])
  • checkY JR Kyushu ☒N JR Kyūshū (see [9])

--DAJF (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are already corrected. --Hisagi (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments on inclusion of Hokuriku Shinkansen E7 series information[edit]

Initial details of the planned E7 series trains under development for use on the Hokuriku Shinkansen were published in the Mainichi Shimbun in December last year (December 2011 article). The E7 was listed in the "List of Shinkansen train models" section of this article since December 2011, but was removed recently by User:Hisagi in this edit with the edit summary "The news of E7 series is unfixed and unreliable". Even in the absence of an official press release from JR East, I don't think it is up to individual editors to decide that articles published in national newspapers are not sufficiently reliable for them. As such, this article is now missing important information, and I would request comments from other editors on whether this information should be re-added. --DAJF (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: Issue is now moot following official JR announcement of E7 and W7 series types. --DAJF (talk) 09:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

8-year business plan and 360 km/h operation[edit]

I have removed the misleading statement that JR East is planning to raise the maximum speed on the Tohoku Shinkansen to 360 km/h by 2020. The JR East long-term business plan published on 30 October 2012, which outlines its aims for the next 8 years mentions simply "新幹線の時速360 ㎞での営業運転の実現に向けて重点的に取り組む" ("focusing on achieving shinkansen operations at 360 km/h") and "新幹線の時速360 ㎞での営業運転の実現に向けた研究開発" ("research and development toward realizing shinkansen operations at 360 km/h"). Even the media that reported this announcement ([10]) use "目指す" ("aiming for"), which should make it clear that there is no definite plan or schedule at this point. --DAJF (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geographical misses in Maglev-section[edit]

There seems to be 2 geographical misses in the Future -> Maglev-section of the article. The third paragraph states "Under somewhat more debate in where the line will terminate in Tokyo, JR Tokai is currently planning to run the line through Kawasaki prefecture, south of Tokyo, and terminate at Shinagawa Station by-passing central Tokyo." but,

1, there is no Kawasaki prefecture in Japan. However, there is a city named Kawasaki in Kanagawa prefecture, which is the prefecture south of Tokyo, so my guess is this is a misunderstanding in with the prefecture vs. city name.

2, if one goes to Tokyo from the south (through Kanagawa prefecture), one will first reach Shinagawa station, and then central Tokyo, i.e Shinagawa Station is to the south of central Tokyo, meaning the sentence doesn't makes sense. (as one wouldn't by-pass central Tokyo, but rather never reach the central part).

Since the article is a pretty big one, and I don't have a user on Wikipedia (and therefore cannot be held resposible for any edits I do), I thought it'd unwise of me to actually edit the article, but thought that maybe I should point out these two things if someone else feels they should be edited. 203.165.101.107 (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I've trimmed the wording and corrected the obvious error. Thanks for raising it here. --DAJF (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/n700-shinkansen/
    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 11:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Link removed. --DAJF (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Traction no longer unique to shinkansens.[edit]

From the current wiki article:

> Traction - The Shinkansen has used the electric multiple unit configuration from the outset, with the 0 Series Shinkansen having all axles powered. Other railway manufacturers have traditionally been reluctant, or unable to use distributed traction configuration

The french AGV 575 class high speed trainsets used by private venture pax carrier ItaloTreno (a.k.a. Nuovo Transporto Viaggiatori) are all-wheel-powered with underfloor mounted machinery. There are no longer disguised locomotives at the trains's extremes to provide traction. 87.97.108.144 (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of 新幹線[edit]

I suggest changing "new trunk line" to "new main line". I have no source for it, but there doesn't seem to be any source for the current translation as well.

http://i.imgur.com/aJRFrYr.png The "trunk" meaning of 幹 refers to a tree trunk, which makes little sense here.

http://i.imgur.com/7D2CBfk.png The "base" (i.e. primary, core) meaning makes far more sense.

If somebody can verify any translation with a source, I am happy to support that. Thanks in advance. SusuKacangSoya (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a source (to Britannica) for the standard translation of "New Trunk Line". Other available sources include The Guardian article, BBC article, Railway Technology article. and Japanese Government overview. I think all of these would be considered pretty reliable sources. --DAJF (talk) 02:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Shinkansen. 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) 04:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote[edit]

I've removed the hatnote link to Sarah Records § Shinkansen Recordings. It seemed unduly promotional and unlikely to be useful to readers; while this page receives around 60,000 monthly views, Sarah Records receives fewer than 1,200 on average (analysis). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edited for concision[edit]

In the section “Speed records”, I shortened the headings “Conventional wheeled” and “Maglev trains”, to “True rail” and “Maglev” respectivly. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dist[edit]

This article givs distances along a number of routes. However, it doesn't say if it is distance as a crow flies or by road or rail, presumably Shinkansen. I looked on https://www.infoplease.com/atlas/calculate-distance “Distance Calculator” to find out some of the distances (great circle) between said city pairs, and the distances were less than are listed in this article. This means that distances here listed must be along the Shinkansen route. I recommending listing both the Shinkansen-route distance and distance as a crow flies. (When it comes to distances, i think mainly in terms of distance as a crow flies; it is nice and single-valued.)--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • KM/H to MPH Hi, I read on this page that 200 KM/H would be 120 MPH; I would like you to check this. 200 KM/H=124,2742‬‬ MPH, so, 125 MPH 87.213.185.35 (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Electrical power[edit]

