Talk:Korea Train Express/Archive 1

Off-topic or not (edit conflicts)
In the section describing the modal shift achieved by the KTX, non-registered editor 81.111.115.63 recently added a half-sentence about similar success for the TGV, with source. I thought such specific references are off-topic in this article (they would be on-topic in the TGV article) and removed it, but that editor insisted it belongs there and re-inserted it with another reference for Eurostar. Would a Wiki editor other than me (and hopefully with more experience in edit conflicts) voice his/her opinion on this?


 * In my opinion, comparing KTX and TGV without a source for the comparison (not the figures) is WP:SYNTH. Jpatokal (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Another issue: this user also changed the section title "Ridership" into "Passengers", whereas I am accustomed to the former as the proper term for the issue at hand. But English is not my first language, so could someone advise on this, too? --Rontombontom (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ridership is definitely a more precise term. Jpatokal (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do not blame me for the "Ridership" to "Passengers" conversion, if you check the log properly you'll see that it was done by Ettrig, not me. I actually prefer Ridership if my view counts for anything. I'll read over WP:SYNTH. Sorry for taking so long to answer here, I was off on other wiki pages.81.111.115.63 (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Having had a read of WP:Synth, I fail to see the critical synthesis, I see no shaping or combining of the sentence conclusion. It has not in any way changed or altered the degree of the sentence, other than providing background for the trend(which as my understanding of Synth is not incorrect). It was designed to be of by-the-by relivance between high speed trains. Could you explain more clearly why you feel it would belong any more on the TGV article than the KTX one, as I understand it that would simply be flipping it (and putting it into a historically reverse perspective, which isn't exactly encouraged). I am interested in hearing more, I wish to understand the objections full and come to some sort of acceptable and correct conclusion, rather than this abrupt silence on a mildly troubling issue.81.111.115.63 (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Ridership" is an Americanism. When an American "rides the bus",  other English people think they are talking about sitting on the roof like Indians in India do.Eregli bob (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, it is spreading in official documents in the UK, too: for example, Transport of London talks just of bus ridership. --Rontombontom (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Dick size comparison
Jpaktokal, would inserting "citation needed" and asking here in Talk not have been more appropiate than flat-out deletion? For, what you characterised as dick size comparison is Korail's, in the article referenced just before the deleted sentence, and you can find external sources for negation in the linked Wiki sources. I am re-inserting the sentence with slight edit and references added. --Rontombontom (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have two problems with the statement. First, it's not really very important or meaningul for some press release to claim it's the 4th vs the 6th system in the world, and second, your attempts to prove Korail/Rotem wrong here is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, since neither of the sources you added mentions KTX. (By contrast, the cites in the previous paragraph debunking Korail's more significant claim of the KTX-II being 100% Korean are about the KTX.)  So I think the best solution is just to nuke it entirely. Jpatokal (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * On the relative importance of Korail/Rotem/South Korean governmental claims about the trains being Made in Korea and 4th in the world, I disagree with your opinion that one is mere dick size comparison and the other more significant. Both represent a national aspiration to be there among the best, and neither measure they have chosen is of too much import (say, the German ICE 3 is not 100% German technology, either). I also note that even Korail doesn't claim 100% Korean technology explicitely, while the figure from Rotem I inserted is 87%.


 * However, after a close reading of WP:SYNTH, I see I would have to quote an external source explicitely criticising either South Korean claim in a quality article. Incidentally, the only one I found so far is here on Wikipedia, HSR-350x (itself an article all over the place), so I submit for now and nuke the sentence as you wish. I'm removing the debunk-ish part of the foreign technology sentence, too. --Rontombontom (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yay! Looks much better now.  And yes, that HSR-350x article needs a lot of work...  would a joint HSR-350x/KTX-II article make sense? Jpatokal (talk) 04:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Until Rotem doesn't export it under whatever name (to Turkey or Brazil) and KTX-II lacks a service history, a joint article does make sense. But, as you say, lot of work, and I'm working on other articles in my Wiki time... --Rontombontom (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed sentence on foreign suppliers
Ziggymaster, you have removed a sentence without giving a justification either here or in the edit credits. Could you state your reasons? Otherwise, I will revert it.Rontombontom (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

ambiguous information
"While Hyundai Rotem has described[10] the trains as the "commercial outcome" of the HSR-350x, not a TGV derivative, the trains still use some components from European TGV suppliers like Voith.[11] The first six trainsets are scheduled to be delivered in June 2009." Voith is "an" European supplier, not European suppliers. Please do not put any ambiguous sentence that delivers misinformation. Also please do not say "some components" but name those components. Lastly, Voith is a company that not only does TGV supply, but engaging in numerous (mechanical) engineering activities around the world. Thus mentioning Voith as one of European TGV suppliers is inappropriate. It should be something like German/(European less precisely) (mechanical) engineering company. Since the quote above contains much ambiguous and unclarified information, it is removed from the main article now. Any ambiguous sentences or words that are not straigt out from reliable source are subject to removal from the main article.


 * In about one minute on Google, I found two other non-Korean companies, IXYS (propulsion systems) and MBD Design (rolling stock design), that have also worked on the KTX-II. I've corrected "TGV supplier" to "international supplier", but the point here is that Hyundai's claim of these trains being HSR-350x derivatives "based on our own know-how" is, to phrase it nicely, misleading. Jpatokal (talk) 08:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Any person who is not reetarded and has the intelligence quotient of 100 would know that there is no way Rotem can design and manufacture a high-speed train with only "their own know-how". That said, everyone who has a properly functioning brain would know that claim is bullshit. One reason not to trust corporate websites because they are unlikely to be reliable.

no citation at all
Please cite your reference for claiming "The tracks were built with technical assistance from SNCF technicians."


 * From SNCF website: "1999: Assistance in electrifying the Daegu-Busan and Daejon-Mokpo lines. This contract consisted in advising the client on the electrification process for the portion of track between Daegu and Busan. It not just consisted in electrifying the tracks, but also on linking the existing conventional rails to the High Speed line, making their way of functioning compatible and assuring that the KTX got the electrical power suitable in order to operate." Jpatokal (talk) 08:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Besides, "A spur line from Seoul to Gangneung on the northeast coast was under consideration, but seems to have been shelved after Korea's bid for the 2014 Winter Olympics failed." is totally incorrect because this plan was scrapped way before 2014 Winter Olympics host vote, and even before 2010 Winter Olympics host vote. Actually, the plan was tossed in 1998 because it was absolutely uneconomical.


 * Got source? Jpatokal (talk) 08:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

http://frdb2.wo.to/641.htm


 * Broken. Jpatokal (talk) 09:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're not reeetarded just go and click 동서고속철도. If you have at least the intelligence quotient of 100, you could have thought of googling it.


 * I don't see a link called 동서고속철도 (or anything close it) on that page, and I was asking you for reliable sources, not random fanboy (dare I say "kenkanryu"?) sites.


 * And calling people "retarded" is more effective if you spell the word right =) Jpatokal (talk) 08:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

kenkanryu and fanboy are obviously very different. Anyhow, because I did not cite that source in the main article, it did not have to be very dependable. Your problem was that you referenced random kenkanryu websites in the main article. See the difference? BTW, Click on 개통시기별 to see 동서고속철도 you duuumaasss. If you want a reliable source, go and google it you jeeerrrk.

Again, if you are not reeetarded and have the intelligence of 100, you would know that correctly spelled reeetarded might automatically call someone's attention. 凸 ^_^ 凸 Oh, don't forget to mention what was your source in the bottom section. 61.99.38.197 (talk) 07:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

no supporting source and incorrect information
It's jpatokal again. Let me go over your bogus inputs. "The initial trainsets are TGV-A models with minor modifications." (Added at 12:24 on 17AUG2004) - Yes, KTX trainsets are based on TGV-A models, but who said "with minor modifications?" They are based on TGV-A trainsets, however KTX transets have few significant differences from TGV-A; for instance, increased number of passenger cars of which two have motors to supply extra power inputs for additional passenger cars, regenerative braking system, traction equipments. I'm not sure if you can call them minor modifications unless you know how to do them. "The next generation of KTX trains, the HSR-350x, is based on the TGV-R trainset, but with over 80% locally produced in Korea. The trains may be introduced into service as early as 2008." (Added at 12:24 on 17AUG2007) "The next generation of KTX trains, the HSR-350x (KTX II), is based on the TGV-R trainset, but with over 80% locally produced in Korea. The trains may be introduced into service as early as 2009." (Edited at 05:28 on 4JUL2008 to add "KTX II") - What's your source for this? Please don't tell me that you quoted this from a random kenkanryu Japanese rail publication. First KTX-II is not HSR-350x. Although you can say KTX-II is based on HSR-350x, they are not the same. You will find differences in traction systems, the former equips IGCT and the latter equips IGBT; maximum capable speed; motors; braking mechanisms. Next, the train is not based on TGV-R trainset at all. While Alstom gave some high-speed technologies to S.Korea as a part of TGV purchase deal, core technologies or technologies considered important were kept away. Therefore it was not possible to design KTX-II based on any TGV type, and even the technologies that S.Korea obtained were patented or licensed to Alstom. Overall, the only remarkable TGV technology that is incorporated in KTX-II is wheel part (including Jacobs bogie). According to the manufacturer, Rotem(Hyundai), 92% of KTX-II is locally produced. "A further improvement to 1 hour and 56 minutes on the Gyeongbu Line is expected in 2010, when the train will begin to run entirely on high-speed tracks." (Edited at 12:28 on 17AUG2007) - Where the hell did you get this information. No such thing as improvement to 1:56 will happen in 2010 or in next some years. In fact, it will not break under two hours in the foreseeable future. That's because KTX will not run entirely on high-speed track in the foreseeable future.

jpatokal, what do you know about S.Korea? Obviously you could not even differentiate between Jeonju bibimbap and Jinju bibimbap, then introduced Jinju bibimbap as a famous Korean cuisine and Jinju being famous for its bibimbap on Wikipedia(Wikitravel). Go and ask any Korean if they have ever heard Jinju bibimbap or Jinji is famous for bibimbap. I've seen numerous Korean restaurants carrying Jeonju bibimbap in their menu, but never seen Jinju bibimbap. Also, what do you know about engineering? Are you professional in an engineering field? If not, why do you publish information that you don't know about. I doubt if you know much about S.Korea or TGV engineering, but you add and edit so much on this KTX page by referencing some random Japanese kenkanryu source. "The next generation of KTX trains, the HSR-350x (KTX II), is based on the TGV-R trainset, but with over 80% locally produced in Korea. The trains may be introduced into service as early as 2009." This is what was exactly published in "Japan Railfan Magazine" a while ago. While there is no question about Japan having superior train technology than S.Korea, the article in "Japan Rail Magazine" did take very pejorative tone in describing KTX.

If you know not much about S.Korea or engineering, why do you not stop delivering misinformation in this page? Just leave it so that those people who really know the technical details of KTX would edit this page. In the meantime you can go to "2ch" or any other kenkanryu website, and mock KTX or contempt it. Wikipedia is not the place where you can do kenkanryu stuff.


 * Paula, is that you?


 * I wrote the very first version of this article back in 2004, drew the map, and took that train picture on my first KTX ride. I even created the original Korean Wikipedia stub for the KTX!  My primary sources included the English-language Korean media and, later, was JRTR's article in 2005, written by Kim Chun-Hwan, General Director of High-Speed Rail at KORAIL.  If you have better or newer sources, by all means please update the article, but please provide your sources.


 * Finally, I have no idea what Jinju bibimbap has to do with KTX, but it's the first local speciality mentioned on the official Jinju tourism site. While not as famous as Jeonju's version, it's available everywhere in Jinju, and it's pretty good stuff too. Jpatokal (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Dude, are you dyslexic? Where the hell in that article says KTX-II is based on TGV-R and over 80% locally produced in S.Korea? If you have functioning eyes, read these. http://www.hani.co.kr/section-021003000/2004/11/021003000200411030533019.html http://news.mk.co.kr/newsRead.php?year=2007&no=243691 The first article states that KTX-II is not based on any TGV, and mentions that KTX-II utilizes only one patent, wheel part (Jacobs bogie) as mentioned above, licensed to TGV. The second article states that KTX-II is 92% locally produced in S.Korea. http://www.donga.com/fbin/output?n=200608230222 This article says the trip from Seoul to Busan will take 130 minutes when the new tracks via Gyeongju are completed. Why 130min? Because they are not going to build HSR tracks through Daejeon and Daegu due to cost.

jpatokal, again what do you know about S.Korea or engineering? If you do know neither S.Korea nor engineering in detail, please leave this article to those who really know the stuffs about KTX so that they will edit it. You are just blabbing without knowing anything.

Also could you please stop making ridiculous excuses like you did in bibimbap article? Why did you make bullshit excuses above and reverted what I edited? Just admit that you quoted from "Japan Railfan Magazine". Although I do not know about KTX in detail as much as professionals do, I do know about KTX more than you do for sure. Why did I mention bibimbap here? Just to point out that you know totally nothing about S.Korea. It's annoying to see you publishing wrong information about S.Korea on Wikipedia and Wikitravel. Just put your hands away from S.Korea stuff if you don't know. BTW, bibimbap is available in any Korean restaurant, and the bibimbap picture with "Jinju bibimbap" title that you posted in Jinju article and S.Korea article was NOT Jinju bibimbap, but Jeonju bibimbap okay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.213.74.39 (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Good, now put your sources into the article.


 * As for the whole KTX-II/HSR-350x mess, let's see if I've got this straight. The original KTX-I, or "TGV-K", is a slightly customized TGV-Atlantique/Reseau (aka TGV-A/R, it's just different variants of the same basic train).  The HSR-350x, now "Hanvit 350", is a Korean-built experimental high speed train; it's never going to enter mass production as such.  The KTX-II has been sold by Hyundai and the Korean media as "fully indigenous" ; however, they're using European TGV suppliers like Voith Turbo, who say in their own press release that "This train is a further development of the TGV-based Korea Train eXpress KTX I".


 * Do you agree with the above? If no, do you have reliable sources to the contrary? Jpatokal (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, dude. Your article is totally unreliable. I didn't even finish reading because even the first paragraph is incorrect. Your source says KTX-II will be used on the new high-speed tracks between Daegu and Busan. But it will NOT. This is just one good proof that how UNRELIABLE your source is.


 * The first source is from 2004, of course network plans have changed since then. That doesn't mean that the article's description of the technology in the existing KTX-I trains is incorrect! Jpatokal (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Scrap off that please. Go thru some disinterested articles which will provide better insightful information than your questionable source. "This train is a further development of the TGV-based Korea Train eXpress KTX I" This is totally a statement from one company which knows hardly anything about KTX-II in detail. Rotem is NOT permitted to conduct development of any component or part equipped in KTX-I because that is considered abusing patents licensed to Alstom. If Rotem does that, they will be sued by Alstom right away. Most of all, the author of your source does not even know where KTX-II will be used. Hence it's obvious that the three sources that I provided is million times more reliable than your doubtful source. If you have a brain, think. How would the supplier of coupler(bogie) would know that KTX-II is a further development of KTX-I? FYI, it's wouldn't be wrong to say that KTX-II is a further development of HSR-350x because KTX-II is a mass production version of HSR-350x although they did make some modifications, but it is definitely wrong to say KTX-II is a further development of KTX-I. Also, HSR-350x has entered mass production for Turkey although I'm not sure if there were some modifications from the original HSR-350x. You're just a kenkanryu guy.

BTW, how could you say that "TGV-A/R, it's just different variants of the same basic train"? TGV-A and TGV-R look very different to me. First, traction equipments with motors are different. Car body materials are different. Trainset-consists are different. They might look the same to you because you absolutely know NOTHING, but try to derive TGV-R from TGV-A on your own labor. To me, TGV-R looks much advanced than TGV-A. This is just as absurd as it can be.

Lastly, could you tell me what is your source of "The next generation of KTX trains, the HSR-350x (KTX II), is based on the TGV-R trainset, but with over 80% locally produced in Korea. The trains may be introduced into service as early as 2009." this quote? I did NOT find that quote in any of your references provided in the KTX article. Why do you edit the article without providing a valid source when you ask others to do so? Because you're just a hypocrite?


 * Thanks for adding the sources. Yes, the TGV Reseau (1992-1996) is newer than the TGV Atlantique (1988-1991), but it's still fundamentally the same &mdash; the only significant difference mentioned on WP is that the TGV-R is pressure-sealed, and so is the KTX &mdash; and that's why some sources say that KTX is based on TGV-R  and some say that it's based on TGV-A . Which one is more correct? Should we list both?


 * And no, I can't find a source claiming that the HSR-350x is based on the TGV. Obviously Alstom's (now rejected) proposal for the KTX-II was based on the TGV though, and the source may have been referring to that instead, so it's good that the confusion is now sorted out. Jpatokal (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

When you say "some sources", shouldn't you cite more than one?


 * (by SNCF!) ... Jpatokal (talk) 08:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The source that you provided mentioning KTX-I is based on TGV-R must have been either typo or it's just they have no clue. BTW, how can TGV-A and TGV-R be fundamentally the same when they have different traction equipments and weights? Most of all, TGV-R is considerably lighter than TGV-A by replacing steel with aluminum and adapting hollow axles. This is not something to be disregarded because it makes a distinguishable difference in construction cost. Had KTX-I designed after TGV-R, they could have reduced the weight of trainset substantially. Consequently, that would have resulted in saving construction cost. When construction cost sums up to billions of dollars, saving even 1% does make a difference. Besides, Alstom announced that KTX would be based on TGV-A.


 * Do you have a source for Alstom announcing this? It would be an excellent reference. Jpatokal (talk) 08:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

For KTX, they added eight extra passenger cars, and one car on each end of the trainset are equipped with motor unit so that additional power can be delivered for pulling the eight extra cars. Therefore it's more correct to say that KTX-I is based on TGV-A. Also, please don't call "we" here since I'm uninterested in cooperating with someone who just cites from random Japanese kenkanryu sources.


 * I haven't cited any Japanese sites at all, unless you count the one article in JRTR, which was written by Korail's own head of high-speed rail. Jpatokal (talk) 08:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

blah blah blah, what a ffucccking bullllshhiit. Then what was the source? jpatokal, you just give damn too much diiiiirrrrrty excuses. Just be straight man. It's just too evident that you kiss Japaneses' aaaasssss.

Comparisons
I deleted a sentence at the end of the Ridership section saying,


 * This compares favourably, for example, with the French TGV, which in its fourth calendar year of operation carried an average of about 38,000 passengers per day.

This claim is unsourced, compares apples and oranges, and is incoherent in the text. One could speak of a 'favourable comparison' would the first TGV line have had the same catchment area (demand side), and the same construction costs (supply side). The latter are much higher for the KTX, meaning a need for much higher passenger numbers to break even financially, which was also reflected by the initial ridership projections quoted in the text. I added a half-sentence to emphasize this circumstance. Rontombontom (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The claim is sourced, but not in the content of the page, but in the "edit summary". It could have been in the text with a clear link to the TGV article on the French wikipedia (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV#Activit.C3.A9), but I felt it was an overkill (subjective).


 * As to the comparison, again, I know that these two high-speed rail projects are not the same (are any two of high-speed rail projects?). But still, I think a comparison does help to understand what the ridership numbers are. I think a broader comparison, involving ridership on every high-speed line that was built as first in a country would give a nice perspective on the KTX ridership, but data for that might be difficult to obtain.


 * Finally, as to the costs, the amount of French investment in the TGV was well above the Korean one. Do not forget, the French have carried a long and costly R&D on the TGV; the Koreans have bought the developed technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kowart (talk • contribs) 17:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * First, I am sorry for such a late reply when you replied almost instantly. I somehow completely forgot about this, and only saw it now when reviewing the fate of my older Wikipedia edits.


 * As to the sourcing. You can give multiple links for the same source (you have to name the reference - e.g. someting like name="ClaimSource" in the ref tag - on the first occasion, and when using it again, you just have to copy that opening ref tag, and end the tag with /> instead of just a > ). An other-language Wiki article is not a source; if that article is sourced, then that can be the source, otherwise, the French-language WIki has the same problem. I will now look into that.


 * Above I misread you and didn't get what you referred to with "edit summary", now I did... But, when quoting figures, or more, when calculating figures as I now see you did, it's better to source in the article.


 * I have looked at the French Wiki, where I found the annual passenger numbers -- unfortunately, unsourced. However, I managed to track down the source, added it to the French and German Wikipedia articles, and then added both the table and the source to the English TGV article, too. Then I could insert a comparison into the KTX article, with a qualification as I argued for below, hope it is okay with everyone that way.Rontombontom (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As to the comparison, again: it does not help to compare apples and oranges. This applies at the other end of the spectrum, too: there are lines in Spain with catchment area population, passenger numbers and line construction costs below that of the French line; thus it would be invalid for a critic to compare the two on the basis of passenger numbers alone. If you want to use the French example for a ballpark comparison, at least also give the respective populations at the two ends of the line, and the line construction costs.


 * As to the costs: your argument with R&D costs is irrelevant for three grounds. First, you have to separate R&D costs from the costs of a line: the train development obviously benefitted later lines, too. Second, while R&D is costly in time and money, it is still dwarfed by the cost of the resulting batch of orders. For scale, some figures: the TGV train and test series that achieved the world record costed €30 million (source), the development of the AGV, the effective reinvention of the TGV, costs €100 million - while the first order for 25 trains is worth €650 million (see this article). Even assuming that all five test trains in the TGV development program (X4300 TGS, Z8001 Zébulon, TGV 001, TGV Sud-Est 01 and 02) incurred relative costs as high as the AGV, that could equal the cost of just 20 sets - while the initial order was for 87 sets. Third, the cost of the trains is again dwarfed by the cost of line construction. Rontombontom (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice research, but unfortunately it's all original research and thus not appropriate. The KTX was criticized for not meeting its own targets, not some hypothetical comparison to the TGV. Jpatokal (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have not posted and did not plan to post the above information and Talk argument as part of the article. I am okay with your removal of the (older) passage; though, having omitted any links, it wasn't even WP:OR.Rontombontom (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguities

 * In December 2004, South Korea joined the ranks of high speed train countries of France, Germany and Japan when locally-developed KTX broke the 350km/h speed barrier.

It looks like 161.149.63.106 parroted South Korean news reports. What is the definition of "high speed train countries?" Too ambiguous. --Nanshu 00:59, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The definition of high speed train countries is a country that has developed a train that has a maximum speed above 300kmph. (Wikimachine 21:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC))


 * You're doubly incorrect and I've reverted your edit. First, the high-speed rail article states the limit is 200 km/h; second, even with the 300 km/h limit Spain, Belgium, Italy and China also qualify. Jpatokal 04:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

the demand fell short of the initial expection of 70% -- does this mean demand was 70% of the expected figure (0.7x), or 70% less than the expected figure (0.3x)? What are the actual ridership figures? And a cite for the prime minister's quote, please, Google News finds nothing. Jpatokal 15:05, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The former. --Nanshu 14:44, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not sure I like the term "ridership". This is not a common one in English. May I suggest "Passenger usage"? Or just plain "usage"? --User:IantheLibrarian 22:18, 8 JUL 2006 (BST)


 * "Ridership" is a quite often used standard term in American railroad literature. See for example | APTA statistics page. Less used in Britain, where they say "frequentation" or just "Passenger numbers". Rontombontom (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

At least when I worked on the high-speed rail article, it was different.
 * "The countries that have developed high-speed rail technology include: Japan, France, China, Italy, Germany, the United Kingdom, Korea, and Spain."

Also the article states that limit is 250km/h-300km/h, not 200km/h. You wouldn't reject this. Right? Thanks. (Wikimachine 03:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC))


 * I will reject it, because it's irrelevant. This is about KTX, not other countries or their rail systems. All you're trying to do is prove that Korea is somehow superior because it has this technology and some other countries don't, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. Jpatokal 06:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent KTX crash?
Apparently, there was an accident recently, involving two KTX trains... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.76.57.38 (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right on that, 2 KTX trains collided inside Busan Station in the early morning of November 3. I've only found news report of it in Korean, including this one, containing a video report showing the crash. The damages were minor and there were no casualties, so this is probably why it hasn't been so big in the news. The article seems to mention a possibility of a problem about the signaling system. — Luccas 11:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Reassessment
I have reclassified this article as a C. Ideally a B should have more subsections, I would expect a section on the technical details and another on the origins for the KTX program. In addition referencing needs to be extended and increased, which will be easiest hand in hand with the new sections if someone more fluent in the Korean language cares to found. This should make this article of more worth to people looking for information on the KTX; in essence a past, present, and future of the KTX would be desirable, we have the current and future network plans, but the development and origins deserves a section of its own with far more detail upon how it as a concept came to be, is it simply the idea of one government for instance? I wish this article and its editors luck in this challenge, and may drop in to lend a hand from time to time.86.155.132.194 (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is "start class" hopeful C to be honest (opinion). The "passenger numbers and usage" section is GOOD (I didn't write it), the history section needs expansion. Dates, construction challenge, length, companies etc, better overview of why it was built (city sizes?) etc.


 * I've done some expansion on rolling stock, still in progress. + sectionalise. I can't/won't do the other bits on history - probably need a fluent korean reader.77.86.42.133 (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the compliments on the "passenger numbers and usage" section (I wrote most of it :-) ). Now I expanded the history section greatly. Re-assessment? --Rontombontom (talk) 13:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that a lot of the older citations need format cleanup... will do tomorrow. --Rontombontom (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Format changes
I've changed the sections into:
 * History (by chronology of line construction)
 * Rolling stock (links to individual articles) (KTX-II under construction, also HEMU.. later)

Having separate articles for rolling stock seems standard practice. Please feel free to expand on operations of the rolling stock if relevent in the individual articles. As the info is referenced systematically in the "main" articles I haven't bothered to extensively reference the abstracts linking to the rolling stock articles.

Although I've added section headings to the "history of lines" section I haven't expanded it, someone else may want to look at that.77.86.42.133 (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Supplimentary question
There's a korean tilting train in development (or maybe already in production) - is this relevent to this article - or is it for a different service (non-high speed lines?) anyone know? Thanks.Shortfatlad (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * From what I've read, it is meant to improve the speeds on the older lines. The new High Speed lines are mainly straight, while many of the older Korean branch lines have tight curves. Think of the Virgin SuperVoyager in the UK, a similar role to that, homegrown. It also doesn't get close to 200 Kmph, so it hasn't been built for speed even on the 'old' mainline routes still in operation. Kyteto (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * KTX is compatible for two kinds of rail lines, old one(Daegu-Busan) and new one (Seoul-Daegu). New one is already constructed (in other words.. upgraded) and can boost speed up to above 300 km/h. Old one is conventional rail line which other kinds of train(Sarmaul / Moogoonwha) uses. Also KTX can use that line but speed is limited to 120 km/h for technical reason. (as article says... upgrading is in process)


 * In addition, all KTX trains travel up to 300km/h from Seoul~Daegu and travel 120km after Daegu. (I'm kinda KTX-holic lol) -- Modamoda (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits - is there a problem
The recent edits seem to be doing and undoing each other (jan 2010) - are there any current issues with the article? If so please discusss here first.Shortfatlad (talk) 12:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Can I suggest this point http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korea_Train_Express&oldid=337982849 as a starting point from which the article should be discussed for changes - I note several issues in general:


 * 1. The section part " Hyundai Rotem has described the trains as the "commercial outcome" of the HSR-350x, ..." has been removed - is their a reason for this?
 * 2. The section HEMU-400X - is there a reason why it is removed
 * 3. The main image - what is best - please discuss
 * 4. Whether or not KTX-II has replaced KTX-I, and other changes to the lead section.


 * 1. I would also like to know why Softjuice keeps removing this.
 * 2. The HEMU-400X info is still in the article?
 * 3. I think the new KTX-II image is fine.
 * 4. Obviously it has not "replaced" KTX-I yet, the KTX-II has not even started commercial service yet. (According to ja-wp, service is scheduled to start with the Honam Line in April 2010.) Jpatokal (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. Dunno.
 * 2. HEMU 400X is currently in the article - I can't see why it shouldn't be there.
 * 3. Not bothered either way - an image with both types of train together would be truly iconic. -We haven't got one -yet.
 * 4. k. I would expect KTX-I to continue for many years (only 9 years old) - train life is usually decades - so I think the new ones will suppliment them.
 * I removed references to a bullet train - the generic term is used a bit - in Korea do they call it the bullet train?Shortfatlad (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Move
Technical issues and accidents (KTX-I). This incidents are all TGV based KTX-I incidents. Irrelevant to KTX2, KTX3, and whole Korea Trains. Irrelevant to this topic. Moreover, KTX2, KTX3, Both trains largely different from KTX1. (KTX1 is exactly French TGV train. KTX2 and KTX3 are almost Korean technology) And both trains has not reported problems.Ssyublyn (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for revealing the reason for your move. So, no: they're KTX accidents, and belong in the KTX main article, in the same way that TGV, Shinkansen etc list their accidents in the main article. Jpatokal (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No. they're KTX1 accidents. Not the whole KTX systems. KTX1 is wholly different from KTX2 and 3. Topic is belong in the KTX1 main article. Title name is "Technical issues and accidents". The only technical issue was KTX1 system. It pretty vague incidents though. (tunnels, trackbed etc, those are not cleary connenct with Technical issue of KTX1) Also KTX2 is only one train running. no problem reported. Unlike your claim, Shinkansen is not list their accidents in the main article.Ssyublyn (talk) 00:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * KTX1 : Exactly import of French TGV. The license, intellectual property rights and whole technical issues relate to French TGV. It should not permit to export or selling.
 * KTX2, KTX3 : The license, intellectual property rights belong to Korean company. wholly different from TGV. It can freely export ot selling.
 * tunnels, trackbed etc, those are not Technical issue of train.Ssyublyn (talk) 01:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That's exactly right: this article is about the KTX system as a whole, not the KTX-1 train, which is why all information about KTX issues and accidents belongs on this page.


 * Is it only reason of your edit? poor reason. All of its Acciddents are KTX-1 trian. And some of its topic has nothing to do with KTX. (tunnels, trackbed etc, those are not cleary connenct with Technical issue of KTX1) And some of its topic was not "accident".
 * KTX-1 is wholly difference train from KTX-2. license, intellectual property rights of KTX-2 & 3 are not belong to French TGV.
 * All of incidents are KTX1 accidents. And you very confused "Korail" from "KTX". Korain is operated KTX. But, KTX is not Korail. eg. Tunnel design responsible for construction comapany. It was not belong to KTX subject.Ssyublyn (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * And Shinkansen does list their accidents at Shinkansen &mdash; it's just that they have had almost no accidents! Jpatokal (talk) 08:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Almost no accident? Are you kidding? What is this ? How about Shinkansen derail accident at 2004? How about accident of escape bolt during run at 1998? What is these? I can find Shinkan accidents more if you want. but simply out of topic at here. Ssyublyn (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Links 1 and 4 are about the derailment accident in 1994 (the only derailment accident, to be precise) which is already mentioned in the Shinkansen article. Links 2 and 3 are about people committing suicide by jumping in front of trains, which is already mentioned in the Shinkansen article.  And link 5 is a list of other Japanese train accidents that doesn't seem to have anything at all to do with Shinkansen, except for one more mention of somebody being hit by a train.  But hey, if you're unhappy with the Shinkansen article, go improve it.
 * "if you're unhappy with the Shinkansen article, go improve it." Later. Not here.


 * Amagasaki rail crash


 * March 4, 1971: Collision at a level-crossing on a line of Fuji Express Railways: 14 killed, 68 injured.


 * October 25, 1971: Head-on collision in a tunnel of Kinki Nippon Railways: 25 killed, 236 injured.


 * November 6, 1972: Train fire in the Hokuriku tunnel of JNR: 31 killed, 637 injured.


 * December 28, 1986: Trains fall from a railway bridge on the Sanin line of JNR: 6 killed, 6 injured.


 * December 5, 1988: Rear-end collision on the Chuo line of JR East: 2 killed, 109 injured (The first accident after the privatization of JNR)


 * May 14, 1991: Head-on collision on a line of Shigaraki-Kogen Railways: 42 killed, 614 injured.


 * December 27, 1995: Accident at Mishima Station on the Shinkansen line of JR Central: 1 passenger killed. The first fatal accident since the inauguration of the Shinkansen line in 1964.


 * March 8, 2000: Tokyo subway hits a derailed train: 5 killed, 33 injured.


 * April 25, 2005: Derailment in Amagasaki on the Fukuchiyama Line of JR West: 107 killed, 461 injured.


 * We says these are cleary shinkansen "accident". Ssyublyn (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah.. i found some interesting news, you can read this


 * ＪＲ西に事故やトラブルの説明を申し入れ　脱線事故遺族ら
 * ... 月の山陽新幹線の保守車両による衝突事故や、同社車掌が電車から予備電源装置のヒューズを抜き取った事件など、ＪＲ西で起きた最近の事故などを指摘. これらについ ... 2010 9月9日（木） 20時54分-社会（産経新聞）-記事Ssyublyn (talk) 11:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * And oh, a tunnel built for the KTX and used only by the KTX is definitely a part of the KTX. Korail is only a company, in the same way that JR is a company (well, many companies). Jpatokal (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * tunnel is not desigend by KTX. What is the realtion with KTX? Tunnel built by Construction company which offered by Ministry of Construction and Transportation. If tunnel design is really matter, it should include at this link Ssyublyn (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * (Reply re-formatted]
 * This article is about the KTX system -- which includes trains, depots, track, signalling and superstructure, and doesn't exclude any of those. Thus even accidents that would be related to KTX-I trains only would belong here.
 * Until March this year, KTX-I was the only type KTX operated with, thus even if accidents would be related to specific technologies of this one train type and not to that of others, this train type is very much central to KTX operation up to now, and there was not much time for the existence or lack of existence of similar problems to be seen in KTX-II service.
 * You seem to assume that train breakdowns are solely the result of design faults. But train breakdowns also result from quality problems of parts, improper maintenance, specific stresses on the railway line they are operated on, improper operation by train divers or dispatchers, vandalism, and weather; all of which could affect other ROTEM-built vehicles similarly.
 * Ballast flying, and danger to humans resulting from ballast flying, is chiefly an infrastructure issue (the very use of ballast: it doesn't happen on ballastless track; the siting, dimensioning and protective fences on bridges etc.) and also related to maintenance (is ballast getting on top of sleepers, how regular is tamping etc.). The sole vehicle-related factor is the aerodynamics of the underframe, and the TGV is supposed to be rather good in that (it was Germany's ballastless track optimised ICE3 that had to be retrofitted for running at top speed on high-speed lines in Belgium and France).
 * A collision at an end station has nothing whatsoever to do with the train type, it has to do with the train driver, the station dispatcher and the signalling system.
 * Problems with tunnels have nothing to do with the train types.
 * Why do you list accidents with non-high-speed trains occuring on non-high-speed lines as if those were related to the Shinkansen?
 * I see that after you first deleted a whole section, there have been several back and forth edit reverts while the discussion was still on-going here. I suggest that, to avoid such edit wars (WP:EW), you follow WP:ATD, in particular the Discussion point, before doing disputed deletions.
 * On a purely stylistic point, for better readability, I corrected the indentations in the exchange between you two above.


 * For a more constructive collaboration, if you are a native speaker of Korean can I request some research, in particular further details and updates on those points of technical issues?
 * * Has KTX invested into retrofitting the tunnels on the first stage for fire safety since? How do the even longer tunnels on section 2 fare (say, what is the distance of emergency exits, are there any bi-tube tunnels etc.)?
 * * The 160 breakdowns: I gleaned as much from the available sources that this report was political, prepared by one party, and its authors were mistaken at least about their assumption that the use of used parts from other trains is a result of shortage (rather than quite standard practice in train maintenance). What I couldn't ascertain is how serious these 160 breakdowns were: say, does it mean the trains stopped, or could it involve the mere failure of a toilet?
 * * Did KTX/Korail implement any measures against flying ballast after that accident?
 * * What was the result, if any was published, of the investigation into the collision in Busan? (Dispatcher fired etc.)
 * * Was there an update on displacements and crack propagation in Hwanghak Tunnel?


 * I'd appreciate anything you can find on the above. --Rontombontom (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * irreravant this dispute.Ssyublyn (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If you check its description carefully. (tunnel, supply of spare parts, gravel on ground, human error) It was neither Technical issue nor Accident.(tunnels, trackbed etc, those are not cleary connenct with Technical issue of KTX1) And there is no human killed by technical fault of KTX train.
 * 160 breakdowns only happend in KTX-1 which TGV import model.
 * Korail is not exactly KTX1. KTX1 is part of Korail. All of problem happen only in KTX1.
 * Tunnel design is nothing relation with KTX.
 * very tiny technical issue are not notable at wikipedia.
 * No serious accident and injury yet.Ssyublyn (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Replies with the same numbering:
 * Lack of fire safety is a technical issue. Failure of a train is a technical issue (and anincident; I could add that to the title). Flying ballast is a technical issue, and ballast hitting bystanders is an accident. A collision, even if low-speed, is an accident. Tunnel construction and the management of cracks, in particular when the cracks cause track distortions, are technical issues.
 * In my earlier point 3), I explained the many factors that can be behind train failures -- you neither reacted to that, nor did you present any evidence that any of those 160 failures were due to faulty design. As implied by my earlier point 2), those 160 failures occurred with 40 KTX-I trains over more than two years, while the first few KTX-II are in operation for a few months only, and no one presented failure statistics yet. (I also note the significant reduction of failures from the first to the second year.) In my extra note, I noted that the 160 failures were presented without any qualification (did all those trains stop on the line? Or are WC failures and other minor problems necessitating a visit to the depot included?) by a political party, and there has been no update since which I could find. You didn't react to any of these.
 * Same as 1).
 * How would tunnel design not be related to KTX?...
 * Which of the five points in the section are you characterising as "very tiny technical issue"? And with what authority are you telling me that?
 * No serious accident, but flying ballast was serious injury.
 * I have no choice but to undo your latest edits, which you again implemented before consensus was reached here in the discussion. But I will add "KTX-I" in the points where it is accurate.


