Talk:Intercity Express

message: "The ICE 3, including its variant models, is made both by Bombardier and Siemens".
Is this the two companies acting in partnership, or each company separately, possibly in competition?  The latter seems liklier.  It could be disambiguated to "ICE 3 sets, including variant models, are made by either Bombardier or Siemens".  If the first meaning is the right one, "The ICE 3, including its variant models, is made by a partnership of Bombardier and Siemens".  Can anybody say which version is correct? AMackenzie (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ambiguity!

message: Good morning (GMT time); I have reviewed this article on ,     (UTC) in accordance with the Good Article (GA) criteria. There are seven main criteria that the article must comply with to pass:
#Well-written: Pass
#Factually accurate: Pass
#Broad: Pass
#Neutrally written: Pass
#Stable: Pass
#Well-referenced: Pass
#Images: Pass
I have concluded that, in my opinion, the article has passed all categories and I therefore award it GA status. Congratulations to the lead editors, and keep up the excellent work!
Kindest regards,anthonycfc [talk] 01:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:GA|Good Article]] [[WP:GAC|'''Nomination''']]

message: I have reverted an anonymous edit twice now due to it being confusing, but i believe there is actual information that could  be added to the article, hopefully I can get some clarity here.
First, context.  Here is the paragraph with added text by an anonymous editor, after this edit
:The ICE 3 and ICE T are similar in their interior design, but the other ICE types differ. The ICE 1, the ICE 2 and seven-car ICE T (Class 411) are equipped with a full restaurant car. The ICE 3 and the five-car ICE T (Class 415), however, have been designed without a restaurant,(but five car ICE T 415 has only a snack bar with 4 stand up bar and ICE 3 has a 24 seats and small bar simliar like to ICE T 411 seven car) they feature a bistro coach instead. Since October 1, 2006 smoking is prohibited in the bistro coaches, similar to the restaurant cars, which have always been non-smoking.
I believe the anonymous editor is trying to say that the ICE 3 and the ICE T 415 do not have the same snack bar and seats, while the article suggests that they are the same.  The trouble is I am not sure how to interpret what the anonymous editor has said.
Specifically, this phrase: "but five car ICE T 415 has only a snack bar with 4 stand up bar".  The ICE 415 has a snack bar and 4 stand up bars?  Or a 4 seat stand up bar?  Not sure.
"ICE 3 has a 24 seats and small bar simliar like to ICE T 411 seven car". This sounds like the ICE 3 has a half-size restaurant car, which makes it a 24 seat snack bar, instead of a 50 seat full restaurant car.
Can anyone, including the anonymous editor, clarify this for me? Cheers, —fudoreaper (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification of resaurant/snack bar cars

message: The ICE 3 was apparently train-surfed around 2005 - here's the video:  Crazy! --Bermicourt (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: ICE 3 train-surfed

message: "The brand name "ICE" is among the most well-known in Germany, with a brand awareness close to 100%"
So what? There must be any number of brands that have an awareness vanishingly close to 100%, not only in Germany, but over most of the mechanised world. BMW, Mercedes, IBM, Boeing, probably Microsoft and Google. This sounds like self-aggrandisement.
Old_Wombat (talk) 10:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks reasonable to me; surely an encyclopædia article about ICE has room to mention that ICE is a very widely-recognised brand (much as the Google article does, by the way). Such high brand recognition is far from a foregone conclusion for a rail service... bobrayner (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this sentence included? 

message: Where is a table with a list of the trains' top speeds and speed records? - Hoffmansk 11:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top Speeds 

message: I suppose the rail infobox template to be inaccurate. Infobox rail is used to create an infobox on articles about railway companies.
* the ICEs predecessor ICE-S has infobox template locomotive, which seems better fitting  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.89.226.146 (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox template 

message: I think it would be helpful if we would differ between the Countries (Germany, Austria, Switzerland, ...), for me it's very confusing in the form it's written at the moment. The best way I think would be different pages for each country. --Sevku (talk) 12:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Distinguish between countries

message: IMHO, speed should always be given in proper metric units (km/h) rather than in some non-standard unit systems from the Neanderthal era ("mph"). Readers may find it hard to guess which of the 3-4 types of "miles" the "mph" refers to.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrejpodzimek (talk • contribs) 20:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speed Units 

message: I added the map "Major High Speed Rail Operators in Europe) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Networks_of_Major_High_Speed_Rail_Operators_in_Europe.gif, which I created myself, to the section on international extensions for the following reasons:
a) So far, there is no map showing the entire line network (both domestic and international)
b) The map gives a reasonably good overview of interchange points to other European high speed rail networks.
To the best of my knowledge, the map accurately reflects the current situation in Europe. I used numerous sources, which are listed on the Wikimedia page. It's also linked on the article about the ICE on the German Wikipedia.
I hope this represents an informative addition to the article.
--Silvercowcreamer (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  European Network Map 

message: The citations at the bottom of the page need editing as some (for instance those talking about the planned ICE expansion, #32) link to 404 error pages, so either the link is wrong or needs updating (I do not know how to edit citations)
Maxo11x (talk) 02:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad References 

message: Air Vortices  
When an ICE train reaches high speeds it can create air vortices that have a pulling effect on people who are close by on a platform. A news source reported a figure on accidents that have occurred that may be inclusive of all types of trains traveling through stations. It reported that there were "54 incidents...for the period from 2006 to 2010... A total of 18 people were killed. Even if not all cases have been clarified beyond doubt: Often enough, the pulling effect of trains passing through is probably the reason why waiting people are carried away, injured or even killed.
An accident occurred in july 2010 when two people were spray painting graffiti on the side of a freight train carriage. Another set of train tracks were next to them and an ICE train traveled past them on these tracks at an estimated 120 km/h. It was reported that "According to the first statements by the ICE train driver, the 15-year-olds still tried to get off the tracks. "We assume that you (they) saw the train,"...The train driver had tried with an emergency signal and braking to prevent the accident... "If they had lay down flat, it might have turned out lightly..."One person died immediately from the accident and the second died the following day.
Text describing July 2010 accident copy and pasted from the below Wikipedia articleby the same author who wrote the text :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_graffiti_and_street_art_injuries_and_deaths
Xyxyzyz (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft