File talk:High Speed Railroad Map of Europe.svg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File[edit]

Can we make a working version of this file at File:High Speed Railroad Map of Europe.svg, so that it isn't required for the file name to be updated every year on Wikipedia? Then we could just make a copy of that file at the end of each year instead. Rob984 (talk) 11:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea (it was not possible earlier, as the filename is "empty" since February 2015)! We still must fix the links to older version (2015 and even older are still linked somewhere). --Jklamo (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
File moved, i am starting with linfixing. --Jklamo (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Typo[edit]

"Luxembough". Correct is "Luxembourg". Erland Eschenwald (talk) 07:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another one is "Århus". This was correct until 2010, but now the official spelling is "Aarhus". Erland Eschenwald (talk) 07:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both fixed. --Jklamo (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

North Europe[edit]

Could this map be expanded to show north parts including whole Sweden and Finland? Sidevar (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not the easiest task, but doable. Are there any 200+ km/h projects in these places? Will be the extension to include Gulf of Bothnia enough or really whole Sweden and Finland is needed? --Jklamo (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jklamo: I think there are no 200km projects there. Extension to Gulf of Bothnia is good enough, thanks :) Sidevar (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have extended the map to the North, and also to the East since there are some high-speed rail developments in Europe till the Oural as well. If needed, it can be further extended more to the North, since all the map is now already there till North of Cape North and it's only the size properties of the document which limits the image to a smaller area. Carfois (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Italy[edit]

This map seems to be slightly different than the high-speed rail map of Italy, but there has been some criticism raised that also applies to this map. Please take a look at the section "The factual accuracy of this map or the file name is disputed" of the other map and change this map accordingly.

All of the suggestions are in Italian, but easily understandable and follow the same schema, e.g.:

  • "1. La linea Milano-Treviglio è segnata con una velocità di 300 km/h, mentre il fascicolo linea di RFI (n. 29) riporta velocità massima di 200 km/h;"
  • The line X-Y is pictured with a speed of x km/h, while the line guide of RFI (number x, which is a reference to one of the files found here Fascicoli Circolazione Linee (in Italian)) reports a maximum speed of x km/h

Burnoutberni (talk) 09:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am bit confused, is there any map on Commons showing real speeds (according your source)? If yes, I can correct this map according the right map. --Jklamo (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that all problems was fixed by Negjana last edit. --Jklamo (talk) 07:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm slightly confused as well, but I am fairly certain that the high-speed rail map of Italy is wrong, but there is no correction for it (yet?) and there is no easily readible definitive source for this kind of information. As this map is a vector graphic and the other one is a PNG, it seems to me that we should first change this map and drop the other or make a new one later. Burnoutberni (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speeds[edit]

I would favor "half-open" intervals for the speeds, that work for any value like

  • <200
  • 200-<240
  • 240-<270
  • 270-<310
  • >=310

--Bk1 168 (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some additions[edit]

This map is wonderful, thanks to everyone that worked on. The map could be completed with some minor adjustment (but i'm not able to do it):

1) Under Construction: Bellinzona-Lugano high speed rail (basistunnel) at 250 km/h, (it is more or less the south prolungation of Gotthard Basistunnel). 2) Under Construction: Terzo Valico Genova-(near)Tortona, in direction of Milan, it's on the map but not clearly visible, maybe could be useful to move "Genova". 3) LGV Interconnexion Est: (east of Paris).

