Jump to content

Talk:List of countries by rail usage

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

Data

[edit]

The United Kingdom statistics are well out of date - the latest passenger-km figure is more like 40 billion.

I have seen more up-to-date figures on another website - will try to find it and post a link.

- the other website is the UIC (Union Internationale des Chemins de Fer). It has (for some countries) data for as recently as 2005, whilst the World Bank figures are at best from 1999, and in some cases from earlier than that.

I will try to create another table based on UIC figures, using WB figures where necessary. This will be in addition to the existing table which is useful as a "snapshot" from 1999.

The paragraph after the passenger tables is badly worded. We do need a disclaimer but perhaps something like this:-

"Caution should be applied when analysing these rail usage statistics. In some cases not all rail operations in a country are included (example - Italy - "private" rail companies such as the Circumvesuviana are not included despite carrying large numbers of passengers, and in Canada suburban systems such as GO around Toronto are not included despite carrying many times the number of passengers, and significantly more passenger-km, than the long-distance Via Rail network). Sometimes metro or subway systems are included, but this is not always the case (eg - in the USA they are included, in the UK, France and Japan they are not). In some countries statistics are very much out of date or not available at all. However for most of the countries where rail forms a significant part of passenger transport the statistics here give a rough indication of the scale of passenger operations"

Exile 13:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]



The frieght-traffic figure seems erroneous to me as it refers to "England" - I highly doubt any such figure is available for only England and not the United Kingdom. If there were two figures, the UK one would be the most appropriate to use. WelshGandalf 14:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unintelligible abbreviations

[edit]

The abbreviations in "A brief table unintelligible (e.g. "Dbl km", "El km"). Some rather seem to be percent and not kilometers. An explanation is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.151.171 (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil

[edit]

I updated freight-traffic figures, but i am not able to found sources for South America (especially Brazil). If someone found some, feel free to add it. --Jklamo 01:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

China

[edit]

I updated the number of China's (PRC) railway. The resources is from Statistics China. http://www.stats.gov.cn/

Can you please link direct page? I was able to found there only numbers for 2004. --Jklamo 16:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the link is a little bit long. I don't know why it's so long, but that it is:

http://www.stats.gov.cn/was40/gjtjj_detail_data.jsp?searchword=DOCRELTIME%3D2005+and+%28docTitle%21%3D%B9%FA%C4%DA%C9%FA%B2%FA%D7%DC%D6%B5+or+docTitle%21%3D%B3%C7%D5%F2%B5%A5%CE%BB%B4%D3%D2%B5%C8%CB%D4%B1%C0%CD%B6%AF%B1%A8%B3%EA+or+docTitle%21%3D%C5%A9%C1%D6%C4%C1%D3%E6%D2%B5%D7%DC%B2%FA%D6%B5+or+docTitle%21%3D%B8%F7%B5%D8%C7%F8%C5%A9%C1%D6%C4%C1%D3%E6%D2%B5%D7%DC%B2%FA%D6%B5+or+docTitle%21%3D%D2%DA%D4%AA%D2%D4%C9%CF%C9%CC%C6%B7%BD%BB%D2%D7%CA%D0%B3%A1%D6%F7%D2%AA%D6%B8%B1%EA+or+docTitle%21%3D%B8%F7%B5%D8%C7%F8%D2%DA%D4%AA%D2%D4%C9%CF%C9%CC%C6%B7%BD%BB%D2%D7%CA%D0%B3%A1%BB%F9%B1%BE%C7%E9%BF%F6+or+docTitle%21%3D%B8%F7%B5%D8%C7%F8%C5%A9%B4%E5%BE%D3%C3%F1%BC%D2%CD%A5%C6%BD%BE%F9%C3%BF%C8%CB%CF%D6%BD%F0%CA%D5%C8%EB+or+docTitle%21%3D%C6%F3%D2%B5%BE%B0%C6%F8%D6%B8%CA%FD+or+docTitle%21%3D%C4%BF%C2%BC%29&channelid=9951&record=9

Number of *journeys* figures?

[edit]

To quote the article:

To gauge the true importance of rail travel, the number of journeys (however short or long) needs to be calculated.

