Talk:TGV

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the TGV article.
Article policies
Former featured article TGV is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 15, 2006.
Archive
Archives
2005


Contents

[edit] Nose

I haven't found a mention that the nose of the TGV can link two TGV's together. Is this normal ? --Julien 14:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

"Trains can be lengthened by coupling two entire train units to one another, using couplers that are otherwise hidden in the noses of the power cars." This should do, no? :-)

--82.228.147.14 20:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TGV Sud-Est

The comment above states that TGV Sud-Est runs at 270 km/h. I don't think that the case any more. If have done my homework right the Sud-Est trainsets were upgraded from 270 km/h to 300 km/h at the end of the last decenium. I think it was in this process that they units got repainted in their current blue color-theme.

-Some were, but a few were left at 270 km/h. e.g. the sets working to Switzerland. A driver on one of these sets told me that SNCF had decided not to upgrade some to save money, because only a few minutes would be shaved off the journey time as most of the journey was on lignes classiques.

On "potential speed" vs. "normal maximum running speed": he also said that Duplex sets were now operating at 320 km/h on upgraded/new lines (to Marseille). Also, Eurostar may also be capable of faster, but I think normal maximum running speed should be shown on the page.

Not sure this is the case, as the LGV-Est website says that 320 km/h running on that line will be the first in France. Willkm 23:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

No when the LGV-Est website says it will be the first 320km/h LGV in France, they're lying. On some parts of the LGV Méditerranée the TGVs have the right to go at 350 km/h (but not on the whole line : on the rest of it, it's only 320) benji 11:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gradient?

On the Paris-Sud-Est LGV there are gradients of 35‰ and on the German high-speed line between Cologne and Frankfurt they reach 40‰ . Now I guess the actual grade isn't 40% but I can't find an explanation as to what the unit really is. Perhaps a link or something. - SimonLyall 07:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

40‰ is 4%, it sounds plausible to me. This is the ratio of two lengths (same units), so it is unitless. I have added a link to slope. Schutz 07:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I've seriously never seen it written that way before. Perhaps just changing it too the straight percentage? - SimonLyall 07:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
This is quite standard, especially for small gradients, but the use of ‰ in general is obviously much less frequent than %. I'd rather keep the ‰ but I don't have a strong feeling about this. Perhaps we could simply link Permille (although the page is pretty short) ? Schutz 08:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I've changed the first instance to link to Permille, it doesn't seem to clutter things. - SimonLyall 08:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Is there a strong reason to use 40‰ instead of the more obvious 4%? Gradients are quite commonly described with percentages, at least in the automotive world. Jpatokal 12:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
No, railway gradients are usually described as 1 in foo where foo is 25 in this case (I think) — Dunc|☺ 13:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Standard civil engineering practice dictates that gradients are expressed as a function of # of feet of rise per 100 feet of run (not 1,000), making % the proper notation. See also Grade (geography).--Lordkinbote 17:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
All: Please note that the way gradients are described varies by locale; "1 in 25" was the traditional way of describing a grade in the United Kingdom, while "4 percent" is more customary in North America; neither is right or wrong.
As a United States citizen, I may be biased, but I think "4 percent" is more likely to be understood by a layperson than "1 in 25". Perhaps the best solution is to include both forms. Since per mille (‰) is a rather obscure measurement and since Wikipedia aims to reach the masses and not only technical folk, I favor replacement with percent since that's something most people understand. — JonRoma 23:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Traction (engineering)

The article links to traction (engineering) when describing the switch from gas turbines to overhead wires. Perhaps it's just my lack of knowledge in this area, but it's unclear to me what traction has to do with the power source. Can this be clarified? Pburka 01:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

"Traction supply" is common railway terminology for train Locomotive power, going back to the fact the first trains were pulled by ropes. --JC Shepard 16:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ammenities?

Can anyone provide detailed information on what it's like inside the trains on the TGV system?

[edit] Rail Jargon

Could somebody please translate Heavy rail (UIC 60) is used, and the rails themselves are more upright (1/40 as opposed to 1/20 on normal lines) into plain English? What doe UIC stand for? What does it mean for rail to be "upright", and what are the 1/40 and 1/20 figures all about? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

UIC is the Union Internationale des Chemins der Fer - in English International Union of Railways. It's basically an organization that sets standards and tried to promote interoperability within Europe, I think, a bit like ISO standards. Its website is here: [1]. I've linked the article. Willkm 22:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accident photo

I think one of accident photo should be attached to the article. Example site with such photos is: http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/wrecks.html. Visor 08:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ICE is NOT aother brand for TGV.

