Talk:High Speed 2/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about High Speed 2. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

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.

Birmingham Curzon Street
Carlisle
Chesterfield
Crewe
Darlington
Durham
East Midlands Hub (Toton)
Edinburgh
Glasgow
Interchange (Birmingham)
Lancaster
Leeds
Liverpool
Lockerbie
London Euston
Manchester Airport
Manchester Piccadilly
Newcastle
Old Oak Common
Oxenholme
Penrith
Preston
Runcorn
Sheffield Midland
Stafford
Warrington
Wigan
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)

Quad track

It says there is some quad track. I am unaware of any on HS2.

Cost of project

It states £56 bn. Official bodies are talking of approx £80 bn. No mention of this in the intro. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F581:7D0F:ADCE:E437 (talk) 08:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Has been put in. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:CCBB:7EC9:74C4:BE14 (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Contribution from House of Commons IP

I note that there has been a contribution to this article from 194.60.38.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which according to RIPE is allocated to the House of Commons:

organisation:   ORG-THOC1-RIPE
org-name:       THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
org-type:       LIR
address:        7 Millbank
address:        SW1P 3JA
address:        London
address:        UNITED KINGDOM

changing HS2 from "is" to "was" (diff).

-- The Anome (talk) 10:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

How very interesting. This IP has past form in making politically-motivated edits to articles. Of course, it could be any of the 650 sitting members in the Commons (or their staff), but still a cause for concern and a WP:COI. Is there a suitable way of reporting this IP address to admins? It should be monitored. Cnbrb (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

If you have the enhanced contributions option turned on, you can see all the contributions from the whole House of Commons IP range at Special:Contributions/194.60.0.0/18 -- The Anome (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Bim Afolami, Tory MP, is on ‎194.60.38.225. I doubt he has any inside info as only a few know if HS2 will go ahead or not, or go ahead in a cut down version. But it was very silly of him to insert "was". 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:8D47:1069:3E80:2E7A (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Bim Afolami was very wrong. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:21F6:B449:E370:708F (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Le Monde

Image is the same as Le Monde here. Who came first ? Hektor (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Le Monde subtitles their image as Tracé de la ligne de train à grande vitesse HS2, au Royaume-Uni. Cnbrb / CC BY-SA 3.0 My emphasis, French not needed. They don't have to give credit to WikiCommons in general or Cnbrb in particular (who gets to enjoy a quiet smile of satisfaction). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Article needs a rethink

The Guardian is reporting, as are many others, that phase 2b and NPR will combine. The DfT even issued a map clearly indicating so. Note that on the old HS2 maps, only London, Leeds, Birmingham and Manchester were in bold type, as they receive captive services - HS2 direct. Now Liverpool and Crewe are in bold. This is significant. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/11/boris-johnson-bets-on-hs2-to-deliver-new-spine-of-uk-transport

Here is the old HS2 Ltd map, by DfT. Note the cities with bold type - those who receive captive services. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/11/hs2-to-go-ahead-boris-johnson-tells-mps The article needs to reflect this change of stance. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:A937:5A9D:D0C:9B62 (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Oakervee Report

Needs the conclusions. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:2190:2B79:5073:EF39 (talk) 06:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Wigan to Goldborne

The Transport Minister is talking of removing the stretch of line from Wigan to Goldborne, calling it the Goldborne Spur. The new HS2 track links onto the WCML at Wigan for trains to Scotland. This indicates that the spine of HS2 on the western leg is Birmingham to Manchester, not Birmingham to Glasgow/Edinburgh. The WCML is a high speed railway, although the lowest level. The north-south spine would be a mixture of new and old track to Scotland. As the link to the WCML at Wigan is removed, where do trains for Scotland get onto the WCML? Crewe 50 miles further south? This designation of where and what the spine is should be reflected in the article. Most would have thought the new track spine would have ended at Wigan. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:B804:86E:946:FC23 (talk) 07:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC

Lower train speeds

Train speeds have/will be lower. This increases journey times. Once firm figures are available, they must replace the existing figures. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:9855:B4FF:68DD:F753 (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020 edits

This editor keep changing text generally adding no value to the article, with lots of POV. When reverted he again reverts. Also, he does not understand what HS2 actually is. HS2 is a combination of existing and new high speed track. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:D961:B906:722B:4E64 (talk) 06:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Coming to this cold and reviewing [I'm just another editor, mind] their reversion at 10:10 today of your (re)version, I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you. Your text (which is rather more than your summary above) is a bit of a mess of optimism bias and off-topic waffle, unfortunately. Wikipedia reports verifiable facts on the ground and only the most reliably sourced forecasts (with suitable health warnings). See WP:CRYSTAL. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

A personal attack! 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:DE5:1856:E7AE:FCD2 (talk) 08:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Since the policy WP:NPA brings with it enforcement action that includes extended or even permanent bans, I must respond. Nothing I wrote above makes any comment about you as an individual, or even about your behaviour. My comments are specifically about what you have written and how you have written it, with the expectation that as an adult you might accept the judgement of a neutral observer and let it go. You have chosen not to do so, which is your right and perhaps you might have hoped that other editors would disagree with me and agree with you: had that happened, I would have accepted it. What you have done instead is to accuse me of acting in bad faith, which certainly is a personal attack. I invite you withdraw, otherwise I shall have to escalate. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

You do not like my style. I think it excellent. You are getting personal. Not me. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:E96D:C0CC:1ABB:AFFD (talk) 08:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

In line with WP:TALKNEW ("Never use headings to attack other users"), I would invite you to change the heading of this topic. Thanks. Cnbrb (talk) 11:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

He has made a huge number of edits many of which are adding value. There are perhaps some where some clarification or reversion is necessary, but they are the minority. As for "not understanding what HS2 is" I think it's important to be clear what is meant by HS2. As a system, HS2 certainly includes the new route and the conventional rail network (and hence trains specified to operate over both). But as a network (and civil engineering programme) HS2 is only the new high-speed infrastructure and associated stations, depots, etc. That's perhaps why different people think of it as different things, and an area that the article can clarify. Spookster67 (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