Confusing wording states that the train in powered through distributed power to all axels, to reduce weight load each axel would have to overcome if it was being powered by one car. This means the train is powered by multiple electric units, as stated in the next section. I was wondering if there could/should be better clarification on what the train does to use electricity to power the wheels. Something like the train distributes power along the a axels of each car through its multiple electric unit system to provide better traction per axel. Any thoughts? NeVandCookies (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ɰ̃[edit]

The ipa has this symbol in it. Can anyone verify what it is and whether it’s correct? I know there are lots of weird symbols for subtly different phonemes such as the sh but I can’t verify this one even exists, there’s no article ɰ̃ Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 20:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that symbol is the voiced velar approximant. BLAIXX 20:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Blaixx looks right but seems really wrong for the context. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 11:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Bullet trains" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Bullet trains has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 3 § Bullet trains until a consensus is reached. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 13:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

mph rounding[edit]

@ZlatanSweden10 I don't think there's a good reason to round to the nearest 10 mph. I think a major reason we see lots of converted speeds rounding to the nearest 10 on Wikipedia is because the conversion template sees speeds ending in a zero or two zeros and assume that those digits are not significant. But digital train speedometers display to the nearest km/h / mph, and maximum speeds are usually set in increments of 5 km/h / mph (and 5 km/h is 3.1 mph), so I would argue that the ones digit is in fact significant, and that extra resolution is sometimes crucial for making comparisons. More important perhaps is standard practices of references -- if you search "sanyo shinkansen 186 OR 190 mph" or "chuo shinkansen 314 OR 315 mph" on Google vanilla or Google Scholar or Google Books (without the quotes) I think you'll find that rounding to the nearest whole mph is much more common. Finally I can't help but notice that your rounding choices are inconsistent except in that they avoid rounding the number down -- 186 and 177 gets rounded to the nearest 10 instead of the nearest 5, but 314 gets rounded to the nearest 5 instead of the nearest 10, and 162 and 171 are left to the nearest whole (in fact in your most recent batch of edits you actively changed the rounding behavior of the operating speed of the Joetsu Shinkansen in the opposite direction, from rounding to the nearest 5, to rounding to the nearest whole). Astro.furball (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. I fail to see how rounding to the nearest 10 mph is helpful, especially when done deliberately. If anything we should be rounding to the nearest whole number, especially considering that mph isn't the dominant unit of speed in Japan. That's precise enough most comparisons without causing MOS issues (mainly LARGENUM). XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 23:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I always rounded 300 km/h to 190 mph since if you do just cvt without anything it would round to 190 mph. So I tried keeping it consistent with other pages in that sense. But I do think it rounds up too much (4 mph) so looking back at it, it may not make sense and 186 is better. So that's my bad.
I do stand by rounding minimally though. 160 km/h should always be seen as 100 mph, not 99. 200 km/h should be 125 mph, not 124. And so on.
And yeah I do selectively round sometimes because rounding down doesn't make sense. But I only selectively round if the difference isn't significant. No one says 199 mph train for example, its always 200 mph. Same with 145 mph train, not 143. And so on.
Hope this makes sense. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response.
I can definitely understand the draw when the converted number is really close to a particularly nice number, and rounding in those cases I'd suspect is common enough. So 160 km/h ≈ 100 mph, 200 km/h ≈ 125 mph, and such could potentially be fine in isolation (though if they're in the same infobox entry or the same series of tables as others that don't round as nicely for example, I think uniformly rounding to the nearest whole number would be better).
I don't agree about 143 vs 145 mph. Searching online, 230 km/h and specific examples like Railjet are strongly associated with 143 mph. I see 145 mph associated with 233 km/h (average speed on Tangier -- Kenitra) and 234 km/h (a Chinese maglev test run). Astro.furball (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should definitely add that "rounding down doesn't make sense" makes no sense to me. We should not be in the business of putting our thumb on the scale one way or another. If rounding down makes you uncomfortable, rounding up should too. Just leave numbers to the nearest whole then. Astro.furball (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries.
What I meant with rounding down was like I would often see Wikipedia sometimes round 200 km/h (124 mph) to 200 km/h (120 mph). That doesn't make sense as it skips a lot of numbers and 120 mph is close to 190 km/h than 200 km/h.
I of course would round down if it was a UK page and a train's speed is 125 mph (201 km/h) and I would round it down to 125 mph (200 km/h).
I also never round numbers such as average speeds or test/record speeds. Those are very specific and I never touch them. I only touch operating and maximum speeds as those are usually numbers of 5's or 10's.
I also would like to add that no one has ever complained about my edits and I've done rounding on countless of pages. So I thought what I was doing was fine as no one ever complained lol (so you're the first to ever "complain" about it lol) ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Also would like to add that no one has ever complained about my edits and I've done rounding on countless of pages" Mm, people on British Rail Class 360 have also asked you to stop doing this.
Maybe you could be seeking consensus generally at something like Wikipedia:TRAINS before you continue. Turini2 (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That has been the only one, and the previous reverts were regards to the ubl, not anything to do with the rounding. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shinkansen&oldid=1220540844"