Thanks to improve it if you can! --213.245.90.158 10:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for the good suggestions. I made all these modifications! Carfois (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden - Finland border / Sweden speeds[edit]

  • (@Jklamo: ) I see that the line between Boden (Sweden) and Finland has just been added on the map. I think that it is a mistake to represent it like this because this map should only show lines with passenger traffic. And there is currently (unfortunately) no passenger traffic on this line (this is since 1992, see [1]). There are plans to possibly start passenger traffic in 2018 (see [2], [3], [4] and [5]) but for the moment the line should not be represented on this map, at least not like lines in operation. It should be added this way only when there will be passenger traffic.
  • For the meantime I believe that it would be a good solution to represent this line with gray dashes, exactly like the two lines in Latvia which were formally important international passenger lines but where there are currently no passenger trains.
  • Otherwise in Sweden there is also a mistake with the speed of the Bothnia Line : this map, as its legend says, is showing "the actual operational high-speed instead of the designed one which may be higher". And the operational speed of the Bothnia Line is currently "only" 200 km/h (while 250 km/h is its designed speed). Carfois (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    There seems to be passenger traffic from Luleå to Haparanda since a few years (?). Not across the border, but to a kilometre or so from it. Thus the dashed line should be changed to a proper line, I suppose. The Kemi–Tornio line is also dotted and the Tornio–Kolari lines is missing (seasonal passenger traffic) and the Rovaniemi–Kemijärvi line seems to be missing from the map. I don't know what the criteria for inclusion are. –LPfi (talk) 08:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @LPfi: Thank you, you're right. I see that from Luleå to Haparanda there are now 3 trains per day (rome2rio, tågstationen.se, norrtag.se). I also see that there are indeed now passenger trains on the Kemi–Tornio line (rome2rio) I will un-dot these sections in my next map update.
    • About Rovaniemi–Kemijärvi line, I think that it should indeed be added to the map, especially since it is an electrified line (see map from Vayla) and there are some extension projects (see en:Arctic Railway). About the Tornio–Kolari line, it is not electrified and has got only seasonal services according to your information, so it's less obvious but I believe that it should be added too because it is geographically remarkable and has also some extensions projects (see also en:Arctic Railway). It takes time to draw precisely the railways but when I will have time to do it, I will add these two lines.
    • There are no clear strict inclusion criteria for non high-speed railways. I think that we should include non high-speed railways on which high-speed services run (although not high-speed on that section) and also the lines which are considered to be main lines for their country (in order to appreciate this, it can be taken into account whether the line is electrified or not, double track or not, speed, the amount of traffic, the geographical importance, etc.). Carfois (talk) 11:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you.
      I don't think we should emphasize the Arctic Railway, which seems to have been put back into the drawer with the resignation of the then transport minister. While the project might be important from a strategic viewpoint, it is all too expensive to be economically viable. Even if realised, calculations show that it is cheaper to get a container to Tampere via the Northeast Passage, Rotterdam and Helsinki than directly via the Northeast Passage and the Arctic Railway (i.e. fright volumes would not be significant). The Sámi have protested loudly to the project, as have the nature conservation folks, so there are even international law implications.
      Still, the Kolari and Kemijärvi railways are remarkable by their northern location, and extending the Kolari line (for freight) is a much more realistic project, also brought up now and then, and passenger traffic via Torneo/Haparanda may get real any time, given suitable politic constellations (there would need to be a change of trains, but the stations have double gauge platforms).
      –LPfi (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for the interesting additional details. About possible future international services between Sweden and Finland via Torneo/Haparanda, from a technical point of view, a change of train would not even be necessary if the rolling stock would be with variable gauge. For instance, the Spanish company Talgo is making such variable gauge trains, including their high-speed Talgo AVRIL (see the Talgo official site). Carfois (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes. I had the impression that specialised stock had been deemed impractical here, but my information is from before the newest updates of the railway. –LPfi (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speeds in the UK[edit]

There are currently some disagreements between some contributors about some railspeeds in the UK which I would like to help solving by verifying and finding the correct information. When looking at the differences between:

the following lines are "124-142mph" according to the first version but "less than 124mph" according to the last version:

  • Newcastle-Chathill (on the London NorthEastern & East Midlands route)
  • Bletchley-Lichfield-Crewe-Earlestown-Carlisle-Carstairs (on the London North West route and Scotland route)
  • Bristol-Newport-Cardiff (on the Wales route)
  • Didcot Parkway, small section in the direction of Oxford (on the Western route)
  • Leeds-Doncaster (on the London NorthEastern & East Midlands route)