 * As a meta-comment, it appears to me that you view the issue of KTX accidents and technical issues as if it were an issue of national pride, in particular, in comparison with other countries; hence your insistence to find an external blame and the comparison above with Japan. However, I don't see why. I didn't add this section (only improved it), and didn't like it much in its original form (that's why I read the sources and sought out more), but I am a railway professional and I view these as simple technical issues -- what's more, ones that have been raised in a South Korean domestic context. Furthermore, I don't see any but the first (the tunnel safety issue) as all that serious, in particular in international comparison. In fact, they might be even less serious (including those "160 failures"), but to evidence that, we'd need information on updates to these issues, which I couldn't find so far, and that's why I asked for cooperation. --Rontombontom (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Seeing that you discovered a dead link, I noticed that the ballast throw incident was the only one I didn't check on. From what I could find, it appears it was a more serious incident apparently caused by a loose screw on a damper, a clear maintenance issue. I also found this where negligence, and behind that staff working hours(? I'm not sure I read that right) are surmised as the reason, but the definite end result of the investigation is what would be needed for the Wikipedia article. --Rontombontom (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sound like a WP:OR.Ssyublyn (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As I quoted when this spilled over to my Talk page: The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. Above I dug up publication of facts by reliable sources. --Rontombontom (talk) 08:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Unlike Shinakansen and Taiwan high railway and Chinese high raily way, Only KTX highlited very tiny incidents as Accident.
 * I commented there is no accident or injury reported.
 * I suggest completely removing that part. It is not notable, and wikipedai is not newspaer.Ssyublyn (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If you find sources on multiple Shinkansen and THSRC accidents, incidents and technical issues, you are free to add those on a separate section in those articles; just as other editors were free to add the Other accidents section to the article on Germany's ICE and the Accidents section to the article on France's TGV; but, neither of those concern the KTX article. What you write below is more like the discussion I wished for with you; but I again request that you also stop pre-empting the reaching of conclusion by continuing the edit war on the article. --Rontombontom (talk) 08:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Check it out. Was it really "Technical issues, incidents and accidents"?
 * Lawmakers criticised the safety of Korail's tunnels after the Ministry of Construction and Transportation ...
 * Lawmakers did not criticised the safety of Korail's tunnels. There is no single word "safety" in that source.
 * If Lawmakers criticised, it was to 'Ministry of Construction and Transportation' and construction company. Not the KTX and Korail.


 * If you don't like "safety", "fire preventing standards" from the original source is no problem with me (except methinks "fire prevention standard" is the correct English), but I don't see a qualitative difference. The subject of the criticism was Korail's tunnels, including KTX tunnels; the address of the criticism (which wasn't the construction companies) is irrelevant to its subject, and the fact that the subject is directly relevant to the KTX. If you think that KTX's tunnels - as they are in operation today - don't have a fire safety issue, then, as I requested earlier, please present a source that says that Korail did implement changes on the tunnels relative to the state the construction companies handed over the tunnels in. --Rontombontom (talk) 08:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "fire preventing standards" from the original source is no problem with me. But you ignore fact that the tunnel was not KTX tunnel. The tunnel was not only used by KTX but also Normal Train. So it is not KTX tunnel. And it was not techinical issue of train. Ssyublyn (talk) 10:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * According to an investigation by the Grand National Party released in October 2006, KTX-I trains broke down 160 times
 * The early model of KTX1 had some problem at intial operate. KTX1 was French made TGV train. Not the whole KTXs.
 * Desipte the breakdown rate at early operaion of French TGV based KTX-I, breakdown rate sharply dropped in recent years (breakdown rate : 0.304% in 2004. 0.062% in 2008).The source cleary confirmed.[


 * Old source (year 2006): The lawmaker Yun Doo-Hwan released in October 2006, the TGV based KTX-I broke down 160 times (81 times in 2004, 50 times in 2005, and 29 times in 2006 until the end of August).


 * However, According to recent year (2009) source.


 * Quote : 개통 첫해 운전 장애가 81건 발생해 고장률(100만㎞당 고장건수) 0.304%를 기록했던 KTX는 그러나 이후 제 궤도에 접어들면서 고장률이 현저히 줄어 작년에는 0.062%(운전장애 27건)로 크게 감소했다.
 * ((2009-3-29)The first year-2004- operation of KTX, 81 times broke down. breakdown rate was 0.304%. But, breakdown rate sharply dropped. In now, 0.062% in last year(2008).)


 * First, as sufficiently detailed in the history section, KTX-I is not a "French made TGV train" (and certainly not a TGV Réseau). It is, on one hand, a train type designed in France (on the basis of the TGV Réseau). On the other hand, it is a series with the first dozen manufactured in France, but all the rest manufactured in South Korea.
 * KTX-I was French designed / Imported model. Its design and standard guided by Alstom. The license belong to Alstom. If you want this, I can provide evidence.Ssyublyn (talk) 10:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Second, you failed to evidence with any source that all the breakdowns reported in 2006 were related solely to the design of the trains, and not to any of the other potential causes (such as quality of material and assembly, which for most trains was in South Korea; improper maintenance in the KTX depot, improper operation by train drivers, vandalism by passengers and passers-by, external causes including objects falling on the track and extreme weather -- I listed these to you once before).
 * There is no need that I should provide problem was solely to the design of the trains. My edit was not said, it was design problem. I inserted information that what parts were troubled and replaced. " Korail replaced battery, charge controller, circuit breaker, stop light, inverter from other trains for spare parts." You can guess what parts were trobuled, what parts were brokedown.Ssyublyn (talk) 10:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Third, thank you for finding the update on the breakdown rate -- this is how the section could be improved, not by deletion or blaming it on the French. I note that such a drop of breakdown rate, without any source evidencing that the design of the trains was changed or that some part responsible for most of the failures was replaced on all trains, would leave maintenance and train operation as the factors here -- neither of which is a KTX-I specific issue, but an operator-specific issue (and, if your real concern is company or national prestige, achieving improvement is certainly an evidence of good company practices).
 * Yes, I agree your part. But, I don't know problem was design or operating. Ssyublyn (talk) 10:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Fourth, to evidence your claim that the KTX-II is different in any way, you would have to find a comparable source on KTX-II breakdown rates, too.--Rontombontom (talk) 08:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * breakdown rates of KTX-II not reported yet. KTX-II is different in any way. (sure, they learned how can operating highspeed rail system from first TGV model) Here is the proof. "The Ministry of Land, Transportation, and Maritime Affairs and KORAIL held a commemorative delivery ceremony for the Korean-style high-speed train "KTX-II" (tentative name) -- which had been developed using Korea's own technology " Ssyublyn (talk) 10:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Enough? Ssyublyn (talk) 10:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * On October 5, 2008, it was revealed by lawmakers that inside Hwanghak Tunnel
 * The problem of Hwanghak Tunnel known as "fault zone under tunnel area". The source cleary confirmed.
 * Quote : 조 의원은 “지난 2004년 경부고속철도 황학터널구간에서 궤도틀림 현상이 발생했는데 공사 당시 발견되지 않았던 단층대가 원인으로 밝혀졌다”면서 “안전성을 위해 세밀한 조사가 필수적이고, 가장 최선은 위험구간을 거치지 않도록 노선을 조정하는 것”이라고 밝혔다.|2010-3-2 source
 * ((2010-3-2) The lawmaker told "The Hwanghak Tunnel problem In 2004, the problem come out into the open, It was a fault zone under tunnel area. We need more investigation for geological features, and we should avoiding dangerous geographical zone while constructing tunner.")


 * Trains run through this tunnel. Hence, the cracks and track dislocations caused by the fault zone have to be monitored, and constantly maintained. How is this not a technical issue? Again, the same way you found a newer source to update the 2006 source on train breakdown rates, the way to improve this point would be to find a source on the result of the "more investigation" the lawmakers called for, and on the progress of cracks and track displacements in later years.--Rontombontom (talk) 09:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A fault zone is outside factor. It caused by natural . If airplne crashed by wind, It was not related to technical issue of airplane. yes, someone can blame Wind and Sky And it was airplane's company's fault. But we should avoid original research. It is not Directly related.Ssyublyn (talk) 10:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * In November 3, 2007, an arriving KTX train collided with a parked KTX train by inside Busan Station
 * The problem was human error by tired worker. The source cleary confirmed. This is not relation with technical issue. No injury of passangers.
 * Quote : 하지만 이번 사고에서 드러나듯 이 같은 첨단 시스템도 기관사의 과실 앞에서는 무용지물이었다. 기관사 김씨는 조사에서 "깜빡 조는 바람에 정지신호를 보지 못해 선로를 잘못 진입했고 ATS도 잠결에 껐다"고 진술했다.
 * ((2007-11-5) Desipte the high technology train system, it was worthless to human error. An engine driver on the railway, Driver Cho told, "I was fallen a sleep at that times. Even I shut down ATS while sleeping. I did not saw Stop signal at that times because i was slept")


 * "I also found this where negligence" >> Your found source is same incident as above (an arriving KTX train collided with a parked KTX train by inside Busan Station) duplicated.


 * Editors should avoid original research.


 * See Content forking, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not a newspaper Ssyublyn (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ssyublyn (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * First, thank you for finding and translating that extra source where the driver admits having fallen asleep -- the sources I found were all reporting at a stage the investigation was still on-going. Second, regarding the source I gave upthread, of course it is the same incident, just like you, I quoted it as an extra source with extra info on the same incident... Third, as said upthread, The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources..


 * Fourth, whether one considers human error a technical issue or not, this was an accident, thus covered by the original section title. Fifth, I note that if I read my source right, two light injuries were reported. Sixth, you yourself confirm that it was not related to KTX-I design but the train protection system and the driver's behaviour. --Rontombontom (talk) 08:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The contents all belong to KTX-1 Train.I remove irreravant issues. Human error and Natural disaster(fault zone under tunnel area) it was not technical issue. Please edit only notable and related with its topic.


 * A fault zone is not a natural disaster, an earthquake is. Since the tunnel is under operation, the tunnel itself and the tracks running through it have to be monitored and maintained due to ther fault zone, and that's very much a technical issue. --Rontombontom (talk) 08:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A fault zone is not a natural disaster. But it was outside factor. It was not related to KTX itself. If airplne crashed by wind, It was not related to technical issue of airplane.Ssyublyn (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you think Human error was really relate to KTX?
 * If you fallen a sleep while drove a Toyota, made accident, That accident was really relate to Toyota topic?


 * A single Toyota is not a system. Anything that resulted in damage to fixed assets and rolling stock of a railway, or the staff rules of the railway, or the possibility that the ATS system of the railway fails to detect that the driver is asleep, are directly related to the system. And the list of accidents at the TGV page includes even less system-relevant accidents like collisions with lorries in level crossings on conventional lines - I don't see why that should be a problem. --Rontombontom (talk) 08:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The Shinkansen's biggest incident to date was jumping the tracks during an earthquake. Are you saying it should not be listed either? Jpatokal (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it your only revert reason? Sound like POV pushing who keeping reverting/vandlaism. btw, Are you tag team play (or tag supporter) with him? Shinkansen's biggest incident... that's not the reason that whole revert.Ssyublyn (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I FULLY explained why content was wrong, and why edit should change. But, your revert reasons are NOTHING.
 * You exactly reverted its page 3 times without single valid reason. (technically violate the three-revert rule)


 * 22:13, 20 September 2010 (edit summary: "rv, most of those incidents concern the KTX system as a whole (tunnels, trackbed etc)")
 * 08:26, 21 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 386020842 by Ssyublyn (talk)")
 * 22:23, 23 September 2010 (edit summary: "rv per Talk:Korea Train Express")


 * Your only and last reason of revert "...The Shinkansen's biggest incident to date was jumping the tracks during an earthquake. Are you saying it should not be listed either?..." Do you think your comment have valid reason to revert / or whole change? I already provide enough sources / evidences / full exaplain why My version stand on valid edit with My good faith edit. But you keep reverting by your own silly/ short/ stupid reason. Do you really have right mind to Good faith edit at here?


 * At least Rontombontom was consrtuctive editing, unlike you. You are only who keep bad faith edit.


 * See I just don't like it, Don't revert due to "no consensus"Ssyublyn (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I will refrain from commenting your edit war with Jpatokal and the accusations, but in my view it was definitely not the case that you fully explained why the content was wrong. You did not respond to most of what I have written in my original nine points upthread. However, I feel that we are at least getting somewhere inasmuch that you continued to discuss technical details above, and have added valuable further sources that can be used to improve the contested section of the article - I wish we continued this. But I'm still considering how to revert or not your latest consensus-pre-empting edits of the article. --Rontombontom (talk) 08:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I want discuss with you. I think You and I can improve this article. Let's discuss topic. I was fully explained each case' after investigation. What is the cause. And i proved it was not related to technical issue. Also i fullt provided counter evidence/source without my original research.Ssyublyn (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record: I pretty much fully agree with Rontombontom's comments above, and I do not find your "explanations" convincing at all. For example, you seem to be simultaneously arguing that the Shinkansen article should highlight an accident caused by an earthquake, but that the KTX article should not even mention a problem because it was caused by earthquakes and is thus not Korea's "fault".  To quote Rontombontom:


 * ...it appears to me you view the issue of KTX accidents and technical issues as if it were an issue of national pride, in particular, in comparison with other countries; hence your insistence to find an external blame and the comparison above with Japan.


 * In other words, you are not acting out of a genuine desire to improve the article, but are simply trying to whitewash anything negative into a different article (KTX I) and blame it all on France. This does not serve Wikipedia's readers, and I will continue to revert such changes. Jpatokal (talk) 08:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, this series of changes -- adding unqualified praise for KTX II/III, incorrectly claiming that they are fully Korean (they are not) and the "4th country in the world" claim (already debunked above), and adding yet more criticism of the French KTX-I -- are all tendentious. Jpatokal (talk) 08:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * All sourced / referenced matertials provided. Sound like a You want delete my edit by your POV Pushing. Do you really think imporve this article by constructive way? Can your provide enough evidence / source like me? And, Please No original research. Ssyublyn (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: This article is not about a "car" of Korea Train Express‎ but a "train system" of Korea Train Express‎. Human error is a quite important factor of the safety of the train system. Every train makers are trying hard to contain human errors. A train system which easily collide if a driver had a nap or a stroke will not be sold to developed countries even if it is accepted in South Korea. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Accroding to your claim, Eversing single car accidents by human error should desribed in Wikipedia. That's the quiite nonsense. See Notability Ssyublyn (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It was not related to technical issue of KTX train and its whole KTX system. First, Driver shut down ATS system by himself. 2nd, It was 100% fact that driver slept while driving. No passner injuried. Train crashed at their own Parking Lot. Parking lot accident was not notable stuff. If any highspeed rail (shinkansen, TGV, etc) wikipedia article that parking lot accident included in it. Please show it. It was not notable incident also. Ssyublyn (talk) 09:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please leave you two this topic. two Japanese users (Phoenix7777, Jpatokal) who have Strong Anti-Korea POV pushing.Ssyublyn (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to be not familiar with the technology. "Driver shut down ATS system by himself" itself is a human error. This should not be a pretext of the accident. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There might or might not be an imprecision in the translation here. Did he really say that he shut down the ATS, or that he continued to push the wake button? --Rontombontom (talk) 10:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * He shut down ATS system by himself. Ssyublyn (talk) 10:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Keep POV pushing. Your original research('This should not be a pretext of the accident'). Investigators and experts finally proved it was human error. this fact have valid point than your original research. I know you two are Japanese (Phoenix7777, Jpatokal) who have Strong Anti-Korea POV pushing. I can't expect construtive / NPOV edit from you. You just want ignore my edit by no valid point.Ssyublyn (talk) 10:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ssyublyn, the above is an ad hominem, what's more, checking the user pages, it appears to be false at least in Jpatokal's case. Meanwhile, as indicated earlier, I (who is fortunately neither Korean, Japanese, French, or an Alstom or ROTEM employee) share the impression too that it is you who is pushing a nationalist POV in this series of edits. Please refrain from personal attacks and keep to a more fact-based approach, as when you presented sources on the collision accident and the update of the maintenance of cars.


 * Regarding Phoenix7777's comment, I agree with all but the last comment. It is a general problem of classic train protection systems that trivers continue to push the wake button by reflex even when falling asleep. There are some attempts to solve that, but either way, we don't know the manufacture of the ATS system(s) used in South Korea (pre-KTX domestic, pre-KTX import, import of the TGV's, domestic development paralleling the TGV import?). --Rontombontom (talk) 09:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ssyublyn, do you realize that I created the KTX articles on both the English and Korean Wikipedias back in 2004? Interesting way of "anti-Korea POV pushing", that :P Jpatokal (talk) 10:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite dodged strong Anti-Korea POV pushing is not helpful. I edited topic by All sourced materials without single Original Research. Ssyublyn (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See. Arguments to avoid in edit wars
 * WP:IMADEIT
 * Bad case Example :
 * "I created this page."
 * "I have made most of the contributions to this article."
 * "I started this page; please run all proposed changes through me first."
 * "I am Wikipedia's top contributor in this field." Ssyublyn (talk) 10:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * (going offtopic, but this is just too funny...)
 * Let me get this straight: are you saying that I created the KTX articles to push an "anti-Korea POV"? Can you tell me what is "anti-Korea" in this? Jpatokal (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it all of your reason of massive blanking? Ssyublyn (talk) 04:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Korean name
I find it a bit misleading to have only the Hangul name given as the Korean name. In fact, Koreans say "KTX" when referring to this train. No-where in the article do I see this indicated in the article.Kdammers (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Why don't you add a sentence saying so to the article yourself? (I won't; I won't claim any understanding of this subject, only of the technical matters.) --Rontombontom (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violations
User:Ssyublyn has copied a number of promotional articles word for word, eg almost all of this edit is quoted wholesale from and. The articles are clearly marked "Copyright 2010 Korea Railroad Research Institute, All Rights Reserved" and thus cannot be used on Wikipedia. Jpatokal (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * STOP massive blanking by your own convenience reason. That's the vague / silly reason. It was not valid reason that removing whole.(even it was not related possible copyvio part) You deleted not only that but also irrevant parts. This kind of behavior is simply keep "I don't like it. Whatever reason, I delete all of your edit. I want poshing my POV., My POV is 100% justice" Stance. According to your claim, The whole section of Incidents part should be removed. The whole copyright belong to Newspaper companies. You should tell us What is the difference?Ssyublyn (talk) 05:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that many of the technical details, without the propagandistic language and framing, would have their place -- but not here, instead in a separate KTX-II article. I note BTW that the HSR-350X article suffers from the same problems as the above edits, and it was in my long-term plans to clean that up... but it takes so much time. --Rontombontom (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Your reverted constructive change. You simply missusing Copyright. If you think it was copyvio, you should point out which part (not vaguely), and You have to correct its part only. You just pushing your POV, and delete whole by very tiny unexisted reason. Also There is no exactly same paragraph at there. And do you think you have copyright of its sources?

See Reverting
 * ...if only part of an edit is problematic then consider modifying only that part instead of reverting the whole edit... 

If you still think it was copyvio (it was not though. Also There is no exactly same paragraph at there.) you correct its expression, Not the whole revert by part. I did not pushing, You should not change it. if only part of an edit is problematic then consider modifying only that part instead of reverting the whole edit Like wikiepdai gudeline did. You keeping reverting the whole edit by your own reason. Ssyublyn (talk) 05:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Technical issues, incidents and accidents II
This section is an attempt to continue the discussion in the Move section, which became rather unwieldy. The main part is for the meta discussion, and I created five sub-sections below for the (presently) five points of the disputed section of the article.

As for the meta part:
 * 1) I reiterate again that user Ssyublyn did not present any source to support his/her contention that the three points about accidents are related solely to factors unique to the KTX-I trains, not to mention factors unique to the French contribution to the KTX-I trains;
 * "did not present any source to support" The plenty of sources already provided.


 * 1) I reiterate again that there is no consensus regarding the non-relevance of the two points about tunnel-related technical issues, with Ssyublyn's negative view not being shared by at least two other users (Rontombontom and Jpatokal);
 * 2) thus I ask user Ssyublyn again and emphatically to not pre-empt the reaching of consensus in the discussion here on the Talk page with another round of evidence-unsupported edits resp. deletions not supported by consensus.
 * 3) I also emphatically ask user Ssyublyn to participate in the discussion
 * 4) * without trying to deny the relevance of accidents in the section by disputing them being technical issues and vice versa;
 * 5) * without further nationalising of a technical issue,
 * 6) * without ad hominems based on the others' nationality and
 * 7) * without telling others to not edit the page on this basis; what's more,
 * 8) * without deleting warnings by another user on his/her personal Talk page,
 * 9) * without trying to bring content discussion to personal Talk pages despite a prior request to not do so, and
 * 10) * without asking another user to discuss content on his/her personal Talk page so that others can be excluded from the discussion.
 * 11) I reiterate that I think the most productive way forward would be to find sources shedding more light on the five technical issues, incidents and accidents listed; as happened in the case of the train breakdown statistics and the collision in Busan. That way, in place of tendentious titles and sub-lines blaming the French (an Argument by innuendo), the real significance of these issues can be told explicitly in the section.


 * (Unsigned reply by user Ssyublyn to point 2 moved:)
 * See WP:FIXED


 * WP:FIXED is not about edit wars following disagreement already expressed on the Talk page. As it says explicitly:


 * No one wants to face the consequences of edit warring though, so if reverting does occur, no matter what the page, it is better in that case to turn to discussion and come up with a resolution. If reverting once occurs, there are times when you may consider redoing your original edit and explaining your reason in the edit summary. If you are reverted a second time, surely that is a good time to begin discussion.


 * Generally, it is expected that on policy and guideline pages that a discussion be formed and consensus be assured before any edits (excluding minor ones) are made. In other words, in most cases, policies and guidelines should not unilaterally be changed, and any such changes are likely to be reverted.


 * I suggest that when you link to a Wikipedia policy, you read it first to see whether it is truly relevant. --Rontombontom (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Warning. Stop ACCUSING.
 * See Assume bad faith, No personal attacksSsyublyn (talk) 05:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not accusing, I am asking you to have a constructive discussion instead of the behaviours in the linked diffs. I suggest that you reflect upon the relevance of what you accuse me of by innuendo to each of the linked Talk page entries of yours. I am also asking you to not edit the content of what others wrote on Talk pages. --Rontombontom (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I see you again tried to bring content discussion to personal Talk pages despite a prior request to not do so -- please don't. --Rontombontom (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Tunnel safety
Regarding this technical issue, the only thing we know from the sources used in the article so far was that KTX tunnels didn't meet fire prevention standards and had few emergency exits at the time they entered operation. So, the question is: are the tunnels still in the same state, or did Korail improve tunnel safety since?
 * Again and Again.


 * 1) tunnel design / constructions are out of Korail/KTX's work. Out of their control. So it is out of topic. (accrding to your donga ilbo source, the source cleary state that "Ministry of Construction and Transportation". There is no single word "Korail" or "KTX" at there. Read source carefuly before blame me.
 * 2) I did not change tunnel safety issue
 * 3) It was not related to Korail or KTX.
 * 4) The tunnel construction responsible to 'Ministry of Construction and Transportation'. Not the KTX itself (out of topic)
 * 5) The tunnel is used by not only KTX but also Normal Train. KTX is one of its train. (tunnel is not KTX tunnel)(accrding to your donga ilbo source, the source cleary state that "Ministry of Construction and Transportation". There is no single word "Korail" or "KTX" at there. Read source carefuly before blame me.
 * 6) In addition, Accorgin to WP:OR
 * "...you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented."
 * Ssyublyn (talk) 06:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yet again, tunnels are part of KTX's infrastructure, and any characteristic of a system's infrastructure, including fire safety while in operation, is directly relevant to the system. The address of criticism related to fire prevention standards doesn't change that, and no one disputed that the address was the ministry. Furthermore, you just made an unsourced claim about an unspecified tunnel being used by normal trains, while the source clearly talks about conventional and HSR tunnels separately. --Rontombontom (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Failure rate
Regarding this technical issue/series of incidents, what was established so far: the failure rate decreased strongly with time. What was not, but could be if anyone finds sources:
 * 1) What kind of failures are counted in the statistics? Only serious passenger-affecting failures when a train had to halt on the open line or couldn't start in a station, or also lesser issues that needed an unscheduled visit in the depot, like a WC failure or a broken headlight?
 * 2) What were the causes of the failures? Only design elements unique to the KTX-I and parts with origin in France (as contended by user Ssyublyn, without source as yet)?
 * 3) What measures contributed to the reduction of the failure rate? (Shorter maintenance intervals, better operation, complete replacement of some failure-prone parts?)
 * 4) Is there any difference between the failure rate and types of failure of different types of KTX trains? (No 2010 statistics have been presented so far to evaluate this, and user Ssyublyn's argument of the use of different technology is both WP:OR and something user Rontombontom finds insufficient.)


 * Good questions but out of topic. This is not issue of here. This is your question. Nobody question it before. No dispute about that matter. The current disputed issue is a "Stop Massive blanking /Reverting by User:Jpatokal".  If you want answer from me, The current dispute "Stop Massive blanking /Reverting by User:Jpatokal".''' should stop before. I can discuss its topic. But its out of range at here. Ssyublyn (talk) 06:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You claimed that all of these failures have to do with the French origin of the KTX-I trains and aren't related to other parts of the system, and re-named the section title accordingly. These questions are relevant to the (lack) of justification for your own edits and deletions, which Jpatokal only righted. Thus these questions aren't out of range in this discussion, nor out of range when the article is to be improved. --Rontombontom (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Damper failure and ballast throw
Regarding this accident and potential technical issue, I (Rontombontom) would like to ask users who have a better command of Korean than I or Google Translate have to check whether the reading of the source in the current version of the article is correct. In addition, I think the article is speaking about the yaw damper acting between the carbodies, but I was not sure enough to enter that specifics into the article. Furthermore, a source on the result of the accident investigation would be nice, to confirm whether the accident was really caused by a loose screw, and if that was traced to either bad maintenance, or a design fault (leading to damper replacements).


 * I do not care that part. In fact, The article should mentioned as It was French based older model KTX-1 problem. However, The problem was not continuous happen. It was only one time happening. Happening is not Notability. If it was continuous problem, it was design or technical fault. If you stronlgy believe it was technical issue, You should provide valid source that it related design/technical fault. No original research or assumption. Ssyublyn (talk) 06:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Why do you repeat "French based model"? You haven't presented any source saying that the factors behind the accident were of French origin. And why don't you care? Do you only care about accidents and failures of South Korean origin? That would constitute the pushing of a nationalist POV. Quoting Notability is highly misleading, because that's about the creation of entire articles, not the addition of information to existing articles. I do not strongly believe that this accident was also a technical issue, that's why I wrote "potential" -- you, however, do seem to believe so, in trying to blame it on the French origin of the train type and ignoring all other potential causes (like, maintenance) -- and that's original research/assumption on your part. --Rontombontom (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Collision in Busan
Regarding this accident, I (Rontombontom) would again like to ask Korean speakers to check whether the reading of the source in the current version of the article is correct, in particular on what the rail union said. Furthermore, a source on the type of ATS used, and a technically precise translation of what the sleeping driver did with it, would be nice, as would a source on eventual consequences from the accident (change to the ATS and signalling systems, staff rules etc.).


 * The human error is not KTX problem. If some sleepy dirver made accident in toyota vehicle, it was not Toyota's fault.
 * The source cleary confirmed.(Korean)(Korean) This is not relation with technical issue. No injury of passangers.
 * Quote : 하지만 이번 사고에서 드러나듯 이 같은 첨단 시스템도 기관사의 과실 앞에서는 무용지물이었다. 기관사 김씨는 조사에서 "깜빡 조는 바람에 정지신호를 보지 못해 선로를 잘못 진입했고 ATS도 잠결에 껐다"고 진술했다.
 * ""((2007-11-5) Desipte the high technology train system, it was worthless to human error. An engine driver on the railway, Driver Cho told, "I was fallen a sleep at that times. Even I shut down ATS while sleeping. I did not saw Stop signal at that times because i was slept")
 * Again, I already provided Source/Investigaion results by proved source.
 * 'If you deny its Source/Investigaion by your convenience claim, It going to "Original Research".


 * In addition, Accorgin to WP:OR
 * "...you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented."
 * Ssyublyn (talk) 06:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * For the umpteenth time, the nature of the cause of the problem doesn't change the fact that this was an accident affecting the KTX, and no one disputes that human error was involved. Also for the umpteenth time, your comparison of a single vehicle (a Toyota) with a system of vehicles and connected infrastructure and organisation is comparing apples and oranges; and your contention that both (1) damage to the system resulting from human error, and (2) the vulnerability of a system operated by humans to human error, is not directly relevant to the system is simply bizarre and clearly not supported by editorial consensus. On another detail you repeat without reflecting on a source pointed out in prior discussion, there were injuries, and your latest revert of the article deleted the addition of a source saying to. --Rontombontom (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Fault zone causing cracks and track distortions
Regarding this technical issue, since it is about the continued need for monitoring and track maintenance, and the source says that a detailed study of the geological cause was to be conducted; it would be nice to find a source on what happened since: did the cracks and track dislocations continue with the same speed, what was the finding of the investigation, were there any new measures to deal with the problem? --Rontombontom (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I only providing Source. Final investigation said, The problem was caused by fault zone. Lawmaker strongly urged that "be careful about tunnel construction". (this mean he was not blame KTX) I have no idea about detail. Please avoid Original Research also. Ssyublyn (talk) 06:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * For the umpteenth time, the cause of the problem and whoever is to blame for it doesn't change the fact that the tunnels have to be monitored and maintained while in operation, and that's what this point is about, and not a blame game. The above doesn't answer any of my questions about what happened since. --Rontombontom (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Questions
Are you really using strategy that "If you answer my request, all of your edits are null and void" stance? we says it is a POV Pushing. Stop question, provide counter part valid sources. We can only discuss by "source : source". I ask user Rontombontom again and emphatically to not pre-empt the reaching of consensus in the discussion here on the Talk page with another round of evidence-unsupported edits resp. deletions not supported by consensus. We should talk only source by sourece. I have no reason to read somebody's original research. You still No counter evidence sources provided. Again, We can only discuss by "source : source".

OK. I have a questions like you.
 * 1) Please provide valid source that Responsible of Tunnel construction are all belong to KTX 'train''s fault.
 * 2) Please provide valid source that "'Natural disaster/The problem calused by Natural' is directly link to Train's fault.
 * 3) Please provide valid source that Human error was Train's fault. In addition, Even driver shut down ATS by himself. There is no technology or system interrupted driver at that times.
 * 4) Please provide valid source that 0.304% Failure rate (brokedown rate) was Notable.

If any source from international Train orginization guide that These are Train's fault, Then i will completely agree with your edit. I already provided these are not directly related to KTX trains, accusing these problems as "technical issues" are Original Research, and these should be removed at this page.Ssyublyn (talk) 07:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sigh. The first three of your questions are loaded questions based on strawmen: the issue of tunnel safety on KTX lines is not connected to construction only; no one claimed that a natural influence on KTX infrastructure that has to be managed is the train's fault; no one claimed that a KTX accident caused by a human error not prevented by the ATS system or staff rules is the train's fault. The section in question is titled "Technical issues, incidents and accidents", and not "Faults of KTX trains", thus it deals with technical issues of any parts of the KTX system and incidents and accidents occurring to parts of the KTX system, for whatever reasons. Your last question is irrelevant to our discussion, which was about your insistence to blame the failures on the French origin of KTX-I trains and repeatedly edit the article accordingly, without any source proving your contention or the achievement of consensus in the on-going dispute here on the Talk page. You also seem to confuse the notability criterion for the creation of new articles with the criteria for entering information into an existing article; and do so on the occasion of a bit of information you yourself entered into the article for the first time. --Rontombontom (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop Massive blanking /Reverting by --Jpatokal
I warning you. You exactly revertyed its page 4 times. (no constructive change. Just blanking and reverting by his own short reason)
 * 1) 22:13, 20 September 2010  (edit summary: "rv, most of those incidents concern the KTX system as a whole (tunnels, trackbed etc)")
 * 2) 08:26, 21 September 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 386020842 by Ssyublyn (talk)")
 * 3) 22:23, 23 September 2010  (edit summary: "rv per Talk:Korea Train Express")
 * 4) 13:31, 25 September 2010  (edit summary: "rv various copyright violations and, once again, series of tendentious edits that has found zero support on the Talk page")

His repeated 'whole reverting' breach wikipedia guideline. Even his reverting reasons are not consistent. He keeping change his reason of reverting. First reason was "KTX system as a whole"(actually, nonsense claim). Later he changed reason was "The Shinkansen's biggest incident.."(actually, nonsense claim) Later he claims that it was (his own think) copyvio. He keep reverting by nonsense claims (even its claims changing continauly). This user is cleary POV Pushing. Thia bad attitude clreary breach Etiquette, No personal attacks.Ssyublyn (talk) 07:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Jpatokal using strategy that "I reverted whole by my made up reason. I reverted whole by part. I was not technically violate 3RR within 24 hrs." Jpatokal said, It was not technically violation 3RR. He think his behavior is "Safe".Ssyublyn (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I won't speak of Jpatokal, but his last revert included new edits of yours which fell under copyright violation, and he is clearly saying that that was <part of the reson for his revert. You are also free to start a KTX-II article if you want to list all technical details (paraphrased, not quoted verbatim in copyright violation) -- the same way a KTX-I article already exists.


 * Meanwhile, I reverted your latest revert because you (1) again restored the copyright violations, (2) again restored controversial edits that have been subject of dispute here on the Talk page and were clearly not supported by consensus reached, (3) you again implemented deletions of sourced information on your own private POV that wasn't supported by consensus on the Talk page, (4) you also deleted sourced information I added to the article since. --Rontombontom (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment - start with copyrights
ok so what happened?

Firstly the article as a whole looks good possibly very good - in general you can all take that praise.

There seems to be an issue with the reinsertment of copyright violating material. This issue is black and white. See Copyrights "Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material despite appropriate warnings may be blocked from editing by any administrator to prevent further problems.", further information can be read at Copyright violations.

Any editor who re-adds copyrighted material is going to get blocked or banned. So stop. The above discussions are impossible to read for someone not directly involved in the discussion. But I can see that at least one editor User:Ssyublyn has added copyrighted material. If any other have please post the diffs here. I will mention this to Ssyublyn.

As a suggestion can editing cease, someone remove all copyvios from the article (and only the copyvios) then discuss. Once that has been done I would suggest listing any points of contention - I can look at them from a fairly neutral stance. If you don't trust me on my own you can get WP:Third opinions. That must be a better solution than current situation. Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Uhh, are you pasting boilerplate or something? The edit war died down several weeks ago, not coincidentally at the same time that User:Ssyublyn left Wikipedia, and in fact the article hasn't had a single edit since Sep 26.  As far as I'm aware there are no copyvios left in the article, certainly no recent ones. Jpatokal (talk) 07:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Silly me I didn't notice they had left, or that the war had ended... Sept 26 didn't seem such a long time ago.Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record, User:Ssyublyn has been blocked indefinitely as suspected sockpuppet following an SPI I submitted, see admin note on his user page. --Rontombontom (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm impressed by the changes
It's been a whil since I've checked this page out, but the article looks to be in a really good condition now. Whomever put in the work, thank you. You've done a job that was beyond my ability, especially with all the foreign language sources.

If it is agreeable, I would be prepared to take this article through the preperation steps towards becoming a WP:GA, or Good Article. I see only a few statements in need of a source, a few references that won't get past WP:RS such as blogs usage, and a bit of an issue with WP:Overlink on the publisher names of the ref's, other than that it is in very good shape now. With the edit war seemingly over now, it should be fairly easy to make this final mile, most of what is needed is there in my eyes. Kyteto (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I wrote or edited most of the recent version, and I'm pleased that you think the article is good as it is. However, I think substantial work would be required on related articles before nomination for WP:GA.


 * There are the rolling stock articles. As already mentioned upthread, the HSR-350X article is all over the place. I also think that there are enough sources now to create separate "KTX-II (Sancheon)" and "HEMU-400X" articles anew. For the main Korea Train Express article, this would mean that all the technical details can be left out.


 * Something should be done about the high-speed lines, too, and I grab the occasion to ask others about this. Currently, there is a Gyeongbu High-speed Line and a Honam Line (KTX) article, which have two main problems. First, they are rather inconsequential in changing back and forth between describing an infrastructure and describing a service. The Honam one even uses a service infobox. Second, there are the names: in the more or less official sources I could find, the English rendering changes between xxx High-Speed Railway (with and without -), xxx High Speed Rail, and xxx High Speed Line; but the short form is always xxx HSR. So, what I propose to do: I would move Gyeongbu High-speed Line to "Gyeongbu High Speed Railway", insert the bulk of Honam Line (KTX) that is about the current Honam KTX service into the Honam Line article as a new section, move the remaining skeleton to "Honam High Speed Railway" and re-write it completely; and abridge the details on the two HSR lines in the main Korea Train Express article. I already created a draft for the new Honam HSR article: User:Rontombontom/Honam High Speed Railway.