It's been a few hours now and nobody has acted, so I am changing the header of this particular topic in line with WP:TALKNEW: "using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, as it places their names prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history. As edit summaries and edit histories are not normally subject to revision, that wording can then haunt them and damage their credibility for an indefinite time period". It is completely legitimate to criticise this editor's contributions, but it is unfair to use the heading to name them in that way. Do please continue to discuss the edits you disagree with, bearing in mind that we must have no personal attacks and assume good faith. Thank you. Cnbrb (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

HS2 is NOT just the new infrastructure. That is why they have classic compatible trains. HS2s documentation mentions off-the-of-the-new-track stations as HS2 destinations. The new track is a part of new HSR spine. The existing WCML, ECML & MML are all classed as HSR lines. They just about qualify as such, but HSR they are. The editor in question, and you, clearly do not understand this. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:B16C:E6F9:E519:1259 (talk) 07:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The article is becoming a farce, littered with one man's ideas of how HS2 is, or should be. He is obviously a HS2 fanboy. BTW, this guy has form. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:B16C:E6F9:E519:1259 (talk) 07:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Personal attack. I go by FACTS. I am no train spotter type. BTW, I could write the same about you. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:B16C:E6F9:E519:1259 (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Please confine your comments to article content and refrain from confrontational language. "Fanboy" and "I could write the same about you" are personal attacks. Please familiarise yourself with WP:CIVIL. Cnbrb (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Please direct your comments at -John Maynard Friedman.

The problem is far too many fanboys contribute, which clouds objectivity. This article is not here to glorify HS2, spinning only the positives, or single editors perceptions. The editor in question came into the article making swathes of changes, directly after HS2 was given the go ahead by the PM after the Oakervee report was published. What a coincidence. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:DE5:1856:E7AE:FCD2 (talk) 08:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Edits by editor Gareth Griffith-Jones, now amount to vandalism. Whole rafts of text are deleted. A Mod needs to intervene to curb this editor. That HS2 is a mixture of new and old high speed lines, which was determined on this talk page (archived recently). 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:DE5:1856:E7AE:FCD2 (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

No, these are clearly made in good faith. Just because you disagree with an edit does not make it vandalism. You need to explain clearly what it is you disagree with instead of accusing editors of vandalism. You suggest consensus has been reached on some subject - please indicate clearly what and where this is. Cnbrb (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The changes are not in good faith in any way whatsoever. They came in waves after the PM approved HS2 to go ahead. They are all predominately POV. He even deletes text in the talk pages acting as thought police. The mods must intervene to stop this which has now clearly become vandalism by an out of control editor. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:DE5:1856:E7AE:FCD2 (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, here's how it works, 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:DE5:1856:E7AE:FCD2: talk pages are where people have adult discussions about improving articles. If you disagree with an editor's changes, you discuss it rationally. Just because you dissagree with another editor's actions does not make it vandalism - see WP:Not vandalism. You need to cool it and stop making accusations at editors. Please familiarise yourself with WP:Good faith, WP:civil. Be nice. Cnbrb (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Gareth Griffith-Jones has previous form. He was acting in an uncooperative manner in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Croxley_Rail_Link#Intro 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:64CB:78F:152C:D64D (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

From what I can see there, you disagreed with him on edits (presumably the IP address is yourself), and after a couple of reversions, the editor you are criticising appeared to back down to avoid any further confrontation. After a little discussion, I made some contributions, for which the editor you are criticising then thanked me. It looks to me like he acted fairly reasonably in the end. All Wiki editors disagree over something at some point. There is a world of difference between disagreement and vandalism and it is very unfair to repeatedly attempt to malign this editor. I think it's also very telling that you dredge up a minor spat from three years ago as if this is some sort of trial. Perhaps other editors would like to dredge up your past mistakes, but they can't because you're hiding behind an IP address that changes. Cnbrb (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I did not contribute to the Watford article. But a number of editor were annoyed with him for sure, for being obstinate and uncooperative. Frankly he was being a bit of a know-it-all. 19:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:64CB:78F:152C:D64D (talk)

What he was doing here was vandalism as he was just deleting whole rafts of text. The more he was told the worse he got. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:64CB:78F:152C:D64D (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

This is an article talk page. In line with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, its purpose is to discuss improvements to the article. It is not a space to put another editor on trial. If you have genuine concerns about an editor's conduct, you should take it to an appropriate Administrators' noticeboard. This is not the place to do it. This is a clear case of WP:WIKIHOUNDING and I am sure all the other editors are tired of reading your complaints on this talk page. Offer ways to improve the article or stop - it's as simple as that. Cnbrb (talk) 10:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The aim is to improve the article for sure. But when vandalism from one out of control editor is rampant, it has to be a topic on the talk page. Obviously. 07:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:E96D:C0CC:1ABB:AFFD (talk)

Min High Speed

What do you call "old high speed lines"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.209.186 (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The 125mph lines are high speed, the lowest level of HSR. Rolling stock must be able to reach a speed of at least 200 km/h (124 mph) to be considered high speed. High-speed rail. See reinstated section above. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:DE5:1856:E7AE:FCD2 (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

'Conventional' rather than 'Classic'

The article refers in many places to 'classic routes' and to 'classic-compatible' trains. It was the case that DfT and HS2 used this term, but now they describe it as 'Conventional' and CRN as the Conventional Rail Network. The new trains will be 'Conventional Compatible'. Hence the article needs to refer to Conventional rather than Compatible in most instances. Spookster67 (talk) 14:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

In many parts, "classic" and other words has been replaced by "conventional". It might be appropriate in some cases. The word conventional by itself seams rather vague:

the conventional rail system, (...) is characterized by old national infrastructure and stock requiring heavy investment for adaptation or renewal
— DIRECTIVE 2001/16/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 19 March 2001 on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system

However the phrase "conventional trains, capable of high speed" is not clear: I believe that conventional trains are not capable of high speed a characteristic which differentiate them from high speed trains. Thus systematic usage of conventional word is confusing when it removes accuracy of the previous word. For clarity, the text should be consistent with the here-after one:

The high-speed advanced-technology trains shall be designed in such a way as to guarantee safe, uninterrupted travel: (...) at the highest possible speed on other lines
— Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system, Official Journal L 235 , 17/09/1996

This is completed by another European requirement:

The characteristics of the rolling stock must be such as to allow it to travel on any line on which it is expected to operate
— same source

Also, this is not so British specific: High speed TGV train also use the classical rails: "an effort has been made to remove all level crossings on lignes classiques used by TGVs" (in France) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.154.84 (talk) 13:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

And just to make it entertaining, 'high speed' has been taken to mean anything 200 km/h (124 mph) upwards, so the InterCity 125 from 1975 qualifies and thus the WCML is high speed rail! Coming back to the main question, I vote that we keep 'Classic' as it is unambiguous (and shorter). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

So "Classic" is the term more often used in various relevant European publications, but it remains the case that both DfT and HS2 are describing the new trains as "Conventional Compatible" (where previously they described them as "Classic Compatible"), and the network over which they are required to run as the "Conventional Rail Network" (CRN). These are defined terms in the current rolling stock ITT (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hs2-rolling-stock-procurement). It looks like we'll need to choose between "Conventional" and "classic" as the context requires. Spookster67 (talk) 10:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I wonder (he said, leaving someone else to research it!) if NwR/DfT are thinking of 'Classic' as meaning 'up to 100 km/h (62 mph)' and 'Conventional' as being 1970s high speed, 200–225 km/h (124–140 mph)? Anyone fancy doing a freedom of information query? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. I think it's just a case of DfT/HS2 initially referring to required compatibility with existing high-speed lines (e.g. WCML) as classic-compatible, but then changing their terminology to conventional compatible in more recent documentation. They intended the same thing in both cases. Spookster67 (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

"Classic" has become the word used to describe high speed 125mph and less mph tracks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:EDEE:BEC7:AF30:4AA7 (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The HS2 network

All on this map is HS2, apart from HS1. HS2 is not just the new 225mph track. Editors should bare this in mind. This was discussed further up the talk page with this map developed specifically to clarify that point.

2A01:4B00:881D:3700:DE5:1856:E7AE:FCD2 (talk) 09:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

HS2 describes the line. It's the thick dark blue line on the map marked "HS2". The light blue lines are other lines like the East and West Coast Main Lines. I think what you're describing is the high-speed rail project as a whole, which covers all of this map including the other lines. Cnbrb (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. HS2 is not just the new built, faster, HS line. It is the whole network where HS2 trains run. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:DE5:1856:E7AE:FCD2 (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

No, I believe HS2 is the line. It's specific, as HS1 refers to the line in Kent. The wider project would be High-speed rail in the United Kingdom, of which HS2 is an important part. Cnbrb (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

It is where HS2 trains (services) run to. HS2 documents are full of it. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:DE5:1856:E7AE:FCD2 (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Where? Please provide sources. Cnbrb (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

It is in all the HS2 documents linked to in the article. HS2 trains run on the WCML, MML and ECML to existing stations. Look. I am not digging it out for you. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:DE5:1856:E7AE:FCD2 (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Superb, thanks. Cnbrb (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

We have a lower speed HSR network of 125mph in operation. We will also have a hybrid combination of lower speed & higher speed HSR network - HS2. The problem is that people have only focused on the newer higher speed track. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:DE5:1856:E7AE:FCD2 (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

But this is where you have to be very aware of the context in which you're describing HS2. The "HS2 line" is only the new 360km/h line. The "HS2 network" covers the full routes shown on the map to Newcastle and Glasgow/Edinburgh. The lines that are the WCML and ECML are not HS2 - they are the Conventional Rail Network (CRN) as defined by HS2 Limited's documentation (e.g. the HS2 rolling stock specification). Spookster67 (talk) 10:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

HS2 is a network, which includes the new track, which is best referred to as the spine to avoid ambiguity. The network covers the new spine and the existing 125mph high speed track that takes HS2 trains to terminals at: Liverpool, Newcastle, Glasgow and Edinburgh. HS2 trains will also run through Sheffield on existing 125mph track. The network is the stations served by HS2 trains and the tracks that lead them to the stations. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:5433:5DFC:504E:6734 (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Refocusing the article to concern the future network before a spike has been driven seems to be incredibly premature. At the moment, and for the next half a decade at least, the majority of coverage of HS2 will be regarding the civil engineering project rather than the railway operation. When the issue of "Crossrail" vs "Elizabeth Line" came up several years ago, there was a general agreement based on prior practice (see also: East London Line extension vs London Overground; Airdrie–Bathgate rail link vs North Clyde Line) that the former article was best suited for covering the the physical railway and the latter for the operational railway. This also reflects how the technical news sources treat the subject too. I see no reason to deviate from this practices, especially as the alternative proposition seems to be a "whatever the light touches is HS2" way of thinking (which you can get away with for Crewe or Liverpool, but when it comes to Newcastle or Scotland, rather stretches credulity). Sceptre (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

From a HS2 document, "Liverpool Merseyside will be part of the high speed network". https://www.hs2.org.uk/stations/liverpool/ Not one nut and bolt of the new HS2 high speed spine track will go within 20 miles of Liverpool. Although a new station or Lime St will be updated to accommodate the new HS2 trains. After phase 1 completion, HS2 trains will enter Liverpool Lime St at the same time as they get to Manchester. Focus has to be on the network, as not doing so has added confusion. The new track is only a subset of the network, as it updating Liverpool's station to accommodate HS2 trains. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:5433:5DFC:504E:6734 (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

So that's "the high speed network" then. HS2 is the name of a line, not a network. The wider network is referred to as "the high speed network", not "the HS2 network". The link you've posted confirms this. Seems pretty clear to me.Cnbrb (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

It was clear what I wrote. ;) HS2 is the network, not a new piece of track. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:D16B:98C:5628:99CF (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC: is HS2 a line or a network?

The consensus is to describe HS2 as a new Y-shaped line and not as a network.
Cunard (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It has been asserted that HS2 is not a new line, but a network. In this article, should HS2 be described as a network, or as a new Y-shaped line? Example edits:

this edit describes it as a network
this edit describes it as a new Y-shaped line

For consideration: "What is HS2?". High Speed 2. Retrieved 10 March 2020. Cnbrb (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

HS2 is the new line, and it allows HS2 services to operate over the HS2 network that includes the Conventional Rail Network (CRN). I think this article page can cover both, as long as each section is clear as to whether it is describing just the new HS2 route (the Y-shaped mainline plus the spurs), or instead the full HS2 network of services. Spookster67 (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
The Government is certainly spinning HS2 as a network, but that doesn't make a useful article. HS2 trains will be able to run on onto the classic network but that network is adequately covered already (West Coast Main Line etc) and we mustn't start forking it or clog this article with it. IMO, this article should be primarily about the technology of tracks, trains, signalling, tunnelling and general disruption needed to run at 300 kph+ between London and Birmingham (and hopefully beyond in due course). The rest is spin. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment: To my mind, an article discussing the HS network already exists as High-speed rail in the United Kingdom (and could be updated to cover the developing HS2+conventional services), while this High Speed 2 article naturally covers the new Y-shaped network being built London to Leeds/Manchester. There is precedent - the original East London line extension article describes a construction project, while London Overground discusses the end product that resulted from that project. I don't see a major problem here, but it's best to get a clear consensus. Cnbrb (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment: A good comparison might be with Crossrail and Elizabeth Line: the former is clearly about the engineering project, the latter about the service/network (since it uses some non-Crossrail track, if I remember correctly without checking). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment: As I mentioned in the above section, I see no particular reason to deviate from the physical/operational split we've utilised in the past. My full comments can be seen above, but HS2 is generally understood at the moment to refer to the civil engineering project. On a side-note, the article at High-speed rail in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) could do with a major rewrite; a lot of it talks about alternative schemes to HS2, and not that much of it talks about the current conventional 125/140mph network. Sceptre (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment: After further thought, I agree with these points above, and it would be better to keep this article about the new HS2 project, while leaving other pages to cover the future HS2 operations over this line and the conventional rail network. That would be consistent with the approach taken with the High Speed 1 page, where operations are mentioned but covered more extensively on other pages like Eurostar and Southeastern (train operating company). Spookster67 (talk) 11:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
HS2 is a network of older 125mph high HS2 trains over the older 125mph track. It is a NETWORK. This is an article for lay people to read and understand, not one for train spotters salivating on new trains and track. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:A4CA:CFF6:784B:7B6F (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of this RFC is to reach consensus. In this RFC you are kindly requested to put forward your opinions without resorting to uncivil language or using caps lock to force your point. Thank you. Cnbrb (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Put speeds in MPH first?

I think the speeds should be given in Miles Per Hour first with the Km/h equivalent in brackets due to the fact that HS2 is in Britain and as such MPH is the norm for rail speeds. I want to reach a community consensus before editing it to see if fellow editors would agree. Slender (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

All the engineering has been done in SI units for at least the past 20 years, so all the sources will too. Outside the US and declining fraction of the UK population, the world uses metric. I'm afraid you are doing a Canute on this one: the tide will come in anyway.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

HS2 is being designed in units of km and km/h, so these should be the primary units used in the article, I think.Spookster67 (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Station names, and release of the new business case

With the release of the business case document today, two station names differ to those used in the article: Manchester Interchange is listed as Manchester Airport HS2 and Meadowhall Interchange is listed as Sheffield Midland. Shall the names in the article be changed to match those in the business case? NemesisAT (talk) 10:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

That does seem reasonable - not sure if we should wait for other publications to corroborate the name change? Maybe worthwhile adding a (formerly known as...) bit to the text if you do make the change. Cnbrb (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I've updated the service pattern but haven't changed any station names yet. I didn't realise previously that Sheffield and Meadowhall are actually two separate stations, and I'm not sure what the current plans are. NemesisAT (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

We were using the old model from 2013, back when Meadowhall was part of the plans, as it was the last reliable predicted service pattern. Now we've got the new predicted pattern, we can use that instead. Sceptre (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Intro

That must be one of the worst intros I have read in a long time. Utter garbage. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:A6C0:79D1:4553:8634 (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Fascinating. Thanks for your input. Cnbrb (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I am glad you agree.

Inasmuch as it reflects the consensus reached on this talk page while you were blocked, it's pretty good. Welcome back from Purdah. I hope you're going to behave. Cnbrb (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

A consensus of people with an agenda you mean. Wiki is famous for groups with an agenda getting their way. Twitter is full of paid HS2 Ltd astroturfers, repeating the mantra. It is obvious when their handler pulls them in and out. They are here as well. I will change the intro, as it is hopeless, also reading in a childish way.

Birmingham to London times

HS2 claims 52 minutes from London to Birmingham not 45. In a circuitous 110 mile route. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:A6C0:79D1:4553:8634 (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Birmingham Curzon to Euston is 100 miles exactly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:A6C0:79D1:4553:8634 (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Progressing at an average of 196 km/h

Hi 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:A6C0:79D1:4553:8634,

Firstly please make an account and add some info about yourself before accusing others of being paid astroturfers. I have some info about me on my userpage.

Second, although I still think your edit is pointless (no transport travels as the crow flies) thanks for clarifying it. NemesisAT (talk) 10:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

For the record, the travel time from Curzon Street to Euston is iconsistent in the latest business case. The text states:

"For example, in Phase One the journey time from London to Birmingham will be reduced from 82to 49 minutes. Under the current scope for Phase 2b, the journey time from London to Manchester would be reduced from 127 to 67 minutes, while travelling from Birmingham to Leeds would take just 49 minutes compared to 118 minutes today. Figure 1.10shows the reductions in journey times that HS2 would deliver between Birmingham and a range of key destinations."

but the map on the following page says the journey will take 45. NemesisAT (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm wary of falling foul to the three revert rule, so I'll propose an edit. The line speed is a maximum of 360 km/h and maximum service speed of 330 km/h. That's stated in the latest business case, which is more recent than the BBC News article the anonymous editor cites and thus these are the speeds I think we should go with.NemesisAT (talk) 11:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The BBC News article is also wrong in that it states 14 tph in each direction when in actual fact the line is designed to run 18 and it is planned to run 17 tph in service. NemesisAT (talk) 11:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The linespeed is maximum of 400kmh, of which it is designed for - I have put that back into the article with a ref. 49 minutes time London-Birmingham is fine - I will stick to that. BBC went to the DfT, the ultimate authority, for the figure of 52 mins. Try Google Maps, it is 99.56 miles between the two stations on my computer. It will be the same on your computer. So that 100 miles is 122mph average. Simple schoolboy maths for the 100 miles between Euston and Curzon St.

