Question on distances[edit]

I'm glad we finally found a source for the distances, but I had a question about the distances in there.

What is the starting point for the distances? If Taipei is at 5.9 and Nangang is at -3.3, is it being measured from somewhere in the middle? Sorry, it's just something that's been bugging me! -Multivariable (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is still bugging me, too. After grumbling about it for some time, I took the numbers from the Chinese Wikipedia article. Which uses them unsourced, and notes that chainage will be re-numbered after the Nangang extension. I tried to find a source, but everything I could find (including scientific reports and presentations) used the Chinese Wikipedia as source... All I could do was getting confirmation with some original research: looking at Google Maps.
To be specific: from Banciao to Taoyuan (where the old and new chainages began to differ), I measured 29.14 km with the Google maps distance measuring tool, which fits the 29.165 km difference in chainage as in the Chinese Wikipedia almost perfectly. On the other hand, we still don't know the actual length of the existing track, even though several sources say 345 km... The chainage now begins around where the tunnels ended near Taipei Songshan Station, but I'm not sure tracks were laid all the way in the dead-end tunnel; while at the Kaohsiung end, tracks extend about a kilometre beyond the station -- so the chainage data for both ends is missing... --Rontombontom (talk) 06:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I note that I could add all of the tunnels (some 40 more), four more crossovers with the TRA Western Line, and several bridges over smaller rivers to the track map, and then it would be complete like f.e. what you can see for the Gotthardbahn -- but I feel that that would be overkill; the longest and the most important seem enough. --Rontombontom (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree, that would be overkill. :) Getting distances from Google Maps is probably the most trustworthy way (besides any distances officially released by THSRC). Thanks for the work again! The improvements you've been making to THSR-related articles is astounding. -Multivariable (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<bows> To rhyme with the stations table, I decided in the end to include all the connections to TRA, and also all the depots -- I hope it's still no overkill now. And I finally found the source for chainage! Will include it in the THSR article in a few minutes. --Rontombontom (talk) 10:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... judging by the source, the "0" km point may be at the temporarily Songshan facility. Connections to TRA and depots make sense, but any more might indeed be overkill. :) -Multivariable (talk) 06:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's even more complex: according to this and another source, the project actually starts at km 1.0! I can only guess that in an early plan, km 0.0 was supposed to be a new maintenance yard or a new Songshan station. So, with the extra kilometre beyond the station at the Zuoying end, the total line length at present is really 345 km.
I found this while trying to make sense of tunnel lengths. Various sources give 61, 62, 63 km as total. The higher numbers come obviously from a mistake made by some articles in assuming that the entire "TRUPO" section (km 1.0-16.8 across Taipei) is tunnel. Just one source said 14 km, and just that is confirmed by Google maps.
Anyway, in other news, I also messed up the TRUPO section a bit in the track map, now corrected. --Rontombontom (talk) 21:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better icons[edit]

I have found a fuller list of available track map icons on Wikimedia Commons, and used the new finds to draw continuous elevated sections without breaks as before. I also created icons for tower stations on elevated sections, which I was surprised to find missing. --Rontombontom (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Kaohsiung[edit]

Kaohsiung station isn't happening. The proposal is deader than Pingtung. It should be removed. Szqecs (talk) 11:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source? Useddenim (talk) 04:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go. No mention of the project. Even if there were, it doesn't belong on the template if it isn't even under construction. Szqecs (talk) 07:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is perfectly acceptable to include proposed extensions and alternatives on diagrams; would you be okay with changing Kaohsiung to a collapsible section titled "previously proposed" (or something similar)? Useddenim (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But what is the purpose of keeping it? Szqecs (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I'm against throwing away information. Was this extension ever a serious proposal (in which case it should remain, as noted above), or was it just on somebody's "maybe someday" wish list (in which case it certainly can go). Useddenim (talk) 13:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree for articles, not for route templates. Route templates have limited space, so it should only contain the most relevant information. Also it can't be found either on the THSR or the government agencies' website, so yes it might as well be a "maybe someday" thing. Szqecs (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Useddenim (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Categories