Jump to content

Talk:High Speed 2/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Proposed change of measurement systems

On 30 August 2015, User:The seeker123 unilaterally changed all metric or metric-first measurements to imperial or imperial-first. Wikipedia convention is that if an article already uses a particular system of measurements (e.g., metric/imperial, CE/AD), it should not be changed without prior discussion and consensus. As User:The seeker123 is new and couldn't be expected to know this, I am opening the topic on his/her behalf. Comments please? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

According to MOS:UNIT, articles on British engineering subjects should use the units of measurement that were used in the subject's design. Therefore, metric is appropriate. RGloucester — ☎ 00:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, I want to apologise for the edit, I have been reading editing policies now so I've learned something. According to MOS:UNIT that RGloucester cited, "In non-scientific articles relating to the United Kingdom, the primary units for most quantities are metric or other internationally used units,[12] except that: the primary units for distance/​length, speed and fuel consumption are miles, miles per hour and miles per imperial gallon". It also states that in "UK engineering-related articles, including those on bridges and tunnels, generally use the system of units that the topic was drawn-up in". It states generally use the system of units that the topic was drawn up in, not solely use that system of units. I would argue that because the tendency in the UK is to lean towards miles, and the use of kilometres is extremely rare, it would make more logical sense to feature miles first with metric as a supplementary figure. Furthermore, in all of the news articles used as references on the page, the distance is always cited in miles. This surely proves that the use of kilometres in the UK is not the preferred method of measurement for long distances.--The seeker123 (talk) 11:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
This very subject was debated at length last year, and I see no reason to depart from the consensus that was reached at that time to follow the metric-first style in accordance with the MoS for UK engineering articles.
You are incorrect to imply that the use of kilometres is extremely rare – speeds and distances on this project (and on the related HS1) are typically measured in kilometres. This was a major reason why the style was changed last year, and why the MoS rule was changed: to allow UK engineering-related articles to reflect the normal practices of modern UK engineering. Different sources will follow their respective manuals of style, which is why we do not simply copy the style from our sources in any circumstances. Wikipedia forms its own consensus about what styles are most appropriate in different contexts: a consensus which is detailed by our Manual of Style.
I suggest that in this context, the term "generally" means "in general", i.e. that this is a general rule. Please do not try to use the letter of the MoS in a manner inconsistent with its spirit. The term "general" is not intended to be a weasel-word or "get-out clause"; if you think an article should deviate from the rule, you need to have a strong topic-specific reason. Saying "generally does not mean always" is not enough. I would also warn you that there are currently General Sanctions in place relating to the topic of UK units. This means that it is especially important not to make changes at a whim to unit presentation style on UK-related articles, as the threshold for what is likely to be considered disruptive behaviour is lower than for non-UK articles. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with seeker123, in England miles are used for such lengths. All road signs and car speedometers are in miles and people think in miles. Kilometres are alien to most of the English. Even the webpages used for links here give miles. There is no need to convert everything to kilometres, just give it straight in miles like the Brits do. B, TWaMoE (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The guidelines say to use kilometres for things designed in kilometres, and this railway is designed that way. RGloucester — ☎ 20:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is more a transport article than an engineering article, and covering the politics, environmental concerns, economics, legal issues, planning concerns and community impact of a transport scheme - you only need to look at the section titles to realise that. For that reason it needs to honestly reflect the British use of imperial measures that are typical and evident in the secondary sources that are covering this transport project, as noted by The seeker123 above. To argue that the primary sources related only to the inevitable engineering content of such a transport project give a fair reflection of British units used would be disingenuous and misleading. We all know that, outside of the drawing office, the physical characteristics of this project are discussed almost exclusively in imperial measures. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 06:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The seeker123, Speccy4Eyes, please both read to the extensive prior discussion. If you see something in that discussion or the UKU discussion that was missed, by all means raise it. However, I expect it extremely unlikely that either policy will be re-written or an exception will be made for HS2, nor an exception made for any other project built post-1980 drawn up in metric. What is more likely to occur is gentle, and then progressively strong hints about WP:LAWYERING and being unnecessarily disruptive. —Sladen (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Sladen, if you mean the discussion linked to by Archon above and that was closed more than 18 months ago - I have read it. A notable difference is that there new editors involved here now, so a consensus may well develop to stick with imperial. We don't need any policy rewritten: we could decide that within the spirit of the current policy that this article is not engineering-related or we could decide that given the weight of secondary sources using imperial and our knowledge of British usage, that this article should reflect that or we could fail to reach a consensus and thus follow MOSNUM advice for that case and revert to the units fist used. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 06:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The mere fact that the editors are somewhat different this year than last is not an adequate reason for the existing consensus to change, if the underlying arguments are no different than they were in early 2014. A stable consensus was reached last year, so I think you are mistaken to imply that we might need to revert to the status quo which existed before that time. The current style works perfectly well, it is representative of the practices of modern UK construction and engineering, and I see no benefit to Wikipedia in changing it. Archon 2488 (talk) 11:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The new contributors may have a different view on whether the spirit of the guidelines are being breached by taking it to insist that any transport project article that has even the briefest mention of the dimensions of the proposed development is automatically an "engineering-related" article.
For those who believe that because this article does have some cover of engineering aspects, it is therefore automatically engineering-related enough to be caught by that clause of the guidelines, I would ask: what amount of British related cover do you think would bring an article within the guideline clause for "articles relating to the United Kingdom"? Would an article such as Jamestown/Usshertown, Accra, which largely discusses Britain's activities and roles be covered? We need to stand back and be objective. Do the guidelines mean "related" more loosely for some articles and contexts than for others? We should not allow our judgement on this be swayed by our personal preference for one unit system over another. If this article is considered to be related to engineering then why isn't the Usshertown article considered an article relating to the UK? Speccy4Eyes (talk) 08:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
In relation to your point about Accra, the principle of WP:STRONGNAT is pretty clear on this. "Strong national ties to the UK" (which is what "UK-related" refers to on MOSNUM, for example) is quite a strict criterion. Obviously there will be a lot of articles which have some tangential or historical relevance to the UK, but unless the article is primarily about a British place or person, or something that happened in the UK, it is unlikely to be considered to have strong national ties to the UK. Even something like the Battle of Waterloo, which was important in British history, but didn't happen on British soil and did not primarily involve British soldiers, would not satisfy that criterion. Saying that the topic relates more to the UK than the USA would also not be relevant, for example. Likewise you could not argue that an article about pre-revolutionary America would have ties to the UK on the basis that it would be an article about a British colony. Any article dealing with stuff that happened on American soil is going to be considered US-related.
So by that criterion, the country that any article relating to Ghana would be considered to relate to, primarily, would be Ghana. Any other position on that subject would be a violation of WP:NPOV. And in this case, an article is engineering-related when local consensus (such as was reached last year) says it is. Archon 2488 (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I also agree with the reasons given by Speccy4Eyes for why this article should use imperial measures and especially miles not kilometres. B, TWaMoE (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

TWaMoE, then please take "the reasons given by Speccy4Eyes" and apply to get the relevant policy altered. —Sladen (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
TWaMoE, no policy change is required to restore imperial unit precedence in this article as per MOSNUM. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 06:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I have read the article and noted the mixture of technical and non-technical information that it provides. I believe that the article is better served by putting the metric measures first rather than having a mish-mash of units, or putting the imperial equivalents first. I therefore support the status quo. Michael Glass (talk) 02:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I wish also to record my support for the status quo, in accordance with the wp MOS and real world engineering practice. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I too have read the article and I noted too that this is not a purely engineering-related article. For that reason, I support restoring the imperial unit precedence per MOSNUM, in spirit and in letter, per the proposal that is the subject of this section and was inspired by the edits of The seeker123. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 06:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I support using miles first not kilometres in this article because it is a UK transport project article which includes a bit of engineering detail and not an engineering only article. B, TWaMoE (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I support User:The seeker123's changes as it is clear that this article is more a transport-related article than an engineering one. In fact it's hard to find much engineering content at all amongst the politics and economics! Timpace (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

For me the crux here is whether this article can be rightly categorised as essentially an engineering article. Because I am sure that the intent of the sloppy term "engineering-related" in WP:UNITS was not as a huge net to catch every single article with any engineering content with.

Reading through the article, it is clear that although there is some engineering content in it, it is by no means a mainly engineering article. This view is reinforced by the fact that the article is sponsored, not by an engineering project, but by Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains, a project that concentrates on the full breadth of railway transport matters. Also, none of the categories given to the article are of an engineering nature.