 * Do you think these changes would make sense? --Rontombontom (talk) 08:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I noticed the inconsistent naming of the line articles, and had pondered yesterday the proposal of a name move of Honam Line (KTX) to "Honam High Speed Line" in order to have consistancy with the Gyeongbu article, I think both should have the same naming suffixes. Your proposal is more extensive and I agree with it, I'll read over your draft today and provide more detailed thoughts.


 * I also had an idea about merging the KTX-II and the HSR-350X into the same article under the name KTX-II, as I understood the HSR-350X is a developmental prototype of the KTX-II, much like the British HST prototype is covered in the article for the Intercity 125, and could be discussed in detail and length in a Development section of a KTX-II article. A similar logical pattern for the KTX-III/HEMU-400X. I would definantly support moving the technical details of these prototype developments (apart from a scant reference) out of this KTX article, which I feel should be more about the service and system overall. It'll take some time, but I'm no stranger to putting in time to overhauling an article set. Thoughts? Kyteto (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * While at its inception, the HSR-350X was meant to be the prototype of series trains, in the end, Rotem & co. put in a lot of further development effort for the KTX-II, replacing a number of key components from the electronics to the nose. So I think HSR-350X deserves its own separate article as experimental train -- similar to the separation of InterCityExperimental and ICE 1 for Germany's Intercity-Express; or indeed even the British Rail Class 252 and British Rail Class 43 (HST) for Britain's Intercity 125. As for the KTX-III, given that it is all but a nebulous plan at present, methinks one-sentence mentions in both the main KTX article and a to-be-created HEMU-400X article would suffice until 2014 at least.


 * I don't have too much time for this to finish fast, but I'd like to have at least the Gyeongbu/Honam HSR articles righted before the 1 November opening of the second phase of the Gyeongbu HSR. --Rontombontom (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, don't let me distract you from where you wish to work. And completing the Infrastructure articles seems appropriate considering the grand opening we're on the verge of. Your draft is significantly more useful than the current article, little more than a list of stations currently, I like the table you neatly replace that with. I've just finished my progress upon Avro Vulcan, so I'll probably tinker on this article for a bit/ponder my next move. Kyteto (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Good, I get on with it from tomorrow. I now also have an idea of what to do with Template:KTX Lines. --Rontombontom (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * An additional note; this reference (currently ref 41) link appears to be a personal blog, and as such wont make the grade at GA. Do you speak Korean? That would be available in either coming up with a good reason that can be delivered to the reviewer for protecting this ref. If not, I'll do what I can to replace. Kyteto (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That blog is the 'blog' of a professional journalist, on the site of main daily JoongAng Ilbo, reporting from a local press conference. I think that this one is defensible; it would of course be better to find a ministry press release on the line, unfortunately I failed. However, there are three other blog sources for which I'd appreciate help in finding replacements, if you see it as necessary. Two of them are technical blogs with detailed data on two tunnels, which I couldn't track down elsewhere (I suspect though that part of the data in the second might be somewhere in the archived pages of the onetime KTX website). The last one brings added detail on the 300/305 km/h story -- this is the weakest link, because it is not even a technical blog (only an award-winning travel blog). Also, I don't speak Korean, only recognise some characters/combinations, otherwise I use Google translate. --Rontombontom (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Move to Korea Train eXpress?
It is a lot more work than I expected, but I am nearing the end of my work on editing the articles of various railway lines mentioned in the article (before shortening the excessive detail in this article). Meanwhile, I checked WP:MOS and WP:MOSTM. I think Korea Train eXpress is a "trademark beginning with a one-letter lowercase prefix pronounced as a separate letter", to which the following rules apply: they "do not need to be capitalized if the second letter is capitalized" and "Wikipedia does not capitalize the first letter, when ... not doing so has become normal English usage." Hence, I am proposing to move the article from Korea Train Express to Korea Train eXpress. --Rontombontom (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to me. Kyteto (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unless you pronounce the name as "Ee Kspress", it's definitely not "a trademark beginning with a one-letter lowercase prefix pronounced as a separate letter".  This is meant for things like iPods, which are pronounced "eye pod", not the "eepod" you would otherwise expect. Jpatokal (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Class designations
A note on class designations. In Korean (Hangul), when written out, all Korail trains have the same two classes: 일반석 (I believe that's literally Standard Class/Room/Seat) and 특실 (Special Class/Room/Seat). However, Korail doesn't seem to have settled on an official English version:


 * KTX tickets give the class designation in Korean only (see examples of Standard Class ticket, First Class ticket);
 * the on-line timetable uses "1st Class" and "Standard Class" for all Korail trains (for example);
 * vending machines however give the lower comfort choice in "Car Type" (rather than class) as "Economy" (schreenshot);
 * Korail's Passenger Vehicles info page has "First Class" and "Economy class" (yes, with inconsequential capitalisation);
 * an older KR PASS info page has "First Class" and "Regular" (yes, without 'Class' for the second);
 * while Korail's conventional trains bear international standard numerical class designations ("1" and "2"), on KTX trains, Standard Class bears no designation at all (photo), but on First Class, "특실" and below it "First Class" appear next to the door (photo);
 * On the First Class vending machine however, the inscription refers to the compartment as "Stateroom"... (photo)

What a mess. I decided to treat inscriptions next to the door and the on-line English timetable as the most relevant usages, and went with First Class and Standard Class in the end. I kept them capitalised, treating them as brand names deviating from the standard generic "1st/2nd class" nomenclature (see my argument on the good article nomination assessment page of the Taiwan High Speed Rail article). But, it would have been nice of Korail had they been more consequential... --Rontombontom (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Human error
VeritableTruth, a close reading of the source you are using for a definite claim of human error doesn't confirm it. It says:

In other words, the investigation is not closed. The second part of the sentence you re-entered confuses the two sets of repairmen (also conflating the human errors involved). If you have a newer source that says that negligence by the first group of repairmen was confirmed, please enter it; then it will be enough to edit a few words. I hope you won't re-start the edit warring over KTX accidents from last year. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2932222

http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2932296

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2011/02/113_81386.html

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/02/14/2011021400815.html

Investigators + New reports + officials + korail workers + repairmen state that incident was a Human error. --VeritableTruth (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * First, please indent your replies so that the discussion can be followed. Second, why did you remove the entire accident report, none of which was contentious? Third, all of the above facts in the Chosun Ilbo article (the night repair works, the failure of the second team to discover the problem, the failure of the second team to report this properly to the control center) were in the part you snipped. Fourth, nothing you quoted negates or post-dates the ministry's declaration which I quoted. --Rontombontom (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: the sources say that the incident involved (1) a loose bolt, (2) failure to find the loose bolt, (2) failure to communicate the prior failure. Of these, I don't dispute that (2) and (3) are confirmed human errors; however, according to the source and the ministry, the main cause, (1), is not yet confirmed as the result of human error. --Rontombontom (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: the sources say that incident was a human error. --VeritableTruth (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This one:
 * ...would most definitely not be a human error. --Rontombontom (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * --VeritableTruth (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * To repeat what I wrote above but you didn't reflect on in greater detail:
 * your first quote is a sloppy summary of details from the very same article that goes on to quote the ministry about the unfinished state of investigation regarding why the bolt was loose, mentioning the possibility of a technical error;
 * your second quote says "increasingly resembles", which again is a language clearly indicating an unfinished investigation; and it is again fully in line with the wording "Investigators... suspected that a repairman failed to tighten it during maintenance the previous night" in the part you removed from the article;
 * your third quote describes the second and third accident factors, the human error nature of which is not in dispute, and which were again mentioned in the part you snipped;
 * you haven't stated any disagreement with the source-faithful nature of any detail in the parts you removed from the article (our dispute concerns an additional sentence you added and I removed), which leads me to question your motives.
 * I also have to note the irony in your insistence on a premature blanket statement of human error as the sole cause. Leaving a correct indication that the ministry sees the possibility of a technical error in the switch is not a negative about Korean high-tech, because the Gyeongbu HSR phase 1 switches are imported French technology, and there have been switch malfunctions reported before (it's in multiple sources used in the article). So, from a viewpoint of defending national prestige, multiple human error should be of greater concern. --Rontombontom (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I now put a sentence containing "human error" into the article to satisfy you, although I think it is redundant and a waste of words: I think it's obvious that "maintenance crew failed to find" and "didn't properly communicate" are cases of human error. --Rontombontom (talk) 12:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I now checked your Korea Times source, which contained useful additional information, but also some confusing ones. The KT article reports about a Korail press conference, while JoongAng Daily reports a later press conference held by the ministry, and both said that their investigation is still on-going. Korail assumed that the bolt was lost by the repairmen before they closed the switch box, while the ministry says that it was merely loose.
 * KT also reports Korail saying that "We think that conflicting signals between the switching device and a signal light put the KTX on the wrong rail track". I'm confused whether this means that the signal conflict threw the switch that derailed the train, or whether this refers to how the train got on the track with the bad switch. If the latter, this conflicts with the ministry's findings, which were, according to JoongAng, that the control centre sent the train on this track after the maintenance crew signalled all clear, and only because the train was late.
 * The KT article also includes claims about technical problems which you omitted. Then again, it is some very bad reporting, a baseless concern trolling about the safety of KTX-Sancheon trains, consisting of snippets from 'concerned citizens' and regurgitating data (12 breakdowns) as well as accompanying text from reports back in November, when the train really had problems. --Rontombontom (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I now put a sentence containing "human error" into the article to satisfy you, although I think it is redundant and a waste of words: I think it's obvious that "maintenance crew failed to find" and "didn't properly communicate" are cases of human error. --Rontombontom (talk) 12:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I now checked your Korea Times source, which contained useful additional information, but also some confusing ones. The KT article reports about a Korail press conference, while JoongAng Daily reports a later press conference held by the ministry, and both said that their investigation is still on-going. Korail assumed that the bolt was lost by the repairmen before they closed the switch box, while the ministry says that it was merely loose.
 * KT also reports Korail saying that "We think that conflicting signals between the switching device and a signal light put the KTX on the wrong rail track". I'm confused whether this means that the signal conflict threw the switch that derailed the train, or whether this refers to how the train got on the track with the bad switch. If the latter, this conflicts with the ministry's findings, which were, according to JoongAng, that the control centre sent the train on this track after the maintenance crew signalled all clear, and only because the train was late.
 * The KT article also includes claims about technical problems which you omitted. Then again, it is some very bad reporting, a baseless concern trolling about the safety of KTX-Sancheon trains, consisting of snippets from 'concerned citizens' and regurgitating data (12 breakdowns) as well as accompanying text from reports back in November, when the train really had problems. --Rontombontom (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Gwangmyeong accident preliminary findings v2
For the case my suspicions regarding VeritableTruth's identity are mistaken, below I detail the reasons for the edits of the passages on the Gwangmyeong accident I am about to implement (in this, the Gyeongbu High Speed Railway and the KTX-II article) in advance.


 * 1) The main motive of the edits is to ensure the conciseness of the prose and that "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail", both of which are Good article criteria (1(a) and 3(b) to be precise). Note that KTX-II is already a GA nominee.
 * 2) I do note though that the motive of the edits by VeritableTruth which I am changing seems to be to ward off any negative impression on Korean high-tech, specifically the domestic-production KTX-II trains. On one hand, such editing can fall under WP: RGW, point 1 of WP:SOAP, or Tendentious editing. On the other hand, in the particular instance of the Gwangmyeong accident, it should be sufficiently clear already that it's not Korean high-tech where the problem originated.
 * 3) I'm going to remove the "no casualties were reported" addition. On one hand, this reflects a lack of understanding of the English word; as you can read in Casualty (person) for example, "Casualties is sometimes misunderstood to mean fatalities, but non-fatal injuries are also casualties." On the other hand, from "Only one passenger suffered slight injury", it should be clear to anyone that no one died.
 * 4) "Because workers improperly repaired a point along the tracks." is still not the final conclusion of investigations supported by all available reliable sources, as per the earlier discussion, and the suspicion of improper repair is already mentioned in the next sentence. If you are going to insist on the use of the Chosun article due to its presentation of the improper repair hypothesis as if it were a final conclusion, ignoring what the JoongAng Daily article quoted from the very same ministry press conference, you are either violating WP:NPOV or failed to explain why the JoongAng Daily source shouldn't be trusted, which you haven't done in the prior discussion when being presented with a direct quote. Note though that in the Korean edition of The Chosun Ilbo itself, the ministry disclaimer is also reported, and also similar comments from KRRI -- so you also have to explain why the Korean edition of the same paper is to be dismissed as unreliable (or that I misread it). In addition, Chosun also reported that the ministry will conduct a detailed investigation lasting three weeks, so there shouldn't be any claim of a final conclusion from investigators before March 11.
 * 5) I edit the "from track" addition to "in the switchbox". I submit that your concern that readers might assume that the bolt was on the train is warranted, I only copyedit for correct English and more precise language.
 * 6) I am going to remove the sentence "there were no problems with the train according to investigation" from this and the Gyeongbu HSR article. In this article, it should be fairly obvious to anyone that a switch malfunction and track maintenance problems aren't the error of a train. In the Gyeongbu HSR article, the train is off-topic; in fact for the same reason, I am even going to remove the train type designation. It would be an on-topic WP:NPOV counter, had another editor used the Korean Times article as source to write that problems with the train are also suspected; I note though that I personally would have been for the removal of such a passage. I am leaving this passage in the KTX-II article, however, as that's what's most on-topic there.
 * 7) I emphasize that the different focus of the three articles was the reason to enter the accident in the other two articles in an edited form. To be even more on focus, in the KTX-II article, I am not only removing the rail union criticism passage again, but will shorten the passages on the maintenance workers, as details on track maintenance is not on topic in a rolling stock article.
 * 8) I am going to enter a sentence mentioning the three cars reserved for the President in the KTX-II article. Not because it tells anything significant about the accident, but because such prominent 'Rail Force One' use of the train is an interesting and noteworthy detail in the operating history of the train.
 * 9) Finally, I note that the English-language articles on the Gwangmyeong accident already fulfil WP:N for the creation of a separate article on the Gwangmyeong accident (you could title it 2011 Gwangmyeong KTX accident for example), in which all reported details (the hour and minute of the events, the three error signals, the signal-switch conflict suspected by Korail, the separate Korail and ministry investigations, etc.) could be detailed explicitly. In the main Korea Train Express article, any more than the bare facts and system-relevant arguments (e.g. the rail union's note on maintenance practices) would be too much.

Finally, for future reference, some notes on behaviour in the earlier discussion, again for the case I am mistaken about my suspicions and you are really a newbie whom I shouldn't bite but should help. Although your very first edit as a newly registered Wikipedia user was the deletion of a cited addition with a reference to a Wikipedia guideline in the edit summary (triggering my WP:PREC suspicion), there are some other guidelines you may haven't read which I want to call your attention to. For the consistent indenting I asked for, see Tendentious editing. For the replies not addressing my counter-points but re-stating your original, see Tendentious editing, Tendentious editing. --Rontombontom (talk) 11:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify: the sources say that.
 * --VeritableTruth (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * --VeritableTruth (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * --VeritableTruth (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * --VeritableTruth (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * --VeritableTruth (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * First thank you for correctly indenting the first paragraph of your reply, but I had to repair the indenting of all other paragraphs.
 * First quote: it quite correctly says "no major casualties", not no casualties; and you failed to address my point.
 * Second quote: you repeat that without addressing my points about that and other sources.
 * Third quote and fourth quote: the communication mistake and the switching box's signals to the control centre was, is in the article and no one disputes it, and you repeat that quote without addressing any of my points.
 * Gyeongbu High Speed Railway article: you haven't responded to my point at all, just reverted all of my edits and restored the irrelevant stuff.
 * In the KTX-II article, what you call the "signal device" is the autmatic train control.
 * Also in the KTX-II article, the source says 7 breakdowns due to the ATC, 5 breakdowns due to the motor block, 7+5=12, that's "most" of 15. 7 out of 15 is not "most".
 * I again ask you to please be constructive and address my points above, rather than just repeat quotes already discussed by my points without any explanation and revert. Your attitude makes any copyedit for focus and conciseness impossible. I don't know what else to do other than wait out the SPI. --Rontombontom (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Picture and removals of French origin
Onenelly, I'm reverting your edits for two reasons:

1: File:KTX-II Sancheon series bullet train in Seoul Station, Korea (cropped).jpg is, in a purely technical sense, quite poor: it's overexposed, has lots of glare obscuring important bits like the KTX logo, and is taken at such a sharp angle that the train is poorly visible. Alas, none of the other KTX pics at are much better; File:Korail KTX-2.jpg is fine as a photo, but doesn't look very good as a thumbnail, and it's already used later in the article.

2: It looks suspiciously like you are trying to erase the French origin of KTX's trains? I've added a reference for you to review, and yes, it's pretty much the definition of technology transfer to build the initial trainsets in France, license the design, and build the rest in Korea. Jpatokal (talk) 11:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no preference about the image, however I agree with Jpatokal in this removal of the fact. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You can add a third reason. Onenelly is actually a sock of a banned user. I will block them as soon as possible. Elockid (Alternate) ( Talk ) 12:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Korea Train Express. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120229150906/http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=160300&rel_no=1 to http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=160300&rel_no=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615193143/http://www.alstom.com/news-and-events/press-releases/KTX-opens-for-commercial-service-20040401/ to http://www.alstom.com/news-and-events/press-releases/KTX-opens-for-commercial-service-20040401/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060508124425/http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQQ/is_3_44/ai_114629912 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQQ/is_3_44/ai_114629912/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724071143/http://www.sncf-international.net/upl/file/FP_Coree-du-Sud_GB.pdf to http://www.sncf-international.net/upl/file/FP_Coree-du-Sud_GB.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://transport.mltm.go.kr/USR/WPGE0201/m_1241/DTL.jsp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090109051907/http://www.ita-aites.org/cms/fileadmin/filemounts/general/pdf/ItaAssociation/ProductAndPublication/OpenSession/OS_2006_4SKE-C.pdf to http://www.ita-aites.org/cms/fileadmin/filemounts/general/pdf/ItaAssociation/ProductAndPublication/OpenSession/OS_2006_4SKE-C.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722192709/http://info.korail.com/ROOT/news/board_view.jsp?boardType=BODO&bbs=bbs20&seq=6467 to http://info.korail.com/ROOT/news/board_view.jsp?boardType=BODO&bbs=bbs20&seq=6467
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120311002058/http://168.126.177.50/pub/docu/en/AD/BE/ADBE2006BAC/ADBE-2006-BAC-003.PDF to http://168.126.177.50/pub/docu/en/AD/BE/ADBE2006BAC/ADBE-2006-BAC-003.PDF
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.webmag.transport.alstom.com/eMag/externe/international/korea/ktx/mar2004/1/_files/file_225_39190.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722142259/http://library.krri.re.kr/own/rail_treatise/2001fail/20030714/8245_file_50.pdf to http://library.krri.re.kr/own/rail_treatise/2001fail/20030714/8245_file_50.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722141534/http://hispeedtrain.re.kr/board/?id=prboard&idx=9 to http://hispeedtrain.re.kr/board/?id=prboard&idx=9
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722142234/http://hispeedtrain.re.kr/eng/project/01_overview.asp to http://hispeedtrain.re.kr/eng/project/01_overview.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722192629/http://info.korail.com/ROOT/news/board_view.jsp?boardType=BODO&bbs=bbs20&seq=6419 to http://info.korail.com/ROOT/news/board_view.jsp?boardType=BODO&bbs=bbs20&seq=6419
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713120449/http://article.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.asp?ctg=10&Total_ID=4320136 to http://article.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.asp?ctg=10&Total_ID=4320136
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713120511/http://article.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.asp?Total_ID=3998831 to http://article.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.asp?Total_ID=3998831
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713164814/http://www.korail.com/en/rv/pr21100/w_pr21110.jsp to http://www.korail.com/en/rv/pr21100/w_pr21110.jsp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722191814/http://info.korail.com/ROOT/news/board_view.jsp?boardType=BODO&bbs=bbs20&seq=1618 to http://info.korail.com/ROOT/news/board_view.jsp?boardType=BODO&bbs=bbs20&seq=1618
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722190051/http://info.korail.com/ROOT/news/board_view.jsp?boardType=BODO&bbs=bbs20&pg=0&seq=6386 to http://info.korail.com/ROOT/news/board_view.jsp?boardType=BODO&bbs=bbs20&pg=0&seq=6386
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725175809/http://cleanairinitiative.org/portal/system/files/presentations/Jinsu_Mun_KOTI.pdf to http://cleanairinitiative.org/portal/system/files/presentations/Jinsu_Mun_KOTI.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110529073047/http://168.126.177.50/pub/docu/en/AD/ZA/ADZA2008AAN/ADZA-2008-AAN.PDF to http://168.126.177.50/pub/docu/en/AD/ZA/ADZA2008AAN/ADZA-2008-AAN.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Korea Train Express. 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:
 * Added tag to http://file.chosun.com/cp/press/files/200501/%BA%B8%B5%B5%C0%DA%B7%E1J20050103004.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323220019/http://www.hankyung.com/news/app/newsview.php?aid=2008060193681&sid=0106&nid=006&ltype=1 to http://www.hankyung.com/news/app/newsview.php?aid=2008060193681&sid=0106&nid=006&ltype=1
 * Added tag to http://www.krnetwork.or.kr/service/condition/RouteMapView.do?PA_MAP_ID=12483
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323220019/http://www.hankyung.com/news/app/newsview.php?aid=2008060193681&sid=0106&nid=006&ltype=1 to http://www.hankyung.com/news/app/newsview.php?aid=2008060193681&sid=0106&nid=006&ltype=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323220337/http://www.hankyung.com/news/app/newsview.php?aid=2010090800261&intype=1 to http://www.hankyung.com/news/app/newsview.php?aid=2010090800261&intype=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721182909/http://www.krri.re.kr/krri_2008/news/news/20060504/1_12780.html to http://www.krri.re.kr/krri_2008/news/news/20060504/1_12780.html
 * Added tag to http://www.kicttep.re.kr/app/notice/down.jsp?_pid=techrnd&_idx=3694&fno=4309
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714070402/http://www.melecs.com/uploads/media/Stromabnehmer_SSS400__D_E.pdf to http://www.melecs.com/uploads/media/Stromabnehmer_SSS400__D_E.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720205849/http://www.apci.asso.fr/l_observeur_uk/realisation.php/?id=1673&laureats=2008&id_participant=1412 to http://www.apci.asso.fr/l_observeur_uk/realisation.php?id=1673&laureats=2008&id_participant=1412
 * Added tag to http://hispeedtrain.re.kr/eng/project/06_project03.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713120520/http://article.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.asp?ctg=12&Total_ID=3393794 to http://article.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.asp?ctg=12&Total_ID=3393794
 * Added tag to http://issue.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2010/05/12/2010051201015.html
 * Added tag to http://railnews.korail.go.kr/20061002/05953.html
 * Added tag to http://www.ytn.co.kr/news/theme_view.php?tidx=290&key=200706140632137477
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323220735/http://www.hankyung.com/news/app/newsview.php?aid=2007111512318 to http://www.hankyung.com/news/app/newsview.php?aid=2007111512318
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713120537/http://article.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.asp?ctg=12&Total_ID=3215610 to http://article.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.asp?ctg=12&Total_ID=3215610
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722192047/http://info.korail.com/ROOT/news/board_view.jsp?boardType=&bbs=bbs1&seq=2166 to http://info.korail.com/ROOT/news/board_view.jsp?boardType=&bbs=bbs1&seq=2166
 * Added tag to http://webzine.korail.com/webzine/201003.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Korea Train Express. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613215831/http://news.hankooki.com/lpage/society/201010/h2010102714525974990.htm to http://news.hankooki.com/lpage/society/201010/h2010102714525974990.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722190134/http://info.korail.com/ROOT/news/board_view.jsp?boardType=BODO&bbs=bbs20&seq=6386 to http://info.korail.com/ROOT/news/board_view.jsp?boardType=BODO&bbs=bbs20&seq=6386
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130121194246/http://www.donga.com/fbin/output?rss=1&n=200812140046 to http://www.donga.com/fbin/output?rss=1&n=200812140046
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100612072458/http://www.visitseoul.net/en/article/article.do?_method=view&m=0004007002006&p=07&art_id=31583&lang=en to http://www.visitseoul.net/en/article/article.do?_method=view&art_id=31583&lang=en&m=0004007002006&p=07

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Korea Train Express. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://transport.mltm.go.kr/USR/WPGE0201/m_1241/DTL.jsp
 * Added tag to http://news.mk.co.kr/outside/view.php?year=2010&no=217310
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130127115638/http://www.korail.com/2007/adv/adv02000/w_adv02400.jsp to http://www.korail.com/2007/adv/adv02000/w_adv02400.jsp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120319150536/http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/01/14/2011011400364.html to http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/01/14/2011011400364.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722132820/http://www.cdaily.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=2826 to http://www.cdaily.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=2826
 * Added tag to http://news.mk.co.kr/newsRead.php?sc=30000022&year=2008&no=374609&sID=504

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

POV text about Incheon
Removed the following text which is the opinion of an editor. If something like this is replaced it should be cited to reputable source.


 * KTX previously operated from Incheon International Airport, but in a backwards move now terminates at Seoul Station this means getting to and from the remote Incheon International Airport involves a lengthy inconvenient transfer to the AREX train line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.7.59.177 (talk) 11:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)