Is it possible to include this statistic in this article, at least for the countries for which it is available? Having asserted the importance of this measure, it seems a rather glaring omission! For example, mention is made of the UK having 17.54 journeys per person. Where is this figure from? The IUR synopsis mentioned does not seem to include this statistic. Loganberry (Talk) 23:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph is very dubious anyway. Who is to say "journeys per head" or "km per head" is more significant? A country with a lot of suburban and commuter rail will score highly on journeys per head - one with a well developed long distance network such as India or France will have a high km per head figure.

By the way the km per head table is extremely inaccurate. If I find time I will correct it

Exile (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Discussion

[edit]

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 12:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map colors

[edit]

The colors of File:Rail density map.png are so close I cannot tell neighboring shades apart. -- Beland (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

India's Freight rail by billions of tonne-kilometers

[edit]

the article give the statistics is 2680.99 billions of tonne-kilometers, bigger than China's 2523.917 and Russia's 2090. Obivously it is violating with common sense. in this site: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tra_rai_usa_sta_fre_rai_by_bil_of_ton_bil_ton-billions-tonne-kilometers-billion-kilometres the statistics data:

  • 2 China: 2,195.4
  • 3 Russia: 1,801.6
  • 4 India: 407.4

and in this site: http://www.uic.org/com/IMG/pdf/cp5_en-2.pdf the 2008 statistics is

  • 2 Russia 2400
  • 3 China 2338
  • 4 India 521

-- Ligand (talk) 7:40, 26 Sept 2010 (UTC)

Why a table is not WP:NOR

[edit]

Why a table is not WP:NOR and why 02:54, 30 June 2014 by user User:Massyparcer was wrong:


See in general:

But especially:

  • Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_an_advocacy_tool citation: "If someone doesn't like what was said, and they therefore cry SYNTH, others almost certainly will be right to cry foul. Virtually anything can be shoehorned into a broad reading of SYNTH, but the vast majority of it shouldn't be."
  • Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_mere_juxtaposition
  • Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_ubiquitous citation: "If your understanding of SYNTH includes all instances of reading a table, because reading a table requires "synthesizing" the entry in the table with the label of what the table is, your understanding of SYNTH is wrong. "
  • Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_presumed citation: "If you want to revert something on the grounds that it's SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new thesis is being introduced and why it's not verified by the sources. You don't have to put the whole explanation in the edit summary, but if someone asks on the talk page, you should have something better ready than "Of course it's SYNTH. You prove it isn't." The burden of proof is light: just explaining what new assertion is made will do, and then it's up to the other editor to show that your reading is unreasonable. But in any disagreement, the initial burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and the claim that something is SYNTH is no exception."
  • Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_a_catch-all "If there's something bugging you about an edit, but you're not sure what, why not use SYNTH? After all, everything under the sun can be shoehorned into a broad-enough reading of SYNTH. Well, because it isn't SYNTH. It's shoehorning. To claim SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new claim was made, and what sort of additional research a source would have to do in order to support the claim."
  • Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_a_policy "It's part of a policy: no original research. If a putative SYNTH doesn't constitute original research, then it doesn't constitute SYNTH. The section points out that synthesis can and often does constitute original research. It does not follow that all synthesis constitutes original research."
  • Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_just_any_synthesis citation: "SYNTH is original research by synthesis, not synthesis per se. ... It seems clear to me that "synthesis of published work" was assumed to be part of the legitimate role of Wikipedia."
  • Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_primarily_point-by-point
  • Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_numerical_summarization citation: "Treatment of numeric data is an encyclopedic issue: summarization by sum, average, etc. are necessary expedients, and should not be confused with original research."

-- ZH8000 (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some statistics incorrect for Sweden

[edit]

The statistics for Sweden at present do not include the transport work done by private companies or regional transport bodies and so miss about half of all rail transport work in Sweden. These figures are only for the national public companies SJ and GreenCargo. The correct figures are not available from UIC but can be found at:

http://trafa.se/en/Statistics/Rail-transport/

The same error may apply to other countries, but Sweden has privatized the rail sector more than most, which I suspect is reflected in these numbers. Oberoende (talk) 06:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources & Data

[edit]

Please make sure before rewriting same false data, have a look to the source here USA never had 2,500 million tonnes freight and be carefull to the colors below is noted the difrent years depending of the color print (green means Data for 2011). I asked the admins to protect the page from vandalim.

15:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rami75013 (talk • contribs)

First of all, I acknowledge the color scheme, I didn't realize. My fault, indeed. But, if you percieve such an error, why then do you not correct it by yourself? Secondly, I am also very sorry for the mismatch between tons and tonnes-kilometres. I have already corrected it accordingly. My fault. Thirdly, would you mind to discuss article-related issues on the article's own talk page. -- ZH8000 (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ZH, sorry for replying so late to your remark, i usually contribute on other wiki's languages pages, IMO on en Wiki there is enoughly suficient contributors and also my other languages are better than my english, yes to reply to your answer i simply discussed that on your own talk page because you were the only one that deleted many times my contributions to enter false data without even reading the tittle of the revision which were really clear and were such as : -1 be careful green data are for the year 2011 !! for this revision ; -2 Please do not confuse million tonnes with million tonne-kms for this one ; and -3 Please see sources to make sure before rewriting same false data for this other one. Anyway, 'l'incident est clos' as we say thank you very much for your so much efforts for updating english wiki pages about rail but there is still many issues on this page many people are geting confused by all what has relation with rail and add stats of urban rail, metros, commuter trains, overground and underground rails etc.. IMO on this page the only correct stats about passengers are the data of Spain and Germany for example, by poluating this liste whith metro stats or old urban trains which even transport people on the roofs of the trains, with such behaviors like this we got a miracle of discovering Spain that has the best european rail network the last one in the world in rail usage !! --Rami75013 (talk) 08:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update NL and scandinave rail stats

[edit]

Dutch and scandinave languages are quite relatively dificult, is here someone from NL or Belgium to retrieve Netherland's stats ? same for scandinave countries which usually invest too much in rail, can somebody update stats from Norway, Sweden, Danemark etc..

I could find stats for Sweden, i will try to update them but not sure if they are pertinently correct i never learnt swedish if somebody speaking swedish find mistakes or better sources about Sweden please make free to correct.

this is my source (since page 7) : http://www.trafa.se/PageDocuments/Jaernvaegstransporter_2014_kvartal_4.pdf found on Trafa.se portal.

Rami75013 (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Stats Scandinave rails (Freight moved)

[edit]

Update1
I could find data 2013 here after: irg-rail.eu[1]
Netherlands (NL): 6 ==> Done
Denmark (DK) : 2  ; Norway (NO) : 4  ; Finland (FI) : 9.

i did only NL, if anyone update other countries please also take time to update ranking.

Update2
Finland : UIC data more recent (2014) corected to 9.6 tkm
Norway : 4 billion tkm & Denmark 2 billion tkm ==> both done + ranking rebuilt


Rami75013 (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ IRG-Rail Market monitoring report IRG-Rail (15) 2 April 3rd 2015 (page 31).
[edit]

I'm not sure about the other tables, but the freight modal share table is clearly derived mostly from European statistics. The total quantity tables (tonnes and t-km) look like they plausibly might be the top countries, but the modal share figures span a huge range with a small number of countries, and I expect most other countries fall within that range. Thus, I don't think it's a good idea to have a "Rank" column here. Triplicate-Squid (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Brief railway statistics by country" table

[edit]

Needs units. None are shown. Satkomuni (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That table is partly sourced from the UIC railway synopsis (but hasn't been updated for 2015) and is partly unsourced. I have updated the passenger traffic sections for the 2015 synopsis, but if someone else could update the freight sections and the table then that would be helpful. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of countries by rail usage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of countries by rail usage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article picture, using rail density

[edit]

I think using rail density is a wrong choise for this article, as large countries are undervalued and the lenght of the network isn't really relevant towards its use. A better map might show passenger miles per capita, as it would show how much each person travels in a country. However this figure might be difficult to produce as the numbers listed in this article only covers around 30 countries. However a figure for this article should maybe also incorporate freight data, as rail usage really is a combination of passenger and freight. Baboogie (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Using inconsistent sources for rankings.

[edit]

Most of the countries listed, especially in the freight category, are using numbers provided by the International Union of Railways. In fact, it's so prevalent that all numbers in this page that don't have a source are presumed to come from the UIC.

Why is it that some countries have different sources with numbers that so dramatically differ from the UIC's findings? When comparing countries, and a standardized body exists that documents freight rail usage, it doesn't make sense to selectively use different sources that paint some countries in a better or worse light.

I'm referring specifically to using China's own state-run estimations, which overshoot the UIC's 2021 estimations of freight ton-kilometers by over 33%. But this applies to any extraneous source when a third party, standardized, international measure already exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.91.239.144 (talk) 06:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_countries_by_rail_usage&oldid=1208225345"