My conclusion therefore is that the article does not fall into the narrow "engineering-realated" classification, so should have the imperial-first presentation style restored. Chief archivist (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The wording of the MOS rule makes it clear that it is intended to apply to infrastructure including bridges and tunnels, so railways are hardly too great an extrapolation from that. The rule was originally created in 2013 in response to a discussion surrounding the Edinburgh Trams article, so I would dispute that public transportation infrastructure does not count as "engineering-related" in MOS terms.
In any case, the broad thrust of the MOS section on UK units is to allow WP usage to follow the muddle of units used in the UK at present – neither leading nor lagging, per WP:NPOV on UK metrication – and it is therefore difficult to see why a project designed and constructed entirely in the metric system should not be described primarily in those same units. This is the underlying reason why the Edinburgh Trams article was changed, why the MOS rule was changed, and why this article was changed. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
If we're reaching a point where there is WP:GAMING/WP:LAWYERING over the meaning of the word "engineering" on an article covering a civil engineering mega-project, then the solution may well be to refine the wording in the policy to make it absolutely and unambiguously clear. I was not expecting that to have to be necessary. —Sladen (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
As the drafter of the "engineering" clause, I can assure you that this article is "engineering-related", as the intent was to include civil engineering. The clause originated with Edinburgh Trams, another civil engineering article. RGloucester — ☎ 21:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to participate further than this comment, but I suggest the following: Where a reference is in km, use that first. Where a reference is in miles, use that first. In all instances, use both km and miles. I think we can get away with not using chains for HS2. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
That's unacceptable. Source-based units have been explicitly rejected at WP:MOSNUM many times. RGloucester — ☎ 22:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
As RGloucester says, this proposal has been made and rejected several times in various guises; I think I once proposed something of the kind myself. It might seem at first like an easy way to solve the problem, but it's a Trojan horse. For one thing, the point of having a Manual of Style is that WP (like any publication) wants to have its own "house style", which represents editorial consensus on how its content should be formatted. To copy styles from our sources in a piecemeal fashion would produce stylistically inconsistent, unprofessional-looking and potentially confusing articles. As it was once put to me, copying styles in this way is appropriate for a ransom note, not an encyclopedia. The second consideration is that such a proposal would amount to a gamer's charter – the mere fact that someone can dig up sources that use their preferred style is not a strong reason for a Wikipedia article to use that style. Archon 2488 (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

One of the things drilled into students when they get to GCSE level and beyond is not to create false precision when multiplying and rounding. Take, for example, the design top speed of HS1: 300km/h. If we convert that to Imperial and round down, we get 186mph. Converted back we get 299km/h. HS2 is as much a civil engineering project as it is a railway project, but both of those will be designed in metric and will give measurements in metric. For reasons of accuracy, we should be giving those measurements in metric too. Sceptre (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

There is |order=flip for that. —Sladen (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
With the caveat that |order=flip isn't meant to be used with nominal values (such as a design speed or a speed limit). But Sceptre's underlying argument that it is more accurate to reflect real-world use (I mean, for example, that it's misleading to talk about speeds and distances in imperial when the project actually uses metric), is the reason why MOSNUM prescribes using the original units in these cases. Archon 2488 (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • A search through the article code reveals that 40 of the 60 measurements are sourced in imperial units and flipped. Of the 20 given in metric, several are unsourced. If this article were primarily engineering-related, then most of the sources would surely be technical publications and journals which would contain primarily metric units. As it is, this is clearly more of a generalist transport article, drawing on generalist UK secondary sources - as evidenced by their propensity to use primarily imperial units. As several contributors have said, this article is clearly not engineering-related enough to be covered by that MOSNUM exception. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Please don't act like a fool. I'm telling you, as the DRAFTER of that very clause, that the intent of the clause was cover all transport-related articles, as such articles are civil engineering-related. That is to say, they revolve around plans drawn-up in metric. The dispute that led to the introduction of that clause was Edinburgh Trams, another civil engineering article. In that case, I had instituted imperial measurements when working on the article. A few other users disputed this, resulting in a long discussion that created a compromise: the "engineering" clause. That clause was intended to allow projects that were drawn-up in metric to use metric, for the sake of accuracy. Source based units, on the other hand, have been repeatedly rejected by all parties. RGloucester — ☎ 02:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
If that was the intention of the clause, the clause was badly written because it doesn't say any such thing. Just because the editors at that article accepted atypical (in British terms) metric-first measurements, don't assume the editors here are obliged to too. Even if we assume (we have seen no evidence brought here) that because British civil engineers generally work in metric that this scheme was draw-up in metric, that is not a good reason to buck the trend of UK publications and reliable sources written for the British public, which mostly use imperial. We should use the language of the people at large, and not that of the back-room boffins. This is a general purpose encyclopaedia and not a civil engineering text-book or scientific paper. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Just because the editors of another article agree that it is engineering related does not mean that all transport articles are to be treated the same. This one should obey the sources which prove what units are used in the UK to write about this subject. Put imperial first. B, TWaMoE (talk) 06:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Practical considerations

The general sanctions on UK articles states:

Any editor who systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without clear consensus, who edit-wars over such a change, who disrupts talk page discussions or normal Wikipedia processes pertaining to units in UK-related articles, who engages in forum-shopping, or who otherwise disruptively edits may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator.

Clearly, this change cannot be made without a clear consensus to change the units in the way that is proposed. I see no sign of such a consensus emerging. More people have spoken in favour of the status quo than have called for change, and I don't see that this is likely to change.

But let's say that it was decided to change. MOSNUM says:

UK engineering-related articles, including those on bridges and tunnels, generally use the system of units that the topic was drawn-up in (but road distances are given in imperial units, with a metric conversion)

To conform with MOSNUM, all the tunnels should be given in metric measures.

  • I counted 12 references to the length of tunnels in the article, interspersed in three of the sections.
  • Bridges are also supposed to be in the units that they were drawn up in. Presumably, that covers viaducts. That means two more more inconsistencies if we switch to miles first.

Those proposing the switch to miles should ponder the fact that they don't have the numbers, and even if they did, their proposal would introduce unnecessary inconsistencies into the article. Any further discussion of this proposal is therefore a waste of everyone's time. Michael Glass (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

We should comply with MOSNUM, but accepting that this is a transport-related article, and not fool ourselves that it is an engineering one. Timpace (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I have expanded the footnote on the WP:MOSNUM to read[1] "Including those on civil-engineering, transport, bridges and tunnels.". This hopefully makes the origin intent unambiguously clear. —Sladen (talk) 06:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
And I changed it back again. You can't just go amending guidelines like that with no consensus. Just accept the will here is to restore the natural UK habit of using imperial first, especially for mile-scale measurements. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Which will? How is that measured? ... no pun intended; I really mean has there been a formal vote or !vote or whatever? Cheers DBaK (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
It isn't an "amendment" to clarify the original intent of the guideline. Now two people (RGloucester and I) who were involved with the drafting of that guideline two years ago have explicitly told you exactly what it means, and you have ignored us and have begun to act disruptively. There is indeed a consensus, which was the original consensus reached after the Edinburgh Trams discussion, to allow UK engineering articles to use the metric-first style consistently in cases where that is deemed appropriate (which covers most modern infrastructure, such as high-speed rail). This comment thread is going nowhere, and I have no idea what you hope to achieve by prolonging it. Archon 2488 (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The Politics of HS2

This article barely seems to mention the politics of HS2. Now I am part of the anti-campaign so I would not touch the article directly in case of partiality, but I feel it needs more balance on the opposition to the scheme.
HS2 is unusual in that there such disparity and anger over it.

  • There seems to be almost universal agreement among the three main political parties and among career establishment politicians in favor of HS2. Their reasons are obscure except that they believe it will boost the economy by reducing the amount of time top executives spend travelling - between London and Birmingham.
  • While among the British people HS2 seems to be pretty much universally loathed and derided. - As a complete and vast waste of money, as an obsolete solution that will take decades to build, as extremely elitist, as fundamentally stupid, as a pork project that lines the pockets of everyone involved in it, as deeply environmentally damaging, as more expensive than flying, and so on.

HS2 seems to be one of several policies that is increasing support for UKIP and decreasing support for the Conservatives and the other main UK parties.

I would add my own O.R. opinion as a scientist and engineer. - That from an engineering standpoint HS2 is fundamentally unsafe (because of high KE) and vulnerable to small deviancies or single point failures. Also that any accident or failure at high speeds (because of high KE) has a high chance of leading to large numbers of deaths. And also that HS2 is massively almost overwhelmingly vulnerable to terrorism for the above reasons. (applies to all high speed trains)
I believe that the only way to make HS2 safe is to reduce the speeds to 120 - 100 mph, but this completely removes the whole reason for building a special line in the first place, and removes the whole purpose of the project.
Lucien86 (talk) 10:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Addendum : I am trying to get this safety question asked in New Scientist, to try to get some kind of scientific opinion on whether or how much truth there is to a safety issue. It might also lead to a more formal answer that could be added to Wikipedia. Lucien86 (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Lucien86 could you add some links to polls for your point about it being loathed and derided? I have seen ones that have a majority against, but certainly not enough to say it is completely against, especially on such a technical subject, and you would also have to include polls to say that it was a large issue for people. In terms of safety, high-speed rail has been used safely around the world - you would have to include sources which back you up to counter this. I have left a message on your talk page about my opinions and knowledge of HS2 - the talk page of this article is not the place for them and should be used purely for discussion of the content of the article, not for general discussion of the topic. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not offhand have access to any polls or exact data. I am just a supporter of the anti-campaign. Most of the polls I came across were on the BBC site or part of newspaper articles. As a ballpark the numbers in these poles were generally between about 75% and 90% against. Also a simple counting up of the posts in discussions showed that again and again the vast majority were always against. (not a very reliable source) I am sure there must be detailed research out there and a thorough Google search should hopefully find it.
My own personal gripe against HS2 is mainly that if the money were invested elsewhere such as in the UK space industry (eg Skylon) or on a UK manned Mars mission it would have a far bigger positive effect on the economy.. Hope a little of that helps.. :) Lucien86 (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Watford

86.164.160.205 made the following edits, https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=High_Speed_2&type=revision&diff=688049913&oldid=687161627 saying that there would be an intermediate stop at Watford. There were no sources provided and I can't find any by googling either. I will undo these revisions if no one else has any sources for this Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Nope, a new one on me too. The editor could possibly be confusing it with the scheme to connect Watford Junction to Crossrail, but I don't know of any plan to have HS2 stop there. In fact, the HS2 route will pass approx. 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) south of Watford, so there's no chance of this being even possible! Cnbrb (talk) 13:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on High Speed 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Funding section

The cost section was merged with funding and put right at the top. The funding of the project is highly topical. There was two hybrid bill sections. One was removed and merged. Funding is critical. It has already reduced the size of HS2 and may be reduce it even more with a funding review going on right now. It is not an article for train buffs, it is for laymen.