No source was initially given in 2008 when the UK line speed information has been added on this map, but some have been given recently. The sources given are:

So let's check in details each of the 5 sections with disagreement on speed:

  • Newcastle-Chathill (on the London NorthEastern & East Midlands route)
    • => this line is in the 110ph-125mph category between Cramlington and Chathill acccording to the 2016 NetworkRail network specification map (LNE and East Midlands, PDF). The comments in this PDF document states: "The ECML features regular franchised, high speed, services between London and Yorkshire, the North East of England and Eastern Scotland. (...) These trains typically consist of up to nine coaches in fixed formation operating, for much of their journey, at a linespeed of 125mph."
    • => The Network rails archives indicates a speed of 125 mph on the "Newcastle – Border (near Berwick)" (G.10) section of this line, see RouteG-EastCoastandNorthEast.pdf, table in Appendix page 35.
    • => There is no speed information in openrailwaymap.org for this line.
    • => The English Wikipedia article East Coast Main Line, states "With most of the line rated for 125 mph (200 km/h) operation, the ECML was the fastest main line in the UK until the opening of High Speed 1".
    • => As a conclusion, the correct speed is 125 mph on at least most of this line section.
  • Bletchley-Lichfield-Crewe-Earlestown-Carlisle-Carstairs (on the London North West route and Scotland route)
    • => This line is in the 110ph-125mph category all the way long acccording to the 2016/2017 NetworkRail network specification maps (LNW, PDF & Scotland, PDF)
    • => The Network rails archives indicates a speed of 125 mph on almost all sections of this line, see RouteN-WestCoast.pdf, table in Appendix page 44-45.
    • => About half of this line is without any speed information on openrailwaymap.org, the other half being sections having speed information mostly at 110 mph and a little at 100 mph and 75 mph. The information given here on openrailwaymap.org partly contradicts the information given on the networkrail website, but Networkrail is obviously a more reliable information source than Openrailwaymap.
    • => The English Wikipedia article West Coast Main Line, states "Much of the line has a maximum speed of 125 mph (201 km/h), meeting the European Union's definition of an upgraded high-speed line, although only Class 390 Pendolinos and Class 221 Super Voyagers with tilting mechanisms operated by Virgin Trains travel at that speed. Other traffic is limited to 110 mph (177 km/h)."
    • => As a conclusion, the correct speed is 125 mph on at least most of this line section.
  • Bristol-Newport-Cardiff (on the Wales route)
    • => This line is less than 105 mph according to the 2016 NetworkRail network specification map (Wales, PDF)
  • Didcot Parkway, small section in the direction of Oxford (on the Western route)
    • => This line is less than 75 mph according to the 2016 NetworkRail network specification map (Western, PDF)
  • Leeds-Doncaster (on the London NorthEastern & East Midlands route)
    • => This line is less than 105 mph according to the 2017 NetworkRail network specification map (LNE and East Midlands, PDF)

Carfois (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Carfois,
At first I want to thank you for your effort in improving the map, you are doing a great job! As source for my edits I use both openrailwaymap.org and the official line speed information given in the Network Rail Sectional Appendix, to be found at http://archive.nr.co.uk/browseDirectory.aspx?root=&dir=%5csectional%20appendix%5cSectional%20Appendix%20full%20PDF%20copies. As you correctly point out, many lines are labeled "110mph-125mph" in the very unprecise Network Rail route maps, but that does NOT mean that they all allow 125mph running. And that definitely must be the criteria to be labeled as high speed line in the map. ;) In the Sectional Appendix you can find detailled speed information to every single short piece of track, every switch, etc., so I would ask you to have a look at the documents, then you will understand and agree to my edits. ;)
Good night, and leave a message in my discussion if you have any questions!
Oh and btw, openrailwaymap can be trusted in the very most of cases. :) --Negjana (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Main line clutter[edit]

As an avid observer of the map, I feel the amount of (redundant) main lines in the map is detrimental for an easy overview of the high-speed lines. As open questions:

1. Is it really necessary to keep the old main lines, when new lines are in commercial service in the same relation? This would regard in particular: a) Tours-Bordeaux; b) Le Mans-Rennes; c) old Gotthard main line;

2. Is it really necessary to keep the old main lines, when new lines are being built/planned in the same relation? In particular: a) Bellinzona-Lugano (Ceneri tunnel); b) Genova-Novi Ligure; c) Lyon-Turin (Mont-Cenis); d) Nimes-Montpellier; e) Stuttgart-Ulm; f) Athens-Thessaloniki g) Semmering base tunnel This applies to all the dotted green lines. In older versions of the map, the grey main line has been deleted in the trajectory (for example: Mannheim-Saarbruecken).

3. Should really some additional main lines be displayed (even if it is not necessary in this high-speed map)? In particular: a) Lyon-/Grenoble-/Geneva; b) Fulda-Bebra; c) Wuerzburg-Treuchtlingen (west of Nuremberg); d) Brno-/Bratislava/Vienna

Thank you all for your great contributions and keeping the map so neat and updated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raileu (talk • contribs) 23:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Thanks for the new version, Negjana, however the Athens-Thessaloniki-(Idomeni) line is not yet completely at 200 km/h. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raileu (talk • contribs) 19:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have more detailed info? Can then change the map again. --Negjana (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greece[edit]

The greek part is currently wrong. In previous versions the middle part of the main axis was under construction, and currently it is still under construction, it is not finished. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 94.66.113.100 (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update Germany 2018[edit]

I added a few additions - and also corrections. Germany only.

  • Additions:
    • HSL Erfurt-Ebensbach (300 km/h) is open now, the railway line Ebensbach-Nuremberg (160-230 km/h) is still under construction.
    • HSL Berlin-Dresden (200 km/h) has been opened in its middle section. The northern and the southern end are still under construction. NOTE: the railway will not be used for a speed of 200 km/h until 2020, because the ETCS level2 v3.4.0 hasn't been installed up to now. Until 2020, the max. speed is at 160 km/h I nevertheless showed the line as 200 km/h. In 2020, the construction of the southern and northern sections might be finished.
    • HSL Erfurt-Eisenach (directly west of Erfurt): construction works (not shown in the old map) now allow a speed of 200 km/h.
  • Corrections:
    • HSL Munich-Augsburg (directly west of Munich): the line is open with a max allowed speed of 230 km/h, not 250 km/h or more.
    • HSl Berlin-Hamburg: all sections have a line speed of at least 200 km/h (in fact most of the line allows 230 km/h).

--Metrancya (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update to be done[edit]

High Speed Rail in the Czech Republic[edit]

It seems that the line from Prague to Vienna, which has a spur to Budweis, has portions being reconstructed for 200 km/hr. I've seen this information on Openrailwaymap. Would it be appropriate to add it in Green to the European High Speed Rail Map? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2604:2000:F10F:6700:ACAE:4569:15F5:1C8C (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speeds in Austria, Italy, and SW France[edit]

Per Openrailway map, the Westbahn/Western Railway has operating speeds of 250 km/hr for two stretches: the first between Hadersdorf and Sankt Pölkten and the second between Ybbs and der Donau and Amstetten. I understand that the second stretch may be a bit too short to display well on this map, but the first stretch certainly is. If no one objects I will modify the Westbahn speeds.

There is also a short stretch of 200 km/hr operation on the Südbahn/Southern Railway, between Münchendorf and Ebreichsdorf, though this stretch is likely too short to display well on this map.

I notice that there are two stretches of 200 km/hr operation in eastern Italy, the first between Rimini and Cattolica and the second between Fano and Falconara Maritima.