As stated in the first pragraph.

TGV is a trademark of SNCF, while ICE is a trademark of Deutsche Bahn. L.Willms 09:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not just a different brand but the two types of train differ in concept, technology, company that builds them and philosophy too. --Soylentyellow 17:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Train of great speed?

Train of great speed sounds somewhat stilted to me as a translation of train a' grande vitesse - I think high speed train is the most appropriate translation. It's like "glace au chocolat" doesn't mean "ice cream of chocolate", it means "chocolate ice cream". So grande vitesse (great speed, or in English high-speed is usual) leads on to high-speed train. I think "train de grande vitesse" would result in "train of great speed" when translated. Can we clear this up? Willkm 22:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, "high speed train" is the appropriate translation of the name into English. Translating "grand" as "great" in this context is just wrong - English speakers say "high speed", not "great speed". Enchanter 23:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
'High-speed train' is the most appropriate translation- but not the most appropriate literal translation (which would be 'train of great speed', or similar). As the wording stands now ('French for high-speed train' as opposed to 'literally 'high-speed train', as it previously was) the sentence is reasonable. Cheers,Badgerpatrol 14:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Hm, I still think we should just stick with "High-speed train". The literal translation isn't really necessary. Willkm 18:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Since every time I check back to this page someone has altered the translation, it seems there is no general agrrement. In the absense of consensus, the translation now includes both the literal and the common usage version. I personally think this is not a bad solution, if only to avoid non-polyglots from coming away with the idea that the correct translation of "train a grande vitesse" is "high-speed train" - strictly speaking, it isn't, but it is obviously reasonable to include the English meaning of the phrase- which is "high-speed train". My feeling is that the current wording is acceptable and all-encompassing, but of course if that is not the consensus then please modify it as necessary! Salut, Badgerpatrol 19:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
In my view, "Train of great speed" is just plain wrong, even as a "literal" translation. The word "Grand" in French corresponds literally to several English words; it usually means "Big", but can also mean "Great", "Tall", or "High" in different contexts. When making the translation, you need to choose the most appropriate word in the context. And in this case, it's very obvious that "high speed" is appropriate. Translating "grande vitesse" as "great speed" is no more sensible than translating it as "tall speed" or "big speed" - it's very clearly the wrong choice of word. Enchanter 23:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I reiterate, AS THE ARTICLE STANDS NOW (0130) the sentence reads fine (train à grande vitesse, French for "high-speed train"), however, there is no consensus. My edit (16.11, Jan 17 ) juxtaposed both the best translation (high-speed train) and the best literal translation ("train with great speed") in the hope that this would satisfy all camps and prevent constant reverts. As you say, the word 'grande' has a meaning that is at least partially dependent on context, but is usually interpreted as 'large' or 'great/greater'. I have never seen it translated literally as high (as in aim high, high jump, etc.). 'Great speed' is a more appropriate translation than 'big speed' or 'tall speed' simply because the latter two are not translations of any sort, since they have no meaning in English. The important distinction is between the best (i.e. the most accurate in spirit) and the most literal translation (which remains, 'train with (or even better, train 'at') great speed'). The most accurate French translation of 'high-speed train' would be 'trains a hautes vitesse', 'trains a vitesse eleve' or very similar (apologies for lack of accents etc- keyboard). As always, there is flexibility about translation and I suspect everyone knows that it is necessary to select the most appropriate terms from a constrained list of possibilities, depending on context. 'High-speed train' is certainly the most appropriate translation in spirit, but anyone who suggests an alternative (such as a more directly literal translation) is not actually wrong. My intention was to encompass as much of the potential variation as possible and thereby suit everybody! (Never mind!) A quick scan of the web suggests the expected variety of translations (some completely wrong), but for a few examples of what I would call the more 'literal' approach, see here, here, here and here. The important thing to emphasise is that all translations are almost always inexact- there is no right or wrong, and I did not feel it was unduly cumbersome to the article to include a clarifying statement. However, if you feel strongly, I cede to your view (although I do think it is not 100% accurate); it is not an issue I have strong feelings about, although there is obviously a spectrum of opinion based on other edits done (see history). So long as the translation does not claim to be literal, I have no problems. Cheers! Badgerpatrol 03:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
PS- You might also see this comment here from (I think) a native French speaker (I am a native Anglophone), User: Schutz regarding this edit (not done my me) for a view which I think is intermediate between our two! Cheers, Badgerpatrol 03:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I do see what you mean - I think part of the trouble is that it just doesn't read well with such a long bracketed section... It's true, some other people have translated it using "great", but not *that* many (compare this and this...) Anyway. I'm just going to leave it now and see what happens... :) Willkm 23:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Low axle weight

One important feature of the TGV trainsets is missing, the low axle weight, which is more important than the articulation (which is mentioned) and keeps track wear and tear at manageable and affordable levels.

I did not come across this article before it was featured, but I think this aspect needs to be included even now.--Klaus with K 10:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. This is the main point behind the unusual "tripod drive" that connects the body-mounted traction motors to the wheelset axles. But this is Wikipedia, so you know what to do: be bold!
Atlant 23:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not a NIMBY movement!

Lyon Turin Ferroviaire [..] has been the subject of demonstrations in Italy. While most Italian political parties agree on the construction of this line, a NIMBY-inspired movement is vehemently opposing it.
Sorry guys, this is wrong. The concerns are not related with a Not-in-my-backyard concept: the Susa Valley is crowded with infrastructures, and no one cares. Actual protests are due to serious environmental issues that were badly ignored for political interest. The works on the line should have begun in Jan 2006 to have access to european funding: the design of the line involved the mining of a mountain rich of uranium and asbestos. The engineers intended to store the material in open air, in the most windy and inhabitated valley of Europe, to save on operating costs and to reduce times to get the money. This is an inacceptable thing, because is very dangerous for health of the people living there and in all the north-west part of Italy.
Moreover the Turin-Lyon line is an economical nightmare: it's very expensive and will not have a return within the next 40 years. There are 3 old lines departing from Turin to Lyon, and improving them would have been much cheaper and less dangerous for environment. Building the new line in the way proposed is just a mean to charge a huge debt on Italian government, while the profits will be managed by private companies for ne next 40 years. Just like the Eurotunnel failure.
Note that I'm Italian (not from Val di Susa), and I'am a railway engineer. Please fix the statement, is deeply incorrect. (I am not changing it: my english is not good enough, sorry) 84.222.104.212 15:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC) (an italian wikipedian)

Your English may not be absolutely perfect but definitively is good enough to be well understood. Why don't you write a short passage (neutral point of view of course), usually a native speaker will come along and correct minor mistakes. I could do that as well but then I am not a native English speaker either.--Klaus with K 17:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Done. Please someone check it out. 84.222.40.130 10:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Have tidied it up. It was pretty good to start off with anyway; keep editing! One thing I removed was the statement that passenger trains will not use the line; this is apparently not the case according to the LTF website... Willkm 22:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I've tryed to shorten the article and to give it a more neutral pint of view form. Uranium is a serios danger this time but a solution could be easily found by using appropriate techniques (and spending more money). The movent against all TAV lines is active from the early 90's and is trying to exploit protestors lawful worries. As it is well kwown there isn't an uranium problem in other TAV lines so this NIMBY movement is against TAV on the whole. Apologize for my English. If you have something to suggest please tell me. Armando82, 20 January 2006
Armando, I think that the part I wrote was NPOV enough. As I wrote the protests are not against the TAV passing through the valley: the solution proposed by protesters is a rail shuttle service for trucks that *will pass through the valley*. So it is NOT a Nimby movement. Protests are against the operative choices of the builders. You removed the part related to the police charge: it was on newspapers, and if you are italian (it seems from the name) you should know this. That's important because it says a lot on the handling of the problem by Italian government, an issue very debated both in France and in Italy for over 2 months. At least this part should be recovered, IMHO. 82.61.131.41 00:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! About Nimby: The article does NOT say that Susa Valley movement is Nimby but only that the already existing Nimby movement (not related to the popular movement of Susa Valley) and some small political parties are trying to exploit this protest. Remember that NO-TAV movement concerns are not in general related to health risk but only to a different view of human development that imply a total refuse of big structures on the whole. About police: What You say is really true but I think that part comply more with a news article that with a TGV encyclopedia article. A lot of protest (some with more than 1000 protestors like old article was saying) have take place but TGV article is already oversised. A detailed chronology of protests against TGV/TAV could be added but in a new specific article. Moreover I must say that if police bahaviour was wrong on one side, some protests like motorways blocking are absolutely illegal under Italian law. P.S. Why don't you register to Wikipedia and use your Username? Now you use an IP address and I don't understand if I'm speking with the same person of the previous time. Armando82, 21 January 2006
registered. After all I think that an article related to the riots against TGV/TAV would be interesting and shouldbe linked in this page. I do not want to write pages for en.wiki. I'm writing a lot for it.wiki and have not enough time to follow both. I'm checking the EU documents related to the Turin-Lyon. Some of them say it is a pure freight line, some says is a pax TGV line... weird. --Jollyroger 19:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign affair

Dear Train-o-holics,

just a line from fair Italy to advise a look at it:TGV which is going to become a Featured Article owing to a lot of new and good technical information from a very skilled user who started from en.wiki's article but only as a jumpstart to enlarge it with new material. --εΔω 20:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economics

Since this is a featured article is should include some basic info the economics of the TGV (investment cost, amortisation, profitability, ticket prices, ridership, capacity utilisation, externalities, land restructuring ...)unsigned edit by Special:Contributions/137.222.40.132

I agree. I came here hoping to find some information about that, having heard elsewhere that the French state subsidizes the TGV and wondering if that was true and to what extent. A very important aspect that is missing from the article. --RenniePet (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TGV/SNCF Website

The official website of the TGV network (at least where TGV refers to the French network) is not tgv.co.uk. This is a ticketing agency for UK Residents run by RailEurope. The official website is tgv.com run by SNCF (who run most of the rail networks in France) - I added their site to. I know this may seem a little commercial but both sites are in 6 languages and provide a wealth of information. 202.7.183.131 12:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)SpeedFreak

Just a note to say that RailEurope in the UK is a wholly owned subsidiary of SNCF, so it wouldn't matter anyway really--Mgill 13:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Standing Waves

"The front power car is supplied by a cable running along the roof of the train. Eurostar trains are, however, long enough that oscillations are damped sufficiently between the front and rear power cars that both pantographs can be safely raised. On lignes classiques slower maximum speeds prevent oscillation problems, and on DC lines both pantographs are raised."

What's the connection, if any, between the standing wave problem and the use of DC power? Or does DC power require the use of both pantographs, irrespective of any potential standing wave issue? Clarification here, if possible, would be appreciated. 71.131.226.106 16:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we're speaking of much lower voltages when operating on DC, leading to higher currents leading to the need for both pantographs to handle the current. I think the speeds are much lower as well.
Atlant 23:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eurostar photo

I'm sure a better Eurostar photo could be found. The Eurostar is amazingly long (20 carriages!), and the current photo doesn't do it justice. 217.18.21.2 18:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Arnaud


[edit] Future Lines

There seems to be a discrepancy between the planned and projected lines section on this page and those on the French version. I haven't yet checked other languages. Some of these would appear to be highly unlikely to be built in parallel - for example here we have the "LGV Barreau Picard" going directly from Paris through Amiens to Calais and London, whereas the French LGV fr:Ligne à grande vitesse page talks about the "Arc Picard" with a line running from Rouen to Reims, serving Amiens from a junction with LGV Nord Europe. I think where these projected lines are discussed some citations are needed, otherwise we are just publishing Usenet rumours. Also it is important to distinguish between official projects and studies (e.g. those where the planning process has started) and projects that we may describe at this stage as wishful thinking, such as the above Picardy lines. If any native or good French speakers are here, can we work with the French page to sort out fact from fiction please? -- Dave 11:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

For the Picard part, the LGV Barreau Picard is a real project from the French authorities, while the "Arc Picard" is a fantasy project from a few French TGV fans. I think the list which is here in the English wikipedia is correct and comprehensive (except the LGV Normandie, which I think is dead). The additional projects we can find on the French page are fantasy stuff. Hektor 16:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] NIMBY again

Sorry to open up an earlier issue, but the statement: "but a ten-year-old NIMBY national movement against the TAV is trying to exploit inhabitants' legitimate worries to criticize the development of high-speed rail in Italy as a whole " is seriously POV. The Wikipedia link to "NIMBY" points out that it is a pejorative. "trying to exploit" also obviously reflects the writer's viewpoint. I propose to rewrite it as: "This is opposed by a national movement that opposes the development of high-speed rail" RFB

[edit] Italian Direttissima - before TGV?

The TGV was today pushed back to being the world's third commercial high-speed rail service in the article, behind the Italian Direttissima in second. However, this site [2] suggests (as far as my Italian stretches) that the line was limited to 180 km/h until at least 1985 (in part due to signalling limitations) - doesn't that mean that strictly it wasn't, despite the claim on the cited website ([3])? Is anyone with better Italian able to confirm? Willkm 23:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Correct, the site states that up until June 1st 1985, the speed limit was 180km/h. The day after, the limit was raised to 200km/h due to new signalling and new suspension on the trains. However, the site still refers to the line as a High-Speed line, the first one built in Europe. --PkerUNO 00:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll change it back, as I think that site is being optimistic: it's not actually a high-speed service at 180 km/h, or even at 200 km/h. Willkm 14:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Composition of POS trainsets

As indicated in the main page, the POS trainset is a bit strange, as it is composed of 8 "Réseau" cars and two "Duplex" power cars. Why ? Because Alstom is now only able to produce Duplex trainsets. However, predicted traffic on the LGV Est is not as high to operate Duplex trainsets with decent frequencies. That's why SNCF booked for Duplex trainsets, then consituted the mixed trainsets with existing Réseau passenger cars. Due to this constitution, the opposite effect appears with a new strange trainset, composed of a Réseau power car, and Duplex passenger cars. The conversion has already started, as I took this picture ( http://frodary.free.fr/trains/PICT0038%20(Large)%20(2).JPG ) in the Paris-Gare de Lyon station yesterday. You can notice the new livery, and new numbering for the power cars (beginning at 600).

Note that this type of conversion was already envisioned 15 years ago. The TGV Reseau power cars were designed from the beginning with enough auxiliary power capacity for a bi-level trainset. Nice forward thinking. Great photo! --Ctillier 05:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't know this anecdote. It's not surprising though, as Duplex and Réseau power cars motors are 8,800 kW.
Thanks for the pic, I can upload the full resolution pic (6Mpx) if needed.

[edit] Texas debacle

I am surprised to see no mention of the Texas debacle. Shouldn't we talk about it in the "TGV outside France" paragraph? --WhiteEcho 17:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article split

The current version of the article is 52kB in size, and I feel it is too long. Further, it would good if there was more material on the LGV network (as a whole, rather than on individual lines). So, I propose creating LGV network, using material from the section entitled 'Network' (and possible the 'Signalling' and 'Tracks' sections). What do people think? Tompw (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that might be useful. This article in its current form is something like "The TGV success story". There is material in it for one article on the high-speed trains conceived and built by Alstom, known under SNCF's trademark "TGV", another one on the high-speed rail lines and network in France, Europe and beyond, a third one on the TGV train runs by SNCF (whose TGV network is not limited to the LGV network). We have here the confusing case, where one tradmark is used for various things; the same applies to the ICE trains and network in Germany (with links to Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, and soon France).
L.Willms 09:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The explanation of Articulated trainset as in the fourth paragraph should be moved out into an article in its own right. people who don't understand this term (as I did before reading it) could refer to that article. That's the way Wikipedia is supposed to work, in my opinion.
L.Willms 09:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah! Found! There are articles on Articulated vehicle and Articulated car and I have added Wikilinks to both of them in two different sections of this article. Still I think the discussion of the relative advantages and disadvantages of an articulated trainset should be moved to Articulated car or a new article created as suggested by me above.
L.Willms 10:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be hard to split it along the lines of "trains", "high-speed routes and tracks" and "routes on which TGVs operate". The article is about the whole TGV "system" and I think covers it well. It would be incomplete without a section on each of the main topics (History, Tracks, Signalling, Stations, Rolling stock, Network) and I would hesitate to separate any of these completely. I don't see 52kB as too long for an article of this nature, but if it does need pruning, I would suggest doing this by pruning sections which already have "Main Articles", as many of them do. The rolling stock section, for example, may be too detailed when each of the types has its own article. Willkm 00:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
When I wrote the article looks "like 'The TGV success story'", that also meant it looks like a Alstom/SNCF promotion brochure.
L.Willms 09:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
It has been very successful - it's hard not to paint a picture which is rosy... any ideas? Willkm 21:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contents position

I think that the contents should appear earlier in the article, so that you can see it without scrolling down the page, i think that it is too late in the history section. Any reason why it is there? Johnwrw 10:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should appear earlier but that could make the beginning appear cluttered. The logo and a picture of a TVG also belong up there so they shouldn't be moved. I don't see a solution to the problem but it might be an idea to align the contents box to left so it is a little more prominent. --Aaronsharpe 12:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of the logo, think it's worth mentioning the hilarious accident in its design? ~ CZeke 21:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Price?

It might be interesting to do a comparison of ticket fares and travel times of the TGV vs. air travel. Even with disclaimers for "as of such-and-such date" it would still be informative.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 18:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Possibly an idea but care needs to be taken it doesn't fall into OR. Especially since fares can be complicated things depending on who you buy them from, how far in advanced, the travel dates etc (especially for airfares) Nil Einne 19:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs clarification

When trains enter or leave LGVs from lignes classiques, they pass over a ground loop that automatically switches the driver's dashboard indicators to the appropriate signalling system. For example, a train leaving the LGV for a ligne classique has its TVM system deactivated and its traditional KVB (Contrôle Vitesse par Balise, or beacon speed control) system enabled.

This section needs clarification either directly or with appropriate links. Lignes classiques I guess translated as classic lines or some such and from reading the article further, it appears (as one would assume) these are the more traditional lines used by more ordinary/traditional trains. However this does need to be clarified perhaps with a wikilink. KVB/beacon speed control isn't clear. From reading the earlier part of the article, I guess it means the driver looks at external beacons rather then the trains internal info but this isn't clear and should similarly be clarified either with a wikilink or further discussion here Nil Einne 19:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "No recorded fatalities at high-speed"

I have found that, sorry to be morbid, there has been deaths when train were travelling at a relatively high speed. So i this worth a mention? See TGV_accidents#Serious_Incidents. Simply south 12:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I believe you are referring to the 28 Sept 88 level crossing accident. The train was travelling at 110 km/h (68 mph) which is not high speed. Also, your edit to the article mentioned a few fatalities at speed while you "reference" only one. That said, I reversed the edit pending additional citation or evidence. Christopher Jost 14:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, saw you change it to "few fatalites" as unqualified by speed. The original gave a qualified statement of none at high speed. To say only that there are few at any speed lacks definition. I would suggest either saying how many total passenger fatalities to simply saying few and then break out by high-speed and low speed. Just saying "few" is nebulous. Christopher Jost 14:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I have changed it to none over 100mph, which i believe to the rest of the world qualifies as high speed. Simply south 14:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Meh, it's more like 250 km/h (155 mph) according to High-speed rail. I'd still like you to replace "few" with a number. Christopher Jost 14:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Number of dead = 7, however 5 of those = terrorist bomb accident. Simply south 14:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
      • The implication is supposed to be that there have been no fatalities attributed to the fact that the trains are running at high speed. For example, any of the level crossing accidents or bombings could have happened to any train and are not a safety weakness of the TGV, whereas if a TGV had derailed and crashed at 250 km/h+ it is likely that there would be fatalities which would not have occurred had the train been running at a lower speed. Willkm 15:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Journey time from Calais to Marseille

This cannot be 3h29m as stated - the av. speed in this case would be 190mph or 306kph!!

I suspect that it should be about 5h29m, as the line between Marseilles and Cannes is slow, as is the initial stage leaving London.

I think you may have muddled the two sets of figures (London-Cannes, Calais-Marseille): they're two separate records. Willkm 16:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Willkm, you're right that I started to confuse the two records, but I'm still perplexed as to how the TGV can do 663 miles @ av. speed 189mph to do Calais-Marseille in only 3h29mins. Perhaps someone on here knows the answer? DW 194.206.158.60 13:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a very simple answer: The train was allowed to average 189mph for the special run! Don't forget these trains are allowed to operate at ~200mph in daily service and have capacity in hand. Dpeilow 19:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree - not sure what the problem is. For a TGV record, this does not sound unreasonable at all. An average of 189 mph is distinctly plausible. Badgerpatrol 23:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It did indeed do it in 3h 29min. It was a special train as part of an SNCF publicity stunt, so normal speed limits and traffic constraints didn't apply. It wasn't a Duplex set, so I've changed that bit of the article. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1354047.stm> Wheeltapper 16:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Length of TGV network

The article says that "France has around 1,200 km of LGV". I have updated it to "around 1,700" according to the figures at <http://lgv2030.free.fr/ligne1.htm#SudEst>. This counts the newly opened LGV Est (first phase) but not the second phase. Why were 200 km added from out of nowhere - did I double count something. Also, am I correct in excluding purpose-built links to the existing network? Can someone please check this. Andrew_pmk | Talk 06:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Designer

The article states that the TGV was designed by "Jacques" Cooper. In fact his name is Jack Cooper and he is British :-o —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.192.10 (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)