I'm not sure why you think cost is more important than the other sections such as history and the services offered? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Funding is critical. It looks like the scheme may be cut back in parts because of FUNDING. A Telegraph report states it may only go from London to Crewe via Birmingham and the rest dropped as the funds are not available. Costs are spiralling to the very first announcement. Funding is also from a number of sources. Funding is a part of the basic overview. When looking at something, a scheme or product, one of the first points looked at is always costings and funding. It has to be at the top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.219.157.44 (talk) 08:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
As you say, funding is critical. It is one of the first points looked at. It does not however mean that it should be the first point on the list, and indeed looking at similar pages such as High Speed 1, this is not the case. Anyone else have any thoughts? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Plans for Sheffield station at Meadowhall appear to have been axed - various page/graphic updates now needed

It appears that there won't be a station at Meadowhall after all, and HS2 will go through the City Centre station. Fair bit of this and related Phase 2 articles need updating, along with some of the railway graphics. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/david-higgins-recommends-new-hs2-plans-for-south-yorkshire

Oooh eck.... Cnbrb (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

References of times from provincial cities to Paris should be deleted. The link from HS1 to HS2 has been dropped. 94.6.57.104 (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Metric vs. Imperial

I do not want to start another debate, but I would like to direct anybody involved in the discussion over metric and imperial last year on this page to have a look at my proposed policy change on the village pump here

Cheers --Alfiecooper (talk) 11:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on High Speed 2. 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) 20:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

No Net Loss of biodiversity

Just a drive-by suggestion that editors of this article with an interest in the environmental impact and protection element of this story might wish to refer to research and report on HS2 Ltd's stated approach of No Net Loss of Biodiversity, and how that metric would be operated and implemented. Briefly, this metric was affirmed by Natural England, but who recommended that ancient woodland should be excluded from biodiversity metrics. See here (This was on the basis that, by definitoin, an irreplacable habitat cannot be replaced with like for like tree-planting to ensure No Net Loss. That recommended change was subsequently rejected by the government. See here However, as of Jan 2017 there seems to have been a turn around of government opinion See here Hope someone has the time to sort this quite significant element of the consultation process. Parkywiki (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on High Speed 2. 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) 06:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello editors. There appears to be a missing image on the route map on the Manchester Interchange line.82.12.109.64 (talk) 10:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

"Renaming" section

That section strikes me as an excellent example of why we have the wp:recentism policy. Some minor politician flew a kite for a silly idea and some editor dutifully recorded it. Does anyone disagree with removing it? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Byng report into HS2 cost

The Sunday Times reported that the Department for Transport (DfT) commissioned Michael Byng to calculate the cost of HS2 and that he estimated it would cost £104 billion, significantly more than the £56 billion cost estimated by the DfT. However, a DfT spokesman said : "These claims are incorrect. We have not commissioned any advice from Michael Byng on the cost of HS2" reported here. I have no idea who is in the right here, but I do not think that this unofficial figure should be listed in the lead, especially with more emphasis than the official figure, when the government has rejected the figure. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

But even after your latest revision, we still have text that says that the DoT commissioned a report (from Byng?) that estimates £104bn. But the DoT says no we never. So the only conclusion is that the Murdoch paper made it up shock horror outrage. Pending clarification, I will now comment out that text. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The Daily Telegraph reported the same as the Times. Two qualities. The Telegraph went as far as the methodology being adopted by Network Rail and the DfT using it. 2A02:C7D:51D9:8C00:B983:60C0:A89:870A (talk) 07:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Can you provide the Telegraph reference? [Google can't find it using "byng hs2 site:telegraph.co.uk"]. Because if it is as you say then we should definitely include it, alongside the DoT denial. Crazy! But after the Great Western electrification debacle, nothing surprises me about this Government's "I see no ships" approach to economics surprises me. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I have moved this content into the main body in the meantime. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why, it is fake news. See below. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
`The estimate was commissioned by the Department for Transport and produced by Michael Byng, the man who rewrote the book on rail cost estimation, devising the standard method of costing which has been adopted by Network Rail following several high-profile failures to accurately cost their projects.` - Telegraph. Note: `commissioned by the Department for Transport`. 2A02:C7D:51D9:8C00:D0A3:9AF4:F862:76BB (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
The only source that Google can find for "The estimate was commissioned by the Department for Transport and produced by Michael Byng" is stophs2.org (copied at coleshill news). More relevantly, using the search function at telegraph.co.uk produces "no results". Fake news. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Look at Sunday Times and Daily Telegraph. I smell astroturfing. 2A02:C7D:51D9:8C00:41D4:988C:2BF2:CEA2 (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Manchester airport station

An editor is attempting to insert into the article that the Manchester Airport station will not have a direct rail interchange with other services. This is on the basis of the map given as a source. I reverted this, but the editor reinstated the edit, saying that the map was a good enough source. I disagree, this is clear WP:OR. We shouldn't be interpreting primary sources to draw conclusions which aren't stated in the source. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not attempting, I am. Two maps were given, one is in the section of article, one in a link. I assume you can't read maps the way you are acting. The Manchester airport station IS a stand alone station. That is all too obvious. It is not connected with the existing station whatsoever. That is pretty clear. It is not even certain the station will be built as the private backers have not confirmed their funding. Many think the station will not be built as it will only be accessed via Birmingham or London, who have their own airports, NOT Manchester. I have seen your name on comments sections of newspaper and always taking up HS2 to the point of absurdity with many having to put you right. 2.126.60.251 (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Here is the map of the station in the article.
The proposed Manchester airport station
There is also a link to an official map, which again shows a stand alone station. No rail interchange. 2.126.60.251 (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Just find a newspaper article that says this in words. Job done. Simple. —Sladen (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Or just look at an official map which was linked to. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69079/hs2-msg-ma0-zz-dr-rt-52805.pdf 2.126.60.251 (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, that's not how it works, I suggest you read WP:OR. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Obviously not in your head it does not. There is NO original research, it comes from an official document. I suggest you read that link. Manchester airport HS2 station is a stand alone station not connected to the existing station. That has been established. STOP CHANGING the article. 2.126.60.251 (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello anonymous IP user. What Absolutelypuremilk is trying to explain to you is that you may well be factually correct in saying that there will be no interchange, but you need to gather stronger evidence. According to Wikipedia rules, this evidence needs to be more than just looking at a map and reaching a conclusion by yourself — this is called Synthesis, which is taking parts of a source "to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." You're also running into the old problem of proving a negative - "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Interestingly, I found this official HS2 document which suggests that interchange facilities may indeed be created. It's mostly vague, but mentions that the Metrolink line could be extended. So you see the problem? The current HS2 plans are still only half-baked, and if you start to add things that may be true, it's potentially inaccurate. So what you need to do is spend some time on Google looking for something better - maybe someone in a newspaper article has criticised the HS2 plans for the airport because the new station is far away from the existing station? It's a line of enquiry that would be interesting. Cnbrb (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
The evidence is super strong as it is an official map. It clearly shows two platforms and a stand alone station. I can't help it if people cannot understand simple official maps. Wiki has to be factual and informative. Stating, or implying, that this station is a rail interchange is untruthful and even contradicts the map in the the section. "interchange facilities may indeed be created" It may not be created either. HS2 may go to the Hebrides as well. But is is not. The operative word is may. But we go via the official plan and that is that there is only a stand alone station not connected to another other rail services.
Common sense has to prevail. I can't believe I am even arguing this point. Also some people have an agenda. 2.126.60.251 (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

As Cnbrb has explained, it may be the case that there will be no interchange, but until you get a secondary source which says so then you are reaching a conclusion that the source does not explicitly state. The previous version did not imply that there would be interchange, and even notes that the existing station is 1.5miles away from the proposed one. If readers want to draw their own conclusions from that information, that's fine, but we as editors shouldn't be doing so. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

IP 2.126.60.251, nobody has an agenda. The issue has been explained to you but you are not prepared to consider other points of view. I have reverted your removal of citation request tags. Kindly stop your disruptive editing. Cnbrb (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The map you refer to is also provided in the article, so readers can see for themselves rather than us making conclusions not explicitly stated in the references. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, more to the point, the map is itself Wikipedia material, and as any fule kno, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. So an external source is needed to back up any claim. Cnbrb (talk) 12:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
An official reference map was linked to. The map conveys information just the same as words. The user 2.126.60.251 is correct. Dismissing an official map is ridiculous. 2A02:C7D:51D9:8C00:8931:3910:A64F:C368 (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Please read the discussion above for clarification as to why your edits are being rejected. Glad you've got around to setting up a user account, hopefully not with the sole purpose of continuing this rather silly edit war. Cnbrb (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The only silliness is with the likes of you. A solid official reference is being ignored. Why? 2A02:C7D:51D9:8C00:E011:7EFD:ADF4:5BCE (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
No, you are ignoring the discussion above, which answers all your questions. Read it. Cnbrb (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
An official reference map was linked to. The map conveys information just the same as words. One was on here babbling on about having only references with words or from newspapers or other such nonsense. You stated `you need to gather stronger evidence`, dismissing an official map. You have flawed logic if you think a map does not convey information. I can only conclude you and others have an agenda. Please consider ever editing any Wikipedia articles from now on. 2A02:C7D:51D9:8C00:99B4:24F0:A46F:BF36 (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
No, 2A02:C7D:51D9:8C00:99B4:24F0:A46F:BF36, it is you who have an agenda. You clearly want to get across the point that Manchester Airport HS2 station will not have a direct connection with other trains and Metrolink. It has been repeatedly explained to you that, while this very minor point may be entirely valid, you have to cite a reliable source. Furthermore, it has been repeatedly explained to you that simply pointing to map is not enough to support this statement, and that you have to find a better source. This is not a personal attack on you, this is how Wikipedia works. Please read the Wikipedia rules about synthesis and try to understand them. Other editors have gone out of their way to to help you by explaining this. Despite this, you are persistently engaging in a petty edit war about a very minor point, and I strongly suspect that you and the anonymous IP address of previous edits are one and the same. Please stop your disruptive editing and your unnecessarily combative comments on this talk page.17:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
A reliable source was given, an `official` document even with a clear map. You have repeatedly been told this. I have no agenda. Others, especially user Absolutelypuremilk have. 2A02:C7D:51D9:8C00:A46F:6242:5438:64B9 (talk) 07:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
A map is not good enough. You have repeatedly been told this. I don't know how many times you have to have this explained to you. Everybody knows that you want the article to state that there will be no interchange. Yes, you can include this claim if it is backed up with a better source than just a map. It's not complicated. Just read the information you have been given above instead of trying to force through a change that everyone else disagrees with and stop making such a storm in a teacup about it.Cnbrb (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

[Restart indents] Perhaps a better way to explain this is to look at the map another way. It is just as "obvious" from the map that there will be such a link - why else would the HS2 station be called "Manchester Interchange" if it doesn't actually interchange? It won't be a rail interchange - no-one expects Metro trains to run on HS2 track. So "stands to reason" that there will be a pedestrian tunnel with travellators between the station for passenger interchange. It is not shown on the map of course because it doesn't go down to that level of detail / it is out of scope for the project / it's an airport responsibility / whatever. I'm just as convinced that I am right since it is obvious from the map. But I would not expect to get this theory into the article, because it is my inference that lacks a reliable written source. And most of all because it falls foul of wp:crystal. Hope that helps. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Nothing stand to your reasoning. Fact: there are no plans for underground travelators between stations. The HS2 station will not connect with other rail services. The map is clear on that. The `Interchange` is rail to air, not rail to rail. 2A02:C7D:51D9:8C00:B983:60C0:A89:870A (talk) 08:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you - that's a good way of looking at it. Yes, I also think that this is what can be inferred from the map, but as you rightly point out, inference is not evidence. I hold many views about many things that I know do not belong in Wikipedia. Cnbrb (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
A map conveys information the same way as words. That is what it is for. The map is clear that the stand alone HS2 station is not connected to the existing station, so there is NO rail interchange. Running street running tollycars to the HS2 station is not a rail interchange. Far too many (HS2 paid?) astroturfers on this article. HS2 admitted spending a considerable sum on Internet astroturfing. They can gang up. 2A02:C7D:51D9:8C00:B983:60C0:A89:870A (talk) 08:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I give up. There's no arguing with level of . Cnbrb (talk) 08:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
You must be dyslexic if you cannot read a map. 2A02:C7D:51D9:8C00:D0A3:9AF4:F862:76BB (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Please do not fling insults at other editors. Read WP:SYNTH. Cnbrb (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Not an insult. An astute observation. I smell astroturfing. BTW, your `sheer incomprehension` was an insult. I smell astroturfing!! 2A02:C7D:51D9:8C00:41D4:988C:2BF2:CEA2 (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Removal of content about HS2 contracts

User:Sport and politics removed the following content, supported by this reference:

The contracts, which will support 16,000 jobs, were awarded to SCS JV, Align JV, CEK JV and Balfour Beatty.

The reason given was "his is not to promote jobs or companies given contracts". I think that this content is notable, given it is supported by the reference given as well as here, here (although jobs figure not mentioned) and here. Thoughts? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

How is this keeping the article focused on the railway? Is every contract given to every single supplier going to be mentioned. Is every job given to everyone from a field clearance teams, to track installers going to be included. Including this reads like something a trade union baron would put out, not an encyclopaedia. Yes HS2 is going to create jobs during the construction phase. Listing every single contract and a having a running total of jobs, is not notable. It is not done with other projects, and doing so here would necessitate a separate list article on just that, which would be absurd. The information while all accurate and factual, is not notable, due to the over-detail which is inevitable. Where is the line drawn on what is and is not included. Keep the article focused on the railway itself. Trades Union and the Government can worry about jobs and contracts. Sport and politics (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on High Speed 2. 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) 22:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 30 external links on High Speed 2. 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) 17:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

I work for the Department for Transport and we would like to update this page, to reflect some minor inaccuracies and update some of the content about legislation, eg where bills have now received Royal Assent. The Wikipedia guidance says that I shouldn't edit the content directly as this is a conflict of interest. It says I need to put a request to edit in this page, so that's what I'm doing. This is the first time I've done this so please excuse any mistakes in how I'm doing this. Thanks.

Proposed revised paragraph 2 - removed reference to 'edge-of-town HS2 stations'. Not accurate.

Carlisle, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Liverpool, Newcastle, Preston, Sheffield and York will be linked to the network by HS2 trains running off the HS2 network onto existing slower tracks. The HS2 project is being developed by High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd, a company limited by guarantee established by the UK government and has a projected cost of £56 billion, up from the initial cost of £32.7 billion in 2010.[5] Peak hour capacity arriving/leaving Euston will more than triple once HS2 is running, increasing from 11,300 to 34,900 each way.

Paragraph 3

Phase 1 should be Phase One. Phase 2 is correct. It's a quirk of HS2.

Proposed revised paragraph 4 - fixes some inaccuracies - clarifies that it's Phases 2a and 2b that have not been formalised, changes Birmingham to West Midlands and HS3 to Northern Powerhouse Rail.

Although Parliament has approved the first two phases of construction, precise details of the plan and route for Phases 2a and 2b have not been formalised, and are still open to negotiation and change. For example, the spur to Heathrow airport was dropped in 2015,[7] as was the HS1 to HS2 link. In July 2017, the government introduced the Bill for Phase 2a, West Midlands to Crewe, to Parliament.[9] The sections either side of the Pennines may link with east-west links currently under development as Northern Powerhouse Rail.

Proposed revised Hybrid bill section - this updates the position regarding the passage of bills for HS2

Hybrid bills [note plural in title]

The High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Act 2017, received Royal Assent on 23 February 2017 and work has now commenced on Phase One. To implement Phases 2a and 2b of the HS2 proposals the government will seek powers through two further hybrid bills, one for each phase, as the railway will impact on private individuals and organisations along the route or elsewhere. Each bill is required to address the environmental impact and how this will be mitigated, and to allow individuals affected to petition parliament to seek amendments or assurances.[38]

The High Speed Rail (West Midlands – Crewe) Bill was introduced to the House of Commons on 17 July 2017. The aim is to achieve Royal Assent by 2019. The Bill for Phase 2b is planned to be introduced in the current Parliament.

A legal requirement of the hybrid bill is the production and deposition of an Environmental impact assessment (EIA) to identify the significant impacts on the community, property, landscape, visual amenity, biodiversity, surface and ground water, archaeology, traffic, transport, waste and resources. Proposals to avoid, reduce or remedy significant adverse impacts through mitigation measures are also required.

For each phase, HS2 Ltd consults on the scope and methodology of the EIA. HS2 Ltd published an Environmental Statement for Phase One at deposit in November 2013, which was updated with an ES for each of 5 additional provisions during the House of Commons Select Committee stage, and four supplementary environmental statements. The Environmental Statement for Phase 2a was published at deposit of the Phase 2a Bill in July 2017 and a consultation on it closed on 30 Sept 2017. The working draft environmental statement for Phase 2b is planned for publication in 2018. Matt DfT (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all this Matt DfT, much appreciated. Interesting to get some "inside" perspective on this. In terms of editing the articles, perhaps you could suggest external links to documents, reports etc? This would also help, as editors have to cite references to back up content. Cnbrb (talk) 11:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks talk. I wasn't sure if you'd prefer me to link to (cite?) external sites or wikipedia pages, eg for the London - West Mids Act. I linked to a Wikipedia page with the idea that that would link to the actual legislation page - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/7/contents/enacted. I can find links to environmental statements etc on GOV.UK but I won't have time to do so until the week after next. To note I've added some further proposed changes to paras one and two - I missed these from my original edit. Matt DfT (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Just to keep this moving along, I am going to say what I am sure that Cnbrb would - the citations have be of external sources (gov.uk is fine) and absolutely not wikipedia itself. Best wishes. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Need for a new map

The current first map is really a map for an article on high speed rail in Britain not HS2 per se. It would be more useful to start the article focusing on the railway as set out by the Government. It's significant that Phase 2 is now split into 2a and ab, with 2a due to follow closely after phase 1, so the map needs to show this split. There's a nice map showing this on the front of this link: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/629380/high-speed-two-from-concept-to-reality.pdf

There's no longer a link planned between HS2 and HS1 and the Scottish links on the map are only very tentative proposals which are not part of HS2.--FDent (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The map is useful to the reader as it shows HS2 in context of other HS rail. HS2 is clearly marked in the key, and the Scottish proposals are clearly marked as proposals with grey dotted lines, so there's no confusion there. I think showing HS2 in isolation would be less helpful to understanding the topic. However, I'm open to suggestions for emphasising HS2 using perhaps different colours. Cnbrb (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
It would still be better for the map not to suggest that HS2 will be linked with HS1 and hence to the chunnel and the French network. That was conclusively dropped from the plans several years ago.--FDent (talk) 10:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
That issue is dealt with in detail in the article body.Cnbrb (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Given that "a picture is worth a thousand words", we should not expect visitors to read the whole article very carefully on the off-chance that they might happen upon some words that contradict what is staring them in the face. Yes, the article ought to contain somewhere in the body an overview of high-speed rail plans in GB, but (as with all other articles) the picture in the infobox should be specific to this article - it should show only HS2 as actually in funded plans, not pipe dreams.
To compound the error, the route diagram shows a prospective interlink to HS1 when it should actually show an interchange via the Victoria or Northern Lines [ideally showing suitcases being dragged down escalators, tough if you have a mobility issue], or via bus. User:FDent is right - these images need to be replaced asap. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
If you would like to refresh your browser window (you may have to clear your browser cache) you will see a revised version of the map. As requested, I have removed all other lines. I still don't agree, as it now seems devoid of context, but there you go. I have updated other graphics to clarify the cancellation of the HS1-HS2 link. Cnbrb (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you - a distinct improvement IMO. But I agree that a context map would be useful, just so long as it is not in the infobox. Can you find a suitable place in the body?
I agree the new version of the map is much better.--FDent (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Sure, I'll think about that sometime. Cnbrb (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on High Speed 2. 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) 02:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Phase 1 map deleted

  • Phase 1 map
    Phase 1 map
  • Phase 2 map
    Phase 2 map

I saw that the phase 1 map was deleted. Agreed, it's not best quality, but I think a map graphic is helpful here. There was some question over it being inaccurate/out of date, and that the northern tie-in has changed. I will happily run up a replacement in a style consistent with the current phase 2 map, but I'd like a bit of direction as to the route. What has changed, and can someone point me to an official, up-to-date route map that I can use as a template? I'm guessing that the route data on OpenStreeMap is not current, but I don't know enough to make an accurate judgement. Thanks. Cnbrb (talk) 15:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

http://interactive-map.hs2.org.uk/ is the official map for both phases based on googlemaps, with links to detailed drawings. Phase 2 map on this article is also out-of-date, but is a better style showing the stations. --FDent (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I have created a revised map based on the information provided by HS2. Happy to make adjustments, but please bear in mind it is approximate and only illustrative. Cnbrb (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad that everybody is happy (or perhaps not unhappy) with the replacement. I've also added it to the new history article.Cnbrb (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

HS1 links needs cleaning up throughout. A part of this is the Paris times, which although not stated in the source ( an FOI request) will have included that link which was a part of the scheme at the time (2012). --FDent (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

If possible I would like to see Paris times included & referenced - historically it would be interesting to read what was projected in the early days (before it was decided to abandon the HS2-HS1 link and make everyone take the Circle line instead!). I'm sure it was estimated somewhere. Cnbrb (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Based on the excessive length of this article, most of the history of how the plans meandered along the way belongs in the separate history article.--FDent (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. You've done a lot of good work whittling it down. I moved some more content over to history which can be integrated with the Parish travel info, so the article's slightly lighter. Cnbrb (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Too much history

This article is over 20k words, hard to read because of duplication, and shown the dates of the vast majority of the references being at least 5 years old, much of the content is outdated. There's a lot of discussion of alternatives and their pros and cons. This article could be made more readable by splitting a lot of this to a separate article. The High-speed rail in the United Kingdom is even worse in the mish-mash of alternatives which now belong in the history box. --FDent (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, are you suggesting creating History of High Speed 2 or improving High-speed rail in the United Kingdom? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
A new, separate article preferably. History of High-speed rail proposals in the United Kingdom or High-speed rail proposals in the United Kingdom which would make mention of HS2, but only briefly as this now has advanced into planning and construction.--FDent (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I too support a split. I prefer History of High Speed 2 as having the benefit of brevity, "obviousness" and "non-open-endedness". --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Support. Good idea. History of High Speed 2 is a sensible title. Cnbrb (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes I support History of High Speed 2. I will create this tomorrow if there are no further objections (and if I remember!) Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I have now created the page, will start removing content from this page. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

There must be a good overview of the history of HS2. 90.203.210.124 (talk) 12:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts on this Absolutelypuremilk, the article is vastly improved! Cnbrb (talk) 12:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Now that the history has been hived off (thank you again), we should continue give attention to the article size. There have been thousands of contributions over the years, and the article is bloated with lots of unnecessary detail which falls foul of WP:TMI. Furthermore, every time HS2 gets mentioned in the media, there is a tendency to add every trivial quote by a commentator to the article (WP:FART). This is going to go on until 2032 and beyond, so I think we need to look at trimming insignificant quotes.

In particular, the Perspectives section is especially bloated; it falls foul of WP:LISTCRUFT, and it is little more than a dumping ground for WP:SOAPBOX content for editors to insert their particular pro/anti arguments. If we must list all the organisations that support/oppose HS2, then it's got to appear in a readable way. At the moment, we have many organisations listed along with a description of their constitution and a rationale of their opposition/support. There's also the Environmental and community impact section which seems overly detailed, although the quality of the information is much better.

I completely support the inclusion of political opposition and support, but the issues need to be summarised, not listed in bewildering detail. This BBC article would serve as a good starting point, as would this piece from The Telegraph. I suggest that:

  • the main issues be rewritten in prose summary and merged with the Environmental and community impact section
  • the organisations, councils and political parties be listed in simple lists or a table. Inline references should be retained so that the reader can research the issues in more depth if desired.

Cnbrb (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Yep that's fine with me. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Perspectives

This is in danger of becoming a mouth peice of HS2 LTD, following their line. 90.203.210.124 (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far as to say that, but it is true that the reader has to go a long way down the page before discovering (under "Perspectives" - whatever that means) that there is significant opposition to this project, not by any means all of it from marginal figures. It should perhaps be mentioned that not even specialist rail-industry commentators are unanimously in favour - see e.g. Christian Wolmar). -- Alarics (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Excellent point. Wolmar is highly respected. His views on HS2 is generally:
1. To build local & regional rail lines (and reopen old lines), to take traffic off mainlines and serve the greatest need which local & regional, and to leave mainlines for primarily fast express duty.
2. Remove bottlenecks on the WCML, ECML and MML (also electrify this line).
3. Electrify the Chiltern line putting the Birmingham Wolves and other trains on this line releasing capacity on other mainlines, also by default improving commuter services on this line.
4. Uprate signalling to allow up to 155mph on mainlines (over 160mph on some stretches of track is achievable). New faster trains that can run on existing lines has made much of HS2 (and much of new and proposed high-speed rail lines) redundant.
The London direct to Mcr, Leeds and Birmingham classic line times would then only be slightly less than HS2. Leeds is 169 miles from London, while an uprated ECML with new 160mph trains (160mph is possible on some stretches) the time from London to Leeds averaging 150mph are similar to HS2 times. Wolmar's views could be in concise form. Yes, there is great reasoned opposition to this railway with this not really put over in the article that well and the reasons why (NIMBY's apart). 90.203.210.124 (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
The 20MM (Twenty Miles More) Liverpool campaign group is against HS2, but if it comes about wants Liverpool to have a direct HS2 link to the city. That should be mentioned. 90.203.210.124 (talk) 12:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

As a director of 20MM I would like to clarify this statement. 20MM is not and never has been opposed to HS2. Our position is that we support HS2 in as much as it provides a direct link to the city of Liverpool. We have no objection to Phase One or Phase 2a which we consider to be beneficial to our city. However, our support for Phase 2b is conditional on a direct link to Liverpool being incorporated or aligned in such a way to permit a future direct link (i.e. provided under Northern Powerhouse Rail) being constructed as soon as possible after the completion of this phase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mann Island (talk • contribs) 18:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Good point Alarics, I think Wolmar's perspective was requested a couple of years ago, and his comments would be a useful addition. It would be good to include some rational opposition viewpoints.
Regarding this article being a "mouthpiece for HS2": a few weeks ago we had an anonymous IP editor who was repeatedly trying to insert unsupported assertions about the lack of a rail interchange at Manchester Airport. That editor ignored all advice, refused to listen to reason, conducted a rather tiresome edit war to push their agenda, and accused other editors of being secret agents for HS2. IP 90.203.210.124 has just re-inserted the claim again and has failed to provide a supporting reference, so I think we're back on familiar ground. Can we please not start all this again?? Cnbrb (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
FACT: the MCR airport HS2 station is a stand alone station.
FACT: the existing airport station has no connection with the HS2 station.
FACT: there is no direct interchange between the HS2 line and the existing lines.
None of the above is made up or a POV. Common sense has to prevail. 90.203.210.124 (talk) 11:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
HS2 Ltd in their figures did reveal that they spend I think £300,000 on Internet activity. 90.203.210.124 (talk) 12:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
We've been through this a hundred times. You are welcome to add it to the article but you have to add a reference from a reliable source to back up the statement, as explained in the Wikiepdia policy on references. Typing the word "fact" in caps lock does not make anything true. I realise you find this frustrating, but I am actually trying to help you here. Cnbrb (talk) 12:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
It is FACT! Look at the maps. It does not need some newspaper article explaining the obvious. When I see this sort of attitude I see astroturfing. 90.203.210.124 (talk) 09:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Using caps lock does not make you right. If it is fact, you should be confident that you can prove it with a reference. This is explained in the Wikipedia policy on references. You are welcome to make constructive contributions, but making accusations at other editors will do nothing to help you. Cnbrb (talk) 09:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I am right! It does not need a reference (see what I wrote above). If you cannot figure the obvious you should not be editing. Or you may have an agenda. 90.220.27.95 (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Once again, it does need a reference. You need to read and try to follow the the Wikipedia policy on references. And please stop accusing editors of having an agenda or "astroturfing" - just because someone takes issue with your edits does not make them a secret agent for HS2. Wikipedia is supposed to represent facts impartially, and in order to do that, everyone (that includes you and me) must back up statements with references. It's in the rules. If you don't use references, it's more likely that other editors will remove the stuff you write, so you're just setting yourself up for disappointment. If you cite reliable sources, your content will probably be kept. That's how it works. If you in a collaborative spirit instead of picking fights with everyone who tries to help you, you will have a much better experience on Wikipedia. Everyone is not out to get you.
If I had an "agenda" I would simply delete your statement, but you will see that I have not. However I have tagged it with the standard "citation needed" tag. This is not a personal insult, but a note to encourage you to find a newspaper source or a written document that clearly says that the Airport station will be designed in the way you claim. So go and find out where you got this information from. If it fits into the description of reliable sources then you can add add a link and back up your claim. Cnbrb (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
It does not not need a reference for something that is overtly obvious. The map in the article and linked documents is enough. Commons sense has to prevail. Your illogical insistence leads me to believe you have an agenda. 94.5.13.124 (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
It is not overtly obvious for a station that has not been built and will not be built for at least 10 years. As has been politely explained to you multiple times, you need to provide a reference. I am sorry my logical insistence that you read the the Wikipedia policy on references upsets you so much. It's obvious to me you have an anti-HS2 agenda, in spite of which I have tried to help you. Read the policy, and you will be able to contribute to Wikipedia constructively, not confrontationally. Cnbrb (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
It is obvious you have a HS2 agenda, probably with a Manchester bias - why else would someone attempt top make out a station is something it is not. The linked documents and article map are references. You have an agenda. It has been explained to you assertively, that if you cannot see the obvious from linked documents and a map in the article you should not be editing. 94.5.13.124 (talk) 09:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Your inability to conduct yourself in a civil manner or work collaboratively is unfortunate, but it means there is simply no point in discussing matters further with you. I will not be responding to any further messages on here that appear to come from you on whatever IP address you may be using. Happy editing, and remember to read the the Wikipedia policy on references (I may have mentioned this before). Cnbrb (talk) 10:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I am very civil having to put up with repetitive illogical nonsense from you. If a map and a map in an official HS2 document is not enough in your eyes then take out all the maps in the article, as in your mind they do not convey information and worthless. 94.5.13.124 (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
What, the maps that I created and added myself? Yeah, they're worthless. And as for all that repetitive illogical nonsense about complying with Wikipedia guidelines when editing articles on Wikipedia? Yeah, you have a lot to put up with, you poor chap. I am so sorry you have been inconvenienced with this! Now stop being argumentative and go away and do something constructive. Cnbrb (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
You are saying that information conveyed by maps should not be taken seriously. If that is the case no map should be in the article at all as the information they convey is false. Why are you not deleting all the maps? 94.3.15.159 (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
The map only tells you the 2017 plans of HS2 Inc. You don't know what will happen in the future. See wp:CRYSTAL. The BEST you can say is this: "As of December 2017, there are no known plans for a rail link between the stations".

Pictures of other trains

I know that it's nice to have photos to break text up, but do photos of existing trains on other lines which will certainly not be running here really add to this article? There are already links to articles on high speed trains in general.--FDent (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy with the couple of photos of HS trains so that the reader has an understanding of the type of vehicles that get used on similar lines; however, I think it is important to include "not specified for HS2" in the caption.Cnbrb (talk) 11:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Crossrail 2

The Crossrail 2 sub-section doesn't make much sense and its only source is a 6 year old newspaper article. I propose deleting it unless anyone suggests meaningful revisions. --FDent (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead - this article is so full of cruft it's beyond belief, so any trimming is welcome! Cnbrb (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
That's fine with me as well. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Updating of compensation section

I have recently added relevant content to the Compensation section, including the addition (sub-)sub-categories. I was looking for authority to remove the Update template banner within the section. However, if it's deemed necessary to add improvements I'm more than happy to listen to everyones opinion. Døddmeïßter47™ (talk) 12:58, January 2013 (UTC)

High-speed Crewe hub

This sub-section is gobbledygook and misplaced under Phase one. Crewe isn't in phase one, regardless of what the local press or stopHS2 might have reported in the past. The reference to BBC article doesnt mention hub. Where Crewe should be mentioned is in Phase 2a and it ought to be on the map as it's definitely a HS2 stop High Speed Two: From Crewe to Manchester, the West Midlands to Leeds and beyond--FDent (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Crewe hub station is not on HS2 track. HS2 track runs under the station in a tunnel by-passing it. There is a branch south of Crewe onto the WCML and a branch just north of Crewe onto the WCML. HS2 trains visiting Crewe will not be captive trains. To get to the station the trains have to move off the HS2 track and back on, as will be the case at Sheffield. Trains have to slow up greatly to pass through the tunnel, so the two branches north and south will not impede speed. The Crewe Hub gives greater HS2 connectivity to the existing classic lines splaying out from Crewe, its prime aim. The hub is vital facilitating a means of HS2 connecting onto the 6 classic lines that splay out of the Crewe junction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.107.206 (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Support and opposition to HS2

I propose splitting off this section into a separate article or severely trimming - it is currently clogging up the main article with fairly useless information. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree. It's more a List of .. article and would benefit from dates - at least years, for context.--FDent (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Agree, it is a total mess and I support severe trimming. However, I don't support a separate article. The section is already a honeypot for POV soapboxing and I am sure this will become even worse if an article is dedicated to the topic of support/opposition (can you imagine the edit wars?!?). A while ago I suggested a major trim on this section and I tried to make a start but lost the will to live. Just for clarity I'll paste my original suggestion below, and perhaps it will offer some inspiration.
The article is bloated with lots of unnecessary detail which falls foul of WP:TMI. Furthermore, every time HS2 gets mentioned in the media, there is a tendency to add every trivial quote by a commentator to the article (WP:FART). This is going to go on until 2032 and beyond, so I think we need to look at trimming insignificant quotes. In particular, the Perspectives section is especially bloated; it falls foul of WP:LISTCRUFT, and it is little more than a dumping ground for WP:SOAPBOX content for editors to insert their particular pro/anti arguments. If we must list all the organisations that support/oppose HS2, then it's got to appear in a readable way. At the moment, we have many organisations listed along with a description of their constitution and a rationale of their opposition/support. There's also the Environmental and community impact section which seems overly detailed, although the quality of the information is much better.
I completely support the inclusion of political opposition and support, but the issues need to be summarised, not listed in bewildering detail. This BBC article would serve as a good starting point, as would this piece from The Telegraph. I suggest that:
      • the main issues be rewritten in prose summary and merged with the Environmental and community impact section
      • the organisations, councils and political parties be listed in simple lists or a table. Inline references should be retained so that the reader can research the issues in more depth if desired.
I have already split off the content into a separate article, if that does suffer from edit wars or soapboxing then I'm happy to put it back in. In this article I've only summarised the positions of the main political parties, so feel free to add a summary of the other groups if you think it would help. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
OK, well maybe it'll work. Good luck with it....! Cnbrb (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Operation section

A much needed improvement of this article is a re-organisation to bring together the multiple parts covering the operation of the railway. This will make it more readable and simplify future editing when more details becomes available about this. The following sections & sub-sections should be moved to this section (not necessarily in this order):

  • 2.4 Proposed service pattern
  • 2.5 Operator
  • 2.6 Fares
  • 2.7 Capacity
  • 6. Journey times
  • 8.1 Infrastructure
  • 8.2 Rolling stock
  • 8.2.1 Running costs
  • 8.3 Maintenance depot

--FDent (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree, I have done that now. I didn't move the journey times section as I think that fits better as its own section, although others may disagree. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Just to double check, I notice some trains are labelled as calling at Carstairs (Phase 2 frequency chart). Is that true or should this say Carlisle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:742A:9400:F1BB:CA5F:C659:2D3 (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

TOC limit

I think the TOC limit should be 3, especially with the large numbers of stations with their own subsections. Thoughts? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, do please limit it to 3. The article's insanely massive, the full-fat ToC just makes it worse! Cnbrb (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I temporarily set it to 5 while restructuring the article. There is lots of old out of date stuff that is superseded, that needs rewriting, put in the right spot or deleting. I will set the TOC to 5 and then back to 3 when done. It takes time. I do have a life elsewhere. 90.221.107.206 (talk) 10:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, there is much that needs to be updated, but it is of course a collaborative effort. Perhaps just work on one section at a time or use your sandbox. There's no pressure to do everything and there is no deadline. Cnbrb (talk) 10:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Phase 1 vs Phase One

Naming has recently been changed in the article from Phase one to 1. It should use the official name Phase One as per all the docs in [2] not that used in some news articles.--FDent (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm yes. Phase 1 is more consistent with the other phases which are named numerically, so I tend to prefer that, but the official documentation seems to prefer "One" over "1". What should one do? Cnbrb (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
OTOH, Phase Two has been split into Phase 2a and Phase 2b which fit better with Phase 1 rather than Phase One. Cavrdg (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree the naming is inconsistent between the phases, since phase two was split into 2a and 2b, but Wikipedia should use naming consistent the official names, not fix to what editors think is more logical. --FDent (talk) 06:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I assume this is linked with Writing style guides for English which usually state that numbers 1 to 9 in text should be expressed in words, while larger numbers are written numerically.--FDent (talk) 06:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Using numbers not letters makes sense, as some have noted it falls in line with 2a and 2b. Having Phase Two and Phase 2b looks odd. 90.215.69.100 (talk) 10:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Phase 1 vs Phase One

Naming has recently been changed in the article from Phase one to 1. It should use the official name Phase One as per all the docs in [3] not that used in some news articles.--FDent (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm yes. Phase 1 is more consistent with the other phases which are named numerically, so I tend to prefer that, but the official documentation seems to prefer "One" over "1". What should one do? Cnbrb (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
OTOH, Phase Two has been split into Phase 2a and Phase 2b which fit better with Phase 1 rather than Phase One. Cavrdg (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree the naming is inconsistent between the phases, since phase two was split into 2a and 2b, but Wikipedia should use naming consistent the official names, not fix to what editors think is more logical. --FDent (talk) 06:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I assume this is linked with Writing style guides for English which usually state that numbers 1 to 9 in text should be expressed in words, while larger numbers are written numerically.--FDent (talk) 06:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Using numbers not letters makes sense, as some have noted it falls in line with 2a and 2b. Having Phase Two and Phase 2b looks odd. 90.215.69.100 (talk) 10:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Route and stations separate sections

There's a lot of overlap of route description in the stations section, slightly contradicting but definitely making this necessarily long (including unneeded history too). I propose removing the stations section completely as they are listed elsewhere in the article and have their own articles. --FDent (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Go for it. I would tackle it but for fear of losing the will to live. Cnbrb (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Status?

There are works in progress outside Euston at present, with signs on the hoarding that say HS2. Has the construction phase officially started? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Site clearance has started, but the construction of bridges, tunnels, embankments and viaducts (originally due to start in November) has been delayed until June 2019. Firebrace (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Euston needs re-doing, even if HS2 is cancelled. The concourse is way too small. A large train shed has been demolished. Also buildings around Euston have been demolished. There are lots of men around Euston with HS2 on their clothing. 2.126.207.178 (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Euston Downside Carriage Maintenance Depot demolition has just been completed , clearing the way for tunnelling to begin.--FDent (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the updates, great to hear that it's progressing! Can I suggest you post the updates on a forum site though rather than here, such as the discussion here? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
The delaying of the line construction is political. Some leading politicians still want HS2 cancelled. The works at Euston need doing irrespective of HS2. If HS2 is delayed, or cancelled, the works at Euston will still go ahead. 90.209.75.108 (talk) 10:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Where should the construction section go?

Should the construction section be a subsection of the History section, go just after the History section, or go right at the end? My personal preference would be a subsection of History until there is enough content to be its own section, at which point it should go just after the History section. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I would comment that construction is all going to be in future or present tense for quite a long time. Perhaps when the thing has been built, it becomes history, but until then it makes sense to me to have it in a standalone section - between Planned stations and Operation conveys some chronological sense to me:
  1. History
  2. Route
  3. Planned stations
  4. Construction
  5. Operation
  6. Journey times
Cnbrb (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
'History' should be renamed to 'background'. Firebrace (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Dubious tag

Hey all, I've added a {{dubious}} tag to the lede because I think the statement in question contains two figures that are incomparable. Examining the citations given, I note that the original cost was at 2011 prices without the rolling stock, whereas the current cost is at later prices with the rolling stock. I think that it may violate NPOV to make implications of a cost overrun that doesn't yet exist. Sceptre (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Sheffield

Sheffield is on the main map in the article. Sheffield has been removed from HS2's dedicated destinations, at their own request. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:7D39:CB86:71B1:57EF (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Has it? I can fix the map, but not immediately. If I haven't got around to it soon, feel free to ping/message me to remind me. Happy to sort it out if it needs changed. Cnbrb (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes Meadowhall in Sheffield has been removed from HS2. Sheffield's centre is accessed via the MML from south of Chesterfield. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:25A3:940B:4DAB:9A57 (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Crewe is now on HS2. Crewe should be added and Sheffield omitted. Crewe has WCML junctions from HS2 north and south of Crewe. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:25A3:940B:4DAB:9A57 (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Done. Cnbrb (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Phase 2a - map

The project is in three phases, phase 1, phase 2a and phase 2b. Phase 2a is Birmingham to Crewe. This should be in another colour on the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:25A3:940B:4DAB:9A57 (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Good point - I'll try to update it when I can. Cnbrb (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:8537:1D6E:1A10:24E5 (talk) 09:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Done. Cnbrb (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Where? 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F0EF:995C:404D:C8C3 (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
On the map. The thing you were talking about. Cnbrb (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Phase 2a on the map is green. Fine. But!. Phase 2a is only Birmingham to Crewe. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:E01C:6A:336F:3578 (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Phase 2a northern end is Crewe - see https://www.hs2.org.uk/building-hs2/building-the-line/phase-2a-west-midlands-crewe/ --FDent (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
OK the map is recoloured now to reflect the Crewe limit. Cnbrb (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

NPR-HS2 junctions

Two junctions are to be built at High Legh for the Liverpool trains to access via NPR. Info added with refs given. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:6DE5:1AD:CDAC:A36 (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR), for anyone grasping for context. —Sladen (talk) 08:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Manchester Airport

This station has not yet been given the go ahead, as it relies on private funding. The article gives the impression this station is certain to be built, when that is not the case. It must be made clear the situation regarding this station. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F581:7D0F:ADCE:E437 (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

New map needed of all destinations

A full map of of the network is needed. That is, the towns and cities served by the classic compatible HS2 services. This should be inserted below the map of the dedicated track at the top of the article. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F581:7D0F:ADCE:E437 (talk) 08:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to recommend changes/additions to this map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnbrb (talk • contribs) 11:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Chesterfield is not on it. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F581:7D0F:ADCE:E437 (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
The "potential" lines should be removed as that is just speculation. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F581:7D0F:ADCE:E437 (talk) 08:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
The source for it is a DFT paper which clearly illustrates the potential lines on page 5 - not speculation, a reflection of published official documentation. No sign of Chesterfield I'm afraid. If there's an updated version of this document, please let me know. Cnbrb (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
That 2013 command paper has been superseded. See this briefing paper for some history of route design http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8071/CBP-8071.pdf --FDent (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Chesterfield is in that document. HS2 is where HS2 trains go and stop, whether on existing high speed track or new high speed track. That is fixed. NPR may entail changes to parts of HS2, but locations are still the same. Other destinations not in the existing plan are mere speculation not needing to be in the article. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F581:7D0F:ADCE:E437 (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
A picture of the whole HS2 network serving 14 destinations, should be the top picture, as that is HS2. A second picture showing only the new track should be under it. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F581:7D0F:ADCE:E437 (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the updated document. I think that the lead image was deliberately kept simple so as to avoid constant updates in the early development phases, but it could of course now be improved or replaced, as 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F581:7D0F:ADCE:E437 suggests. I'll give it some thought. 13:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
HS2 is still not nailed down, as NPR may change the upper part of phase 2b. Yes, in the early stages it was much more fluid. The WCML, ECML & MML are high speed track, meeting the minimum for high speed. The only part of HS2 not on high speed track is the WCML Liverpool spur. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F581:7D0F:ADCE:E437 (talk) 09:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Map now updated to reflect The new document Cnbrb (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The updated map does not have Newcastle, Glasgow and Edinburgh on it. HS2 trains run to these places. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F581:7D0F:ADCE:E437 (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F581:7D0F:ADCE:E437, you asked me to remove the "potential" lines as they were just speculation!! HS2 is to Manchester and Leeds, as per the new document. If you want something else, you'll have to be specific. Cnbrb (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Cross wires I think. HS2 links Birmingham, Birmingham airport, Carlisle, Chesterfield, Crewe, East Midlands, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds, Liverpool, London, Manchester, Manchester airport, Newcastle, Oxenholme, Old Oak Common, Penrith, Preston, Sheffield, Warrington and York on a mixture of existing and new high speed track. 21 stations in all. That is the complete HS2 network. These destinations and the tracks linking them should be in the map. Obviously one colour for new HS2 track and another colour for the existing high speed classic track. Then the map will display the complete network. cheers. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F581:7D0F:ADCE:E437 (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, just so I can be clear, do any other editors want to input on this? I'm happy to try and get this right but I'd prefer everyone to be agreed before I make any more changes.....
Do I simply restore the classic-compatible routes to Scotland and Wales on top of the recent changes? Cnbrb (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Just the 18 destinations on HS2 as listed. Bristol, Cardiff are just speculation. HS2 will not run up the ECML past Newcastle. The WCML takes HS2 trains up to the two Scots cities. cheers. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F581:7D0F:ADCE:E437 (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Could you point to a reliable source please? Preferably an official map - just so I've got something to go on in case the map is disputed. Thanks. 17:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry 21 destinations HS2 serves, Old Oak Common, Oxenholme and Penrith are all on HS2. Penrith even has a Birmingham train. Here are the three Cumbrian stations with a full HS2 map link at the top - from HS2. https://www.hs2.org.uk/stations/penrith/ The maps shows phase 1, phase 2a and the WCML different shades of blue. Phase 2b is orange. Zooming in the different colours can be seen. cheers. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F581:7D0F:ADCE:E437 (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

HS2 the full network

HS2 is all the network that HS2 trains will run on and serve. The dedicated new high speed tracks are a subset of that. This article has HS2 as the new high speed track, referring to the rest as additions or connections way down the article. The classic tracks HS2 trains will operate on are classed as high speed, they just happen to be already there with a lower maximum speed than the new tracks. The emphasis is wrong.

Changed the intro to reflect the above. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F581:7D0F:ADCE:E437 (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F581:7D0F:ADCE:E437, using the same for CTRL/HS1 we get a sentence "HS1 is all the network that HS1 trains will run on and serve", which would mean Channel Tunnel + LGV Nord (for Paris); + HSL 1 (for Brussels); + LGV Interconnexion Est (for Disneyland); + LGV Sud-Est (for Lyon); etc. Does this really make sense? —Sladen (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I do not get your point. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F581:7D0F:ADCE:E437 (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F581:7D0F:ADCE:E437: Train services (mostly) run across multiple individual railway lines to reach their destinations, but above we can see a statement from yourself that "HS2 is all the network that HS2 trains will run on and serve."; this seems to confuse train services and railway lines. When we apply the same statement to other known situations, we end up with results that do not make sense. —Sladen (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
HS2 runs trains on a mixture of new and existing high speed track, which makes perfect sense. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F581:7D0F:ADCE:E437 (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Operators run trains. Some of those trains may use HS2 infrastructure for some of their journeys. Some trains may continue on HS3/NPR for some of their journeys. Some trains may continue via WCML/ECML for some of their journeys. Or divert via the MML, and re-join HS2. These are the difference between a high-speed railway line, and high-speed services running on that network. At the moment these two separate appear to be getting mixed up. —Sladen (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
HS2 as is their plan, is 20 stations served running on a mixture of new and existing high speed track. Speculation does not count. Who owns and run lines does not count. Only the official planned & proposed HS2 network counts. The ECML, WCML & MML are all high speed lines conforming the definition of high speed. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F581:7D0F:ADCE:E437 (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually if I may point out, the number of stations listed by HS2 Ltd is greater than 20 (under "Which stations will HS2 trains serve?"). Currently (September 2019) it stands at 28 - this is not speculation, this is the official HS2 website, although naturally this will probably change (especially after today's announcement) - "Based on current indicative train service specification. Final HS2 timetable subject to revision and consultation." Hope this helps.

  1. Birmingham Curzon Street
  2. Carlisle
  3. Chesterfield
  4. Crewe
  5. Darlington
  6. Durham
  7. East Midlands Hub (Toton)
  8. Edinburgh
  9. Glasgow
  10. Interchange (Birmingham)
  11. Lancaster
  12. Leeds
  13. Liverpool
  14. Lockerbie
  15. London Euston
  16. Manchester Airport
  17. Manchester Piccadilly
  18. Newcastle
  19. Old Oak Common
  20. Oxenholme
  21. Penrith
  22. Preston
  23. Runcorn
  24. Sheffield Midland
  25. Stafford
  26. Warrington
  27. Wigan
  28. York

Cnbrb (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thx. If that number, then it is that number. But best wait until the results of the review are announced as matters will be clearer then. It may be canned, or parts lopped off like phase 2b, which is rumoured to be lopped off. NPR may influence, etc. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:D9C7:7A46:A31E:D818 (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Tell me about it! It may all change overnight! Cnbrb (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/hs2-review-could-hand-phase-2b-budget-to-northern-powerhouse-rail-06-09-2019/
This is reporting, via leaks, that phase 2B will be the responsibility of NPR, who will merge the two - which makes sense. NPR will no doubt change the design of phase 2B. Chester may come on, maybe no new track from Birmingham to Derby/Notts with Leeds, Newcastle, Sheff using uprated MML & ECML, only updating the existing track. Maybe no new track above Crewe, maybe no Manchester airport HS2 station, etc, etc. What will be on HS2? What will not be on HS2? Interesting in December when the review is announced. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F581:7D0F:ADCE:E437 (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
😯 Like everything else in politics, I just can't keep up. Thanks for the info, will be interesting to see what happens. Cnbrb (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
If NPR are responsible, (crystal ball gazing) their prime remit is the Liverpool-Hull line and northern connections off that. Secondary is the connections to the Midlands and the south. We may see the WCML, MML & ECML uprated rather than new HS2 track to Birmingham from Manchester & Leeds. One rumour was that Leeds would use NPR west across the Pennines, then head south between Liverpool & Manchester on HS2, so 250mph track all the way, with the eastern leg of phase 2B scrapped. Anyhow, we will see. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F581:7D0F:ADCE:E437 (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill Select Committee

Insufficient content for a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 07:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, although given that the article is relatively new, it might be nice to invite @Colourlight: to comment, in case they plan to expand the article. Cnbrb (talk) 08:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree it should be merged, but probably sits better in History of High Speed 2. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Feel free to merge it; usually committees for bills would be included in a bill page or section, however I could not find one of these in this page or in the Wikipedia. Thanks Colourlight (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Merge it. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F581:7D0F:ADCE:E437 (talk)
Merge it with either this article for History of High Speed 2. Nerd271 (talk) 00:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Is it one of these: High Speed Rail (Preparation) Act 2013 or High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Act 2017? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll merge it into High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Act 2017 if no one has any objections? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

It does not need to be merged with main article as it it will bloat the article. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:9548:F17E:7493:EE68 (talk) 06:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to merge it with High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Act 2017 now. Bellowhead678 (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

HS2 the full network

HS2 is all the network that HS2 trains will run on and serve. The dedicated new high speed tracks are a subset of that. This article has HS2 as the new high speed track, referring to the rest as additions or connections way down the article. The classic tracks HS2 trains will operate on are classed as high speed, they just happen to be already there with a lower maximum speed than the new tracks. The emphasis is wrong.

Changed the intro to reflect the above. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F581:7D0F:ADCE:E437 (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F581:7D0F:ADCE:E437, using the same for CTRL/HS1 we get a sentence "HS1 is all the network that HS1 trains will run on and serve", which would mean Channel Tunnel + LGV Nord (for Paris); + HSL 1 (for Brussels); + LGV Interconnexion Est (for Disneyland); + LGV Sud-Est (for Lyon); etc. Does this really make sense? —Sladen (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I do not get your point. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F581:7D0F:ADCE:E437 (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F581:7D0F:ADCE:E437: Train services (mostly) run across multiple individual railway lines to reach their destinations, but above we can see a statement from yourself that "HS2 is all the network that HS2 trains will run on and serve."; this seems to confuse train services and railway lines. When we apply the same statement to other known situations, we end up with results that do not make sense. —Sladen (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
HS2 runs trains on a mixture of new and existing high speed track, which makes perfect sense. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F581:7D0F:ADCE:E437 (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Operators run trains. Some of those trains may use HS2 infrastructure for some of their journeys. Some trains may continue on HS3/NPR for some of their journeys. Some trains may continue via WCML/ECML for some of their journeys. Or divert via the MML, and re-join HS2. These are the difference between a high-speed railway line, and high-speed services running on that network. At the moment these two separate appear to be getting mixed up. —Sladen (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
HS2 as is their plan, is 20 stations served running on a mixture of new and existing high speed track. Speculation does not count. Who owns and run lines does not count. Only the official planned & proposed HS2 network counts. The ECML, WCML & MML are all high speed lines conforming the definition of high speed. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F581:7D0F:ADCE:E437 (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually if I may point out, the number of stations listed by HS2 Ltd is greater than 20 (under "Which stations will HS2 trains serve?"). Currently (September 2019) it stands at 28 - this is not speculation, this is the official HS2 website, although naturally this will probably change (especially after today's announcement) - "Based on current indicative train service specification. Final HS2 timetable subject to revision and consultation." Hope this helps.

  1. Birmingham Curzon Street
  2. Carlisle
  3. Chesterfield
  4. Crewe
  5. Darlington
  6. Durham
  7. East Midlands Hub (Toton)
  8. Edinburgh
  9. Glasgow
  10. Interchange (Birmingham)
  11. Lancaster
  12. Leeds
  13. Liverpool
  14. Lockerbie
  15. London Euston
  16. Manchester Airport
  17. Manchester Piccadilly
  18. Newcastle
  19. Old Oak Common
  20. Oxenholme
  21. Penrith
  22. Preston
  23. Runcorn
  24. Sheffield Midland
  25. Stafford
  26. Warrington
  27. Wigan
  28. York

Cnbrb (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thx. If that number, then it is that number. But best wait until the results of the review are announced as matters will be clearer then. It may be canned, or parts lopped off like phase 2b, which is rumoured to be lopped off. NPR may influence, etc. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:D9C7:7A46:A31E:D818 (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Tell me about it! It may all change overnight! Cnbrb (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/hs2-review-could-hand-phase-2b-budget-to-northern-powerhouse-rail-06-09-2019/
This is reporting, via leaks, that phase 2B will be the responsibility of NPR, who will merge the two - which makes sense. NPR will no doubt change the design of phase 2B. Chester may come on, maybe no new track from Birmingham to Derby/Notts with Leeds, Newcastle, Sheff using uprated MML & ECML, only updating the existing track. Maybe no new track above Crewe, maybe no Manchester airport HS2 station, etc, etc. What will be on HS2? What will not be on HS2? Interesting in December when the review is announced. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F581:7D0F:ADCE:E437 (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
😯 Like everything else in politics, I just can't keep up. Thanks for the info, will be interesting to see what happens. Cnbrb (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
If NPR are responsible, (crystal ball gazing) their prime remit is the Liverpool-Hull line and northern connections off that. Secondary is the connections to the Midlands and the south. We may see the WCML, MML & ECML uprated rather than new HS2 track to Birmingham from Manchester & Leeds. One rumour was that Leeds would use NPR west across the Pennines, then head south between Liverpool & Manchester on HS2, so 250mph track all the way, with the eastern leg of phase 2B scrapped. Anyhow, we will see. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F581:7D0F:ADCE:E437 (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill Select Committee

Insufficient content for a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 07:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, although given that the article is relatively new, it might be nice to invite @Colourlight: to comment, in case they plan to expand the article. Cnbrb (talk) 08:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree it should be merged, but probably sits better in History of High Speed 2. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Feel free to merge it; usually committees for bills would be included in a bill page or section, however I could not find one of these in this page or in the Wikipedia. Thanks Colourlight (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Merge it. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F581:7D0F:ADCE:E437 (talk)
Merge it with either this article for History of High Speed 2. Nerd271 (talk) 00:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Is it one of these: High Speed Rail (Preparation) Act 2013 or High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Act 2017? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll merge it into High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Act 2017 if no one has any objections? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

It does not need to be merged with main article as it it will bloat the article. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:9548:F17E:7493:EE68 (talk) 06:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to merge it with High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Act 2017 now. Bellowhead678 (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:High_Speed_2/Archive_3&oldid=1027156403"