There is also a stretch of 200 km/hr operation SW of Foggia as the line runs toward Benevento

There is also a stretch of 200 km/hr between Brindisi and Lecce in Puglia

There is also a stretch of 200 km/hr operation on the line from Bordeaux to Dax, specifically between La Teste de Buch and Labouheyre

Finally, I notice a stretch of 200 km/hr operation between Bordeaux and Périgueux, specifically between the line's split from the old LGV to Moussidan.

If no one objects, I will note all of these stretches on the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlerach (talk • contribs) 14:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some answers (almost 3 years later, the subject is still relevant):
  • Openrailway map shows the maximum speed while this map shows the operating speed, which is often the same but not always.
  • For Austria, the Railjet have a top speed of 230 km/h (see oebb.at) and same currently for the ICE in Austria (see oebb.at), so the operating speed "200-230 km/h" (yellow) is consistent and a faster operating speed would be incorrect, at least for Railjet and ICE services. If you know some trains which run in Austria at a faster operating speed than 230 km/h, please share the information. About the 200 km/h on the "Südbahn/Southern Railway, between Münchendorf and Ebreichsdorf", this is not yet under operation according to en:High-speed rail in Austria (the upgrade and newbuild on Pottendorfer line is currently due to be completed in 2024).
  • For France, the 200 km/h streches which you are talking about do not appear on the France nominal max speeds map (January 2023), and actually neither on the current openrailwaymap.
  • For Italy, I didn't check. If you want to check the operating speed with more reliable sources than Openrailway map, you are more than welcome.
Carfois (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skopje-Nis route missing[edit]

Why did someone erased the connection between Nis and Skopje, one of he oldest South European routes, that linked Budapest, trough Belgrade, Nis, Skopje and Thessanlonika, to Athens? Please restore the line linking Skopje with Southern Serbia. FkpCascais (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This line has been restored in an earlier version. In addition, I just added the Niš city point. Carfois (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When does HS2 get added?[edit]

With phase one of the the UK's High Speed 2 now under construction, does it need to be added to the map as a green dotted line? Even phase one (London to just past Birmingham) is not scheduled for completion until 2029 at the earliest, so it may well be considered premature to add the line now. But what is the precedent set by previous lines, i.e. how long before their scheduled openings were they added as 'under construction / upgrading'? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have already added HS2 (see 19 May 2021 edit), but all 2021 edits were reverted later as "corrupted", although I am not able to see any errors in the "corrupted" file. Jklamo (talk) 07:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jklamo: Many thanks for your useful participation in this map!
I have properly fixed the "corruption" of the file on the 23 February 2022 update (by completely re-doing all the last changes from the last uncorrupted version which was from 1 September 2020). It's not you, Jklamo, who had made the file "corrupted".
What I meant by "corrupted" is mainly that all layers had been deleted from the file, at least they had disappeared in Inkscape. Also some filters had been added which resulted in unexpected behavior when editing. This is an Inkscape svg file and it's important to keep it compatible with Inkscape and especially to preserve the layers. Without the layers organization, that allows to lock some layers (for instance the countries background) while making edits in another layer (for instance updating the lines), it becomes much more difficult to make edits and to maintain the file. Sorry if in my first attempt to fix the corruption I didn't have time to fix it properly and initially just brutally reverted to a version which I thought was "clean" (at least which still had the layer structure but in fact already had some filters problems, which is why I finally reverted to an even earlier version when I could get time to properly fix this problem). Carfois (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever one updates this...[edit]

Can one slightly lighten the grey used for the slower lines a little bit? As it stands now, it kinda distracts from the actual high speed network and gives the false impression that all of Europe is covered. Thierry Caro (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavouk: Hello there. Would you be able to fix this? Thierry Caro (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There could even be a second version of the file with only the three fastest colors. The resulting map could then be slightly reframed without the easternmost and nothernmost parts of Europe. Thierry Caro (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I so sorry, but I am not good in this graphics work. I am just a permanent beginner in Inkscape (editor for svg files). Pavouk (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I made the non high-speed lines thinner. I think that this achieves the result which you wanted even better than if they would have been made lighter. Carfois (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

???-200 km/h (not high speed railroad)[edit]

i think only line with a minimum speed > 160 km/h can be showed in this map.. even if probably only 180-200 can be more right.

at now this map "high speed railroad" show also the w:Genoa–Ventimiglia railway, where max speed is 180 km/h, and ***a lot of km are still with only 1 track*** probably with lower speed section as from line was built in the late '800 (<100??); this is not fine for a map called "high speed railroad map of europe".

--151.44.6.226 06:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This map shows not only the high-speed railroads (yellow, orange, red and purple color) but also their environment (other main railroad lines although not high-speed, countries, seas, main cities, meridians, etc.). The legend is correct for the w:Genoa–Ventimiglia railway as it is in grey color and the legend says it speed is under 200 km/h, which means NOT high-speed.
We could add "not high-speed" in the legend next to the grey color if it's not clear enough that grey color lines are not high-speed.
Some grey color lines, whose speed is less than 200 km/h are sometimes used by trains as part of some high-speed services (although not high-speed there) which use high-speed railroads on some other sections of the journey. It could be interesting to differentiate these from the sections which are never used by any high-speed trains, but it would be difficult to maintain such documentation exact at the European level given that services often vary (on the contrary to infrastructures) and also there is another map dedicated to show high-speed services : Networks of Major High Speed Rail Operators in Europe.gif (that map, last updated in 2019 according to its legend, also shows the w:Genoa–Ventimiglia railway line as being used by high-speed services, more precisely by Thello. "Thello" however stopped this service in June 2021 and since then became "Trenitalia France". But, as said above, this line still deserves to be represented on the "High Speed Railroad Map of Europe", in grey, because this map does not represent only high speed railroads and the legend correctly says that the speed there is under 200 km/h). Carfois (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think is very matter replace "< 200 km/h" with "normal railway (not high-speed)"; also can be fine change the gray of the not high speed line to more bright/less bold way; note at least in this map for high speed line, the most of the railways showed is not high speed! it's very strange.
also made a "real high speed railways only map", starting from 200 or 250 km/h line can be a good idea, for comparative view. --151.44.63.88 21:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the legend as suggested.
If this is still not clear enough, it could be possible indeed to make also the grey of other railways lighter, but this would come with the disadvantage to make them not very visible on some screens (low contrast with the grey background) and also then we would need to update this also on the other maps of World high-speed railways:
Operational high-speed lines in the United States
Operational high-speed lines in Europe
Operational high-speed lines in Western & Central Asia
Operational high-speed lines in East Asia
  310–350 km/h (193–217 mph)   270–300 km/h (168–186 mph)   240–260 km/h (149–162 mph)
  200–230 km/h (124–143 mph)   Under construction   Other railways
Carfois (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe is not required to change colour of the not high speed railways, but is very good to resize them to half size drawn of the high speed railways; no reason to let them appear in the same way, the not hig speed railways are less relevant in this map.
Also, the high speed railways draw require to be surrounded by a small black line (outlined), 'cause some color not appear strong as other over the backgoud color
--151.18.168.146 06:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it could be better indeed to have the non high-speed railways drawn not as large as the high-speed railways. I will not have time to do this in the near future but when I'll have time again to edit this map I will try that, and will also see if it would be better to adjust some other colors and/or outline them with a black border. I had already changed the green color in the past, which was initially even less visible than now (see version with initial green). Carfois (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made the grey lines thinner, as suggested. I think it is indeed better like this. I also made the dotted green lines larger (same as other high-speed lines). Carfois (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey[edit]

Your comments welcome at en:Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop#Please_make_easily_translatable_svg_map(s)_of_Turkish_railways Chidgk1 (talk) 08:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:High_Speed_Railroad_Map_of_Europe.svg&oldid=802239513"