Tianjin Airport/Tianjin D-Trian Stn/Beijing South Stn/Beijing Downtown

edit

How to get to from Tianjin Airport/Tianjin D-Trian Stn/Beijing South Stn/Beijing Downtown? Here is the pic and direction for it: http://picasaweb.google.com/namlow/TianjingAirport2beijing#slideshow

-Nam Low —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.51.231.173 (talk) 09:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't this be moved to Beijing-Tianjin Intercity railway? Eraserhead1 (talk) 10:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Beijing–Tianjin Intercity Railway vs. Beijing-Shanghai High-Speed Railway

edit

Is the Beijing–Tianjin Intercity Railway the first section of the Beijing-Shanghai High-Speed Railway, currently under construction, or will the latter system have a separate set of tracks, more or less parallel to the former? In either case, the relation between the two systems probably should be mentioned in both articles. If the two system in fact do not share track, it probably should be explained why. That is, is this simply a capacity constraint - i.e., a single pair of tracks between Bejing and Tianjin simply would not be enough for all of the high-speed traffic going from Beijing to Tianjin and Shanghai - or was there a choice made to use not quite compatible technologies for the two systems?

No. They are not the same line and they do not share the same tracks. "Intercity" rails are meant to be just that - inter-city. Nothing else. Colipon+(Talk) 05:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I imagine that the decision to build a separate "intercity" system just for Beijing-Tianjin service (instead of combining with the 1st section of the high-speed rail line toward Shanghai) was taken based on a serious consideration, and I hope there are reliable sources discussing it, even if my cursory Google search in English could not find any. My first guess is simply the need for capacity... Vmenkov (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
P.S. I guess the same goes for the Nanjing-Shanghai section as well: even if the existing line there is already quite fast, I reckon they will be building a new pair of tracks there for the Jinghu line. Vmenkov (talk) 05:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
P.S. Interestingly, zh:沪汉蓉快速客运通道 says that on the Shanghai-Nanjing section the situation will be different: there, the Beijing-Shanghai and Shanghai-Hankou-Chengdu (Hu-Han-Rong) Railways will use the same track as the Shangha-Nanjing intercity service (zh:沪宁城际铁路). (Still, this line will be a new line, and not just an upgrade to the already existing - and pretty fast - Shanghai-Nanjing line). Vmenkov (talk) 09:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
That is quite interesting. As of now I cannot find any reliable sources that indicate why these railways are not combined, but my understanding was that intercity railways are supposed to be a different system altogether - "inter-city" links two cities in the same metropolitan region and acts as a sort of "macro-Metro", while something like the Beijing-Shanghai line is more like a regular high-speed train. But if you look at the stations alone - Beijing-Tianjin intercity rail passes Yongle, Yizhuang etc., while Beijing-Shanghai passes Langfang. Colipon+(Talk) 12:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Finances Inaccurate?

edit

The numbers in the "Finances" section seem to indicate a huge profit --- 11b yuan revenue on 1.8 yuan expenses. However, the article calls this a loss. I suspect that the loss conclusion is probably correct, but that the numbers have been mixed up somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.113.88 (talk) 10:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Someone who reads Chinese well really should look into fixing this. The numbers don't add up at all. Where is the 11b revenue coming from? If you multiply the number of riders by the ticket prices you get about 1/10th of that. Is the line highly subsidized or is the math here wrong? If it is a subsidy that would be an interesting topic in itself (maybe in a separate article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.99.42 (talk) 04:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

edit

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/beijing-tianjin/
    Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 09:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beijing–Tianjin intercity railway. 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) 09:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

edit

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

edit

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Wiki Education assignment: Rhetorical Practices from the Ancient World to Enlightenment

edit

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2023 and 3 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wilsonlhc (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Wilsonlhc (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply