Talk:Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.railnews.co.in/top-railway-projects-that-beat-the-slowdown-and-kick-start-indias-2014-2020-economy/ and elsewhere. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Move "Heavy Haul Rail Corridor" under "Proposed DFCs"
I did some cleanup. I also moved the "Heavy Haul Rail Corridor" under the "Proposed DFCs" section. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

0.05 m discrepency
Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India gives an overhead line height of 7.5 m but Double-stack rail transport gives a height of 7.45 m. Which one is correct? Peter Horn User talk 14:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyone care to clarify this? Peter Horn User talk 20:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I would just note that the sentence in question reads "The new generation pantograph allows an increase in the highest of the overhead wires (catenary height) from the standard 6 meters (19 ft 8+1⁄4 in) to 7.5 meters (24 ft 7+1⁄4 in)-setting the world record for the High Reach pantograph for highest catenary for electric locomotives." That only says that the pantographs are capable of operating under 7.5 meter wires. One might expect that the locomotive pantograph maximum height specification would be at least a little more than the nominal wire height to allow for construction tolerances. The trains themselves are specified to have a maximum height (presumably above top of rail) of 7.1 meters. I would defer, of course, to anyone with direct knowledge of the Indian system.--agr (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Is too slow to open The second article says, quote, Experiments in India for double stacking using flatcars under 25 kV AC overhead lines set 7.45 m above rail have begun with funds given by Japan. Peter Horn User talk 01:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The height is 7.45 m Question is answered. Peter Horn User talk 01:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Dedicated freight corridors in India into Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India
SEE BELOW: - Formal request has been received to merge: Dedicated freight corridors in India  into Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India; dated: December 2023. Proposer's Rationale: ''The Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India is the owner and the operator of the Dedicated freight corridors in India, having two articles on same subject is confusing. Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India is a govt. undertaking company that owns, operates the freight corridors. I highly recommend on merging this article with Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India. —unsigned comment…'' Discuss here. GenQuest "scribble" 08:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support High-speed rail in China has different categories of train sets. The article provides information on High-speed rail in China from origin to present. However China Railway High-speed appears like a service that China Railway offers. Hence they're both different. One is a service provided by China Railway. And the other article (High-speed rail in China) provides information from early stages of high-speed rail development in China to present state.
 * Here when it comes DFCCIL, there are no different services or routes or modes of routes (water, road, rail) available for public or Indian railways. DFCCIL is the sole builder and operator of the dedicated freight corridors (only freight trains that are operated by DFCCIL). Also if looked at Dedicated freight corridors in India, the whole article says about the dedicated corridors which DFCCIL plans to build in future and not anything else. Thewikizoomer (talk) 10:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India is the owner and the operator of the Dedicated freight corridors in India, having two articles on same subject is confusing. Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India is a govt. undertaking company that owns, operates the freight corridors. I highly recommend on merging this article with Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India. Thewikizoomer (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support This will absolutely help enough to avoid any confusion.-- ❯❯❯ Pra vega g=9.8 10:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * please re-state your position due to venue change (move request → merge request). Thanks. GenQuest  "scribble" 09:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment should have this been done by WP:MERGE, not WP:RM, requesting a merge rather than a page move (based on the templates used)?  Dank Jae  23:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * please re-state your position due to venue change (move request → merge request). Thanks. GenQuest  "scribble" 09:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India (DFCCIL) like National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited (NHSRCL) is an organisation (or in layman terms state owned company). 'Dedicated Freight Corridors in India' is in my opinion better suited title for the infrastructure, and it would also be easily accessible. However, I am unable to understand the purpose of the merge. Why would a merge of an infrastructure article with the company that built it be plausible? It is same as merging China Railway High-speed with High-speed rail in China article. Footy2000♡; 20:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * please re-state your position due to venue change (move request → merge request). Thanks. GenQuest  "scribble" 09:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose: My position stands for reasons mentioned in the earlier comment.
 * Footy2000♡; 09:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * DFCCIL is the builder and operator of the dedicated freight corridor lines. The freight corridors are for the exclusive use of DFCCIL's freight trains. Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Same goes for the China High Speed Railway that operates HSR in China and same goes for NHSRCL that is currently building to operate High-speed rail in India. But they don't see a merged article. One is a state owned company the other is the infrastructure itself. The company's information shall be kept within its article. If the company is insignificant to have its article then the infrastructure article's title should stay for easier access of the subject. Footy2000♡; 09:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose: If there is no reason for there to be two articles, general practice is to merge the company's article into the infrastructure's article rather than the other way around.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with the merge proposal, but it should indeed absolutely be the other way around, with the corporation page merged into the infrastructure one. Choucas Bleu  (T·C) 15:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree as mentioned in my previous response. Footy2000♡; 03:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)