Talk:High Speed 2

Four phases

The government think tank say there are four phases. https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/HS2-The-kindest-cut-of-all.pdf Wisdom-inc (talk) 15:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

A think tank isn't really a reliable source and certainly isn't written from a neutral POV. Garuda3 (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

It is your 'opinion' Policy Exchange is not reliable. They are stating facts. Then analysing and concluding. They are highly influential in this government.

There may be only one phase left if the media swell is correct, so maybe all irrelevant. Policy Exchange suggest to bin all HS2 except for phase 1, as work has started. We shall see. But Policy Exchange do say four phases, which does make sense. Wisdom-inc (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Policy Exchange has been widely reported by the media. If they were factually wrong the infactuals would have been pounced on. No leading media outlet has criticised its stated facts. Wisdom-inc (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Euston station

HS2 Ltd has not yet come up with a workable design for HS2 at Euston, and nothing approaching the budget available. After more than ten years of work and many changes of plan, the latest design is still only at the concept stage - artists’ impressions. The government announced last month, “significant elements of the design work [for Euston]... can no longer be used” and an “updated station design” will be “developed over the coming months.”

The article lacks on Euston station. Wisdom-inc (talk) 09:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I think the section on Euston is a good summary, only thing that jumps out is the platform count which may be incorrect, I don't know. Euston railway station would be a more appropriate place for details on the station. I don't see any mention of the reduction from 11 platforms to 10 so there is definitely more to add. Garuda3 (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Euston is not even properly designed yet. No mention of it. Wisdom-inc (talk) 12:42, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

So what exactly are you proposing to be added to the article? Just do it instead of wasting other editors' time. Garuda3 (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

HS2 goes ahead

HS2 will be kept, alongside core “northern powerhouse” rail - The Guardian. No cuts announced. It does not mean there will not be future cuts or amendments, as approval is not in place for large sections of it. But going ahead as we see it for now. Wisdom-inc (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Jeremy Hunt's Autumn Statement on 17 Nov 2022 said .....

So today I confirm that because of this decision, alongside Sizewell C, we will deliver the core Northern Powerhouse Rail. HS2 to Manchester. East West Rail.

East West Rail is the Oxford to Cambridge line via MK. It looks like the Birmingham to East Midland part of HS2 has been dropped. He stated only "HS2 to Manchester". Wisdom-inc (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Not a train buff article

Or should that be "Not a rolling stock buff article". This is not a train buff's article, there are dedicated web forums for that, so should not be littered with railway in-words. Rolling stock? Is that stock on trolleys in the stock room behind the shop? It is "trains", as that is what everyone can understand. The Rolling Stock section needs to be called "Trains".Wisdom-inc (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Rolling stock is the collective term for all sorts of vehicles that run on rails hauling passengers and freight - trains, locomotives, carriages (or passenger coaches), wagons, trailers, multiple-units, etc. I'm pretty certain that most if not all train-related articles use "rolling stock" and it would make no sense for this article to depart from the established consistency. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree with 10mmsocket, if we were to change it here, it be inconsistent with thousands of other rail-related articles. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Rolling stock is a standard term, and as such, should be used. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

A problem that rail articles are naturally started by rail buffs. This is not a normal railway type of article - it is highly controversial. Many people wanting to known what HS2 is, or extra information, will look at it. They do not need it to be bombarded with rail-speak confusing understanding. As I said, if you want rail buff speak this is not the place for it, as this is for the lay person. I do not care what other articles have. Wisdom-inc (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

"Rolling stock" is not an obscure term and is regularly used by major news organizations such as the BBC. Mackensen (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The first usage of "rolling stock" is a blue link so any reader who doesn't know what it is can just hover over it to find out. Garuda3 (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

You are correct in saying that the article describes a contentious infrastructure project – but ultimately it's a contentious railway infrastructure project, and I don't see how the use of the phrase "rolling stock" hampers a layperson's understanding of what HS2 is or what it involves. Indeed I would go as far as to compare the changing of "rolling stock" to "trains" in this article to changing "heavy goods vehicles" to "big trucks" in an article on a motorway, or "excavators" for "diggers" in an article in some other civil engineering article. XAM2175 ^(T) 19:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I also agree with @10mmsocket. It's a very common term of art in the field the article covers, and one for which the definition is easily available. I can understand that there might be some more-niche concepts should be introduced in general terms, because Wikipedia should absolutely be available to people without specialist knowledge, but I don't see a problem in the matter at hand. XAM2175 ^(T) 18:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with the others. Furthermore, "rolling stock" denotes the particular vehicles that are usually conveyed in an aggregate known as a "train". So, the two terms are not synonymous; nor is the former term an unusual one. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Fastest Journey Times

The fastest journey time to Edinburgh is referenced as 4hrs currently, but the reference is to a trial journey virgin performed. A more typical fastest time would be 4hr 20m from LNER's timetable. (the HS2 journey planner says 4h 28m)

Is listing the absolute fastest record breaking theoretical journey time for existing services useful, or should a 'regular fastest journey time' be reflected. Chrsphr (talk) 10:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Budget Estimates

I don't have access to the data required, or the background knowledge, but a section detailing the various funding estimates over the years, probably also including adjustments for inflation, would be a useful resource when considering the political debate now ongoing about the section to Manchester. Ian (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)