The article is to inform the lay person, not a trainspotters bulletin, using train language. The reader needs to know that the 250mph railway, which is the fastest in the world in design, runs between the two largest cities in the UK at an average of less than half its maximum design speed. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

That is always going to be the way though - the faster you design a system to travel between two points, the slower the actual average speed is by comparison. The way you phrase it sounds like you are wanting to ding HS2 for that, when it's just because the human body can only withstand so much acceleration. I don't see the average speed as particularly useful - the time is more important. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I am putting into the article FACTS. It takes 122mph on average on the 100 miles between London and Birmingham. That is FACT. The average is less than half the max design speed. FACT. I never made it up. Whichever way you cut it the high speed railway is slow between those two cities. The reader needs to know this to be a balanced article. It comes across as HS2 fanboy article. The human body and acceleration is irrelevant to the average speed between the two cities. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

> The human body and acceleration is irrelevant to the average speed between the two cities.

The train needs to accelerate and decelerate safely, which means that the change in speed is small relative to the maximum speed, which in turn means that if two stations are relatively close together, it's not going to spend much time at its maximum speed. This doesn't even take into account that not all its track will necessarily be suitable for running at maximum speed in all circumstances, the effects of delays, temporary speed reductions, etc. I'm not an expert but I am unaware of any railway that runs at an average speed close to the maximum it's theoretically capable of. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The line speed on Phase 1 is a maximum of 360km/h (not 400km/h). It is only the civil engineering alignment that has been designed for potential future operation at 400km/h. The HS2 route data book (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/408578/response/991111/attach/6/Annex%20B%20Route%20Data%20Spreadsheet.xlsx) shows the applicable line speeds for the entire 175km route from EUS to BCS. The rolling stock for Phase 1 and 2a will be capable of 360km/h, but only timed at 330km/h in order to achieve the 49-minute journey time (inclusive of the OOC stop and 2-minute dwell). Spookster67 (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The maximum designed linespeed is 400kmh, which is very different to one they provisionally set for running purposes. In the future they could up it to a full 400kmh. 400kmh must be mentioned, as that is the designed speed. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Planning and Construction News also says 52 minutes London to Birmingham, along with the BBC, which averages at 116mph for the 100 miles travelled. That is 15.5% slower in speed to the original 45 mins stated. 52 minutes is the figure as it is coming from a number of sources, who cite the DfT.

https://www.pbctoday.co.uk/news/planning-construction-news/hs2-survey-2/75559/

"However, many saw little, if any upside to the project, seeing the expected reduction in travel times (1h 21m to 52m from London to Birmingham, according to the Department for Transport) as too small to justify the investment required." 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Other journey times must be checked with DfT, as others must also have changed. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

No, the maximum designed linespeed is 360km/h. The route has been planned to allow the maximum linespeed to be increased to 400km/h in future, but that is not the linespeed that everything is being designed to today for Phase 1 and 2a. Spookster67 (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

HS2 is designed for 400kph - FACT. What HS2 set the figure to initially is irrelevant as they could go to maximum in the future. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:585B:E861:9475:ED9B (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Not all sources have correct information. In this case, if BBC is saying that DfT is saying that the Euston to Curzon Street journey time will be 52 minutes, that is incorrect. It is 49 minutes as quoted in the HS2 Full Business Case, which I consider a more reliable source. It is correct that the headline journey time has changed from 45 to 49 minutes. Spookster67 (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Three reliable sources, inc a rail magazine, say 52 minutes. It is 52 minutes. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:585B:E861:9475:ED9B (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The HS2 rolling stock specification provides more detail about the reasons why both 45 minutes and 49 minutes have been quoted as the journey time Euston to Curzon Street. See section 7.1 on page 31. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/794108/HS2-HS2-RR-SPE-000-000007_P11_TTS_Main_Body__External_.pdf The trains will be capable of completing the journey in under 45:30 but they will be timetabled for 49:00 in order to provide contingency. Spookster67 (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Astroturfing

Astroturfing (paid people with alias') on HS2 is rife on Twitter and other internet sites. HS2 Ltd published figures for internet use of many £100,000s Wiki will not be immune. This consists of putting HS2 in a good light and suppressing any negatives. This has been clearly happening on this article. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Editor 'Sceptre' is deleting section of the talk page and the main article giving no reason why. He must be banned. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

This 'Sceptre' editor is threatening to have me banned. I have done nothing wrong except edit adding refs. He must be dealt with. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Sceptre, stop deleting the talk page additions.

2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A, stop accusing people of astroturfing just because they disagree with you. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Sceptre's actions proved he has an agenda of some sort. I put up relevant referenced material. He deletes it giving no reason whatsoever. HS2 astroturfing is rife on the internet right now as it may be cancelled/delayed because of covid-19. It points to astroturfing. If not astroturfing there is an agenda at work here. 15:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A (talk)

The thread is a clear personal attack and may be removed by any user. There’s no immunity for personal attacks in article-talkspace. Sceptre (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

A personal attack would need, to my mind, to have a focus. Both of you need to calm down, neither of you is helping anyone, which is why you've both been blocked from editing the article. Be like Commons, be mellow. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

It is clear you have an agenda deleting referenced text in the article because you do not like it for whatever reason. You even deleted text on an open forum talk page. Everything points to that you have an agenda. You must be banned for your actions. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, you are not helping your case. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

If I deleted sections in an open forum, would that help my case? 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no case to answer for, as I have done nothing wrong. You are implying I have. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I've had a thorough look at the disputed sources, you're going to have to work together to agree on how to present the information from the different sources, just remember more information is no bad thing; I suggest you explore how to explaine that the route has been designed for speeds of upto 400kph, that when it opens some services will reach a maximum speed of 360kph and that they will routinely reach 330kph is perfectly acceptable. Nick (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The fact is the railway was designed for 400kmh - refs were given - very relevant info. That info was there at one time but taken away. The London-Birmingham service is doing the 100 miles between at 49 minutes, an average of 122mph. BBC say 52 mins when asking the DfT, the ultimate authority, so I added with a ref. Someone objected so I went with them at 49 mins to avoid problems. The reason why it is so slow is that 28% of the run is tunnel reducing the speed - relevant info. I put that in, but some one objected, so I left it out to avoid problems. I have cooperated all along. I put the 122mph speed at the end of a para not in shining lights with its own section. The information is highly relevant to a lay person reading the article. The article is not balanced enough. It needs a section on its short comings, without delving into the political aspect. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that the average speed is at all relevant. It is not accurate, as you are using an "as the crow flies" measurement which doesn't include Old Oak Common, where all services stop, nor Birmingham Interchange, or take into the account the fact the railway is not a straight line. I also disagree that the article is not balanced. In fact, I think it fails to adequately explore the reasons FOR HS2. There is ample coverage in the "Perspectives" and "Environmental and community impact" sections of the various impacts of the line. Including the Woodland Trust's bloated figure which includes woodland not even touched by the railway. Regarding the BBC article, there is a clear error where it claims 14 trains per hour. I believe all the recent official reports have stated a maximum of 18 tph in each direction - 17 in service and one space. Thus I think it's a poor article and the official business case is a better source. Please let me know your thoughts. NemesisAT (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Average speed is everything. I am at Euston. I want to go to Birmingham 100 miles away. I know it is 100 miles as my smart phone told me. A poster says "HS2 fastest railway in the world, 250mph". I think fantastic! I will take that and should be there in well under half and hour. I look at the timetable, it says 52 minutes. I think "what!" I get out my smart phone and calculate that I would cover the 100 miles in 2.23 miles each minute of the 100 miles between the two cities. That equates to 116mph to cover the 100 miles between the two. Quite simple.

Passengers care not a hoot what route the train takes or what its max speed is. They are only concerned about the journey time (average speed comes from that), and cost. The average is the key figure. I will not take issue with you as you obviously a HS2 fanboy. I could bring up lots of info where the existing network can equal HS2 on capacity and speed and not cost the earth to do. I am now neutral having been a fan initially. It is coming whether I or others like it or not, so it has to be written impartially, ignoring fanboys, anti's and astroturfers. HS2 fanboys, like yourself, have to be closely watched. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Projected journey times are already included in the article and our audience is wider than potential passengers.©Geni (talk) 06:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Whatever that means 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:1511:2FA7:9208:8578 (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

A rail magazine also states that the London to Birmingham time is 52 mins, via the DfT. Too many sources state 52 mins. It is clear that the time is 52 mins not 45 or 49 mins. The article has to be change to reflect this.

https://www.railway-technology.com/features/questions-about-hs2/

2A01:4B00:881D:3700:1511:2FA7:9208:8578 (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Rail Magazine is involved in astroturfing, that also means Wikipedia. https://twitter.com/NTI26637228/status/1157270269699985414 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:1511:2FA7:9208:8578 (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Your accusations are getting tedious. The NTI seems to be an anti-HS2 twitter account and that does not count as a reliable source (social media is not a reliable source). And even if true, a rail magazine editor is involved in a campaign for railways - what a surprise! Next you'll be telling me that Jeremy Clarkson likes cars. I really dgaf about 52mins or 49mins, but seriously just quit accusing everyone else of being some sort of lobbyist. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

To imply that this Wiki article has not been subject to AstroTurfing is naive at the least. I look at Twitter. The astrotufers come in at the same time, ignoring any reason repeating mantra which is capacity, capacity, capacity, even when they have been torn to pieces. They tend to go out at the same time, as the dictates of the controller. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:585B:E861:9475:ED9B (talk) 12:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I had a look at our articles on the GWML, ECML, WCML and MML yesterday, and despite those being 125mph railways, I don't see anybody adding in the information that they don't actually manage 125mph average speeds. I did a quick calculation - the 129 mile run from Paddington to Cardiff takes (using 1L16) 1 hour 52 minutes, for an average speed of 67mph. The non-stop run from Paddington to Reading (again on 1L16) still takes 25 minutes for 34 miles, for an average speed of 82 mph. I would have expected, in the interests of balance and neutrality, the relationship between line speed and average speed is discussed here and on other railway line articles too.

Finally, I would also caution that your accusations are likely to see you indefinitely restricted from High Speed 2 unless they cease. Nick (talk) 11:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not need your threats from HS2 fanboys (or even astrotufers) thank you. Keep them to yourself. I am not the one deleting sections on astroturfing on an open forum talk page, or deleting referenced text.

A prime point about HS2 for a supposed high-speed railway is it actually slow. Nowhere in the article does it state that. The reader needed to know its performance. We do not need HS2 fanboys bigging it up. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:585B:E861:9475:ED9B (talk) 12:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mattbuck: I'm trying to remember if NTI is a specific guy's sockpuppet or not, but he's definitely not reliable in any case. Also, re Rail Magazine: although most of the columnists are unsurprisingly pro-HS2 (which is as surprising as the New Scientist being supportive of climate action or Runner's World thinking exercise is good for you), it's by no means solely so; after all, one of their biggest contributors is Christian Wolmar, who isn't at all quiet about his opposition to the project. Sceptre (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The document added by User:Spookster67 backs up the 49 minute figure, scroll up to see it. I think we should go with 49 as that's the figure used in two official documents. As for NTI, an account that hides behind a fake "review body" deserves no attention.NemesisAT (talk) 10:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Three reliable sources, inc the BBC, say 52 mins quoting the DfT. 52 mins it is. This article has to be balanced not hijacked by HS2 fanboys. The high-speed railway is SLOW. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:585B:E861:9475:ED9B (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I would like to suggest to the logged-in editors here that there is simply no point in engaging with this anonymous IP editor. We have had a lot of disruptive activity in the recent past from this IP range - it was blocked back in March for repeated incivility, slandering other editors, edit-warring and POV-pushing against consensus. Attempts have been made to accommodate his views, but are only met with incivility. Unfortunately, this person has no understanding of collaborative editing; any editor who does not fully comply with his opinions will just receive childish abuse ("fanboy", "astroturfer", "trainspotter" and so on). Sadly, experience has shown that is simply no point in attempting to engage in any dialog. Ignore, revert if needed. Cnbrb (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The article was/is hijacked. It is easy to get a mob up and then consensually castigate an editor, get them banned, etc. Wiki is famous for it. It has happened on this article. You attacking me when it was not me that deleted referenced text and sections in an open forum talk page raises alarm bells. I am not the person under the spotlight as I have done nothing wrong. You are spinning it. It is clear you agree with the conduct of Sceptre. I have my doubts about you. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:585B:E861:9475:ED9B (talk) 13:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Recent anonymous user edits

I'm agreed with User:Sceptre here, rail use over one quarter is totally irrelevant to this article. NemesisAT (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC) It was relevant data and sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:5903:D07:49EC:BEAE (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There's a discussion relevant to this article at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent_disruption_at_High_Speed_2 Mujinga (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

IP comments

Just a note for any editors who have been attacked by the anon IP editor over the past few months, this editor has finally been banned. I have removed some of the more recent defamatory "astrotufing"-themed comments, others may wish to remove any other personal attacks if they wish. In fairness (goodness knows why) I have left IP comments that are genuinely critical of actual article content, as this is not an exercise in suppressing opinion, only incivility.

If anyone has concerns, they are welcome to drop me a friendly line. Hopefully now everyone can get on with the important task of arguing about facts and not personal conduct. Happy editing. Cnbrb (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Improving the page

Hi, I came to the page yesterday and made some edits to make the coverage broader, none of which seemed particularly controversial to me but I seem to be entering into a long-running editing dispute, which I know can be very annoying so my sympathies to everyone involved. I have no particular beef here, but I do think the article could do with some improvements and I'll put some suggestions below.

First of all, re the Packham judicial review I feel like this follows on from the Oaktree Review, so I've re-added it here after Sceptre moved it, happy to discuss further.

Overall I would say the article does need some work - as is perhaps to be expected with a page about a megaproject that is going on for years, information can easily become outdated or even wrong. I am concerned by the "Proposed service pattern" section, it seems a bit WP:CRYSTALBALL and it's unreferenced. "Journey times" has some references from 2012, which are probably quite outdated now. The lead is really long and doesn't summarise everything in the article, MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests maximum four paragraphs and it seems to have some rather minor details in it, what are currently paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 could be pruned pretty heavily I would say. I also find the section ordering strange, for example there obviously should be a section for the Oakervee Review but shoehorning it in at the top seems questionable. I hope no-one takes this personally, an article can become bloated over time and that's no-one's fault, but as someone reading it with fresh eyes, these are some things I noticed and wanted to comment on. Mujinga (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Mujinga, good to have fresh eyes, and thanks for your input. Yes, the article has become massively bloated, so thoughts in that direction are welcome. Sadly there has been a history of editing disputes, so it's unfortunate that you got caught up in that on your first foray into the topic. As I understand it, there were a couple of WP:EDITCONFLICTs that made it all more confusing. Of course, if there are any content disagreements, hopefully they can be worked out through discussion on this talk page. Cnbrb (talk) 11:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mujinga: Good-faith editing is always encouraged! I put the Packham paragraph where I did because, in my opinion, it follows on from the HS2R protests, but it also follows on from the Notice to Proceed following Oakervee. I've tried my hardest other the past few months to remove the naval gazing over the political debate—it's more trouble than it's worth and induces battleground editing—and reduce coverage of the debate to where it's notable. With regards to the service pattern and journey time tables? I mostly agree. We don't need the massive tables and could do them as nested lists, and we really should look for more recent estimates. Sceptre (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, good to see some more discussion here, the article really is bloated! Regarding MOS:LEADLENGTH, I already removed some information from the lead section a while ago. Personally I would take out what is currently the fourth para, on Heathrow Airport and the Sheffield station plans that were dropped. I'm also not sure if the Oakervee review needs to be mentioned in the lead section either. The Full Business Case document from earlier this year has the service plan, this is referenced though it is not clear that this is what provides the information for the "proposed service pattern" tables. I feel that this is important information (I myself have asked people to read this section before making uninformed comments on HS2). The journey time info can be found on the HS2 website, I believe some of those have been updated since 2012, even if the source itself hasn't. I'm up for trimming these though, there certainly doesn't need to be separate "to HS2 stations" and "to other stations" tables. NemesisAT (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The original plans/concepts/proposals are essential and must be mentioned up top. The project was to connect provincial cities to the continent and the prime airport Heathrow. It does not. It was meant to be 250mph and fast. It is neither, being quite slow. All these points the reader needs to know. This article is not a mouthpiece for HS2 Ltd. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:D580:CDB1:7295:EFEC (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

TBF, the first comment about "pro-HS2 fanatics" was into WP:NOTFORUM territory and should be deleted. But the second point about the Grand Plan and the tawdry reality is worthy of mention, but it is too detailed for the article as it stands. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Anonymous user, despite accusing other editors of having conflicts of interest, it's clear you yourself are not capable of looking at this project in a balanced fashion. Paragraph 5 already expains the aim of the project, at least, in the form that is being built. The lead section doesn't need early history and dropped proposals. I propose that paragraph four is completely removed. NemesisAT (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I doubt you know the meaning of balanced. I had to remove a para of POV by you. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:9CAE:7A7A:6CD:8D38 (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:9CAE:7A7A:6CD:8D38 I am assuming you are the same person as 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:5903:D07:49EC:BEAE. In any case, whilst I'm always sympathetic to concerns about astroturfing and so on since wikipedia should have a neutral point of view, maybe it's time to assume good faith again, everyone else is being friendly and diplomatic in this thread. If you want to make the page better, maybe it's a better tactic to add well-referenced statements than to editwar and delete other people's edits? Mujinga (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

NemesisAT you said I'm up for trimming these though, there certainly doesn't need to be separate "to HS2 stations" and "to other stations" tables and that sounds great! It seems everyone commenting can agree that the page has become a bit bloated. Mujinga (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Just a thought on improvements, now that construction has begun, the article may benefit from some visual interest to better illustrate construction work underway. In particular, construction work at Euston and the work going on in Buckinghamshire woodland areas, with the controversial felling of trees. Some construction images are available on Commons but I feel they could be improved upon. Anyone got any photos they could add? Cnbrb (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't have any more images to add, but I agree it's good to add newer images, I already added a couple. Mujinga (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Time to split?

The article is already into wp:TLDR territory and it is still early days. Discussions like the one above will recur again and again – what should be included, what should be left out? where does WP:UNDUE cut in? So I wonder if it is time to split the article? For example "Politics of HS2", "Engineering of HS2", "Environmental impact of HS2", "Operation of HS2" (which would include the proposed service pattern), etc. Would this be helpful? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

A lot of the biased clunilky written drivel needs removing. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:9CAE:7A7A:6CD:8D38 (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

With the aim of shortening the article, perhaps the paragraphs on stations could be removed, as they all have their own articles. I think a simple list will suffice here. NemesisAT (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

An article this size really does need to be divided up. I would suggest something like;

"High Speed 2" - main article with broad overview of scope, history, support, opposition, cost, timeframe, benefits, negatives, politics, conclusion.
"Timeframe of High Speed 2", self-evident.
"Opinions of High Speed 2", or similar, bringing together the support and opposition into one centralised article.
"Environmental impact of HS2" - self-evident.

I happen to be an opponent of HS2 but try to be even-handed for this article. I would seriously consider forking whatever we can to keep the main broad-brush article as a summary with offshoots where required. doktorb _words^deeds 23:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I am neutral. But there are real negatives, such as: cost, slowness (52 mins London to Birmingham), only serves three cities from London, no plans to extend, Continental access for cities removed, Heathrow access removed, poor local connectivity (Curzon St is a stand alone station), etc, etc. These are buried or given scant regard. Capacity they shout! HS2 does not have the capacity to absorb all inter-city services - Chester is bumped off. Far too much pro-HS2 POV. It is not balanced. Try to put balance into it then you will be ganged up on. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:9CAE:7A7A:6CD:8D38 (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

You have removed a sourced paragraph on why the railway is being built. Your opinion may be that the capacity is inadequate, but Network Rail disagree with you. A paragraph explaining why the railway is being built is not pro-HS2 POV. NemesisAT (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Hiya I was thinking it would be good to spinoff pages later on but it is a way to break the current impasse; if a consensus develops to follow the suggestion of Doktorbuk (which seems ok to me) maybe that's a good way forward. I also agree with NemesisAT that the station info can be pruned. Just for clarity, there are already some spinoff pages, such as History of High Speed 2, High Speed 2 Phase Two (literally just saw that now) and List of support and opposition to High Speed 2 (was reading it the other day and it's not currently in a good state). By the way, does anyone have a suggestion of a good example format to follow here? My only suggestion for comparison is Turin–Lyon high-speed railway, which I doubt is perfect but I think it does a good job of presenting the project, discussing construction issues and considering opposition. However it manages to do that in one page! Here we are dealing with much more information overall. Mujinga (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Just a historical note, List of support and opposition to High Speed 2 came into existence as a section in the main article that was split off. The section was becoming a honeypot for pro- and anti-HS2 WP:SOAPBOXing and it was getting totally out of hand. A forest of impassioned quotes was eventually whittled down to a simplified list and then split off to get it out of the way. I don't really see that listing everyone who supports/opposes HS2 serves much encyclopedic use, but it just exists to keep some people happy I guess. Cnbrb (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I am concerned that further edits I make (particularly concerning trimming the article) could be seen as biased. I am very much in favour of the project. An example is the following test in the "East Midlands Hub" section:

"The Derbyshire and Nottingham Chamber of Commerce supports high-speed rail serving the East Midlands, however, was concerned that a parkway station instead of centrally located stations in each of the three cities would result in no overall net benefit in journey times."

This doesn't seem relevant and likely won't even be true as if the local projects in this document go ahead, it'll be quicker for those in Nottingham and Derby city centres to travel, even with a change at East Midlands Hub, and the improved bus and tram links will mean many people who previously had to travel to a city centre will be able to make a short journey to the Hub instead. Thoughts? NemesisAT (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

To respond, I think anything cited to a reliable secondary source is welcome in the article, perhaps part of the problem with bloat is the use of primary sources and the changing nature of the project over time. Like to use the example you gave, the paragraph beginning "The Derbyshire..." is from the Nottingham Evening Post so that's great, and it's a secondary source but it's from 2009 so could well be out of date. The pdf you give suggests future plans which of course can be mentioned then we can't be a crystal ball because these plans might not actually happen in the end. Plus it depends how the pdf is used, I would say a secondary source evaluating the plans would be much better. Mujinga (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Lead

Continuing the discussion from above, in my opinion (following MOS:LEAD) the lead is a good size with four paragraphs (per MOS:LEADLENGTH), but it doesn't really summarise the entire article well overall. I think paragraph1 is good as an intro on what the project is, and paragraph4 summarises Oakervee, opposition and costs ok, and it's paragraphs 2 and 3 that need some work. Does paragraph2 need so much detail about connections? Maybe more could be said instead about construction. And paragraph3 shouldn't be in the lead since it's not summarising much from the article, I think I'd prefer to see something summarising operation and environmental and community impact there. Mujinga (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I do agree with you but it looks like you've changed it all already. It might be more useful for the purposes of discussion if you discussed changes before actually making them. But yes, looking at the old version of the article before you waded in, I agree that the information about connections was over-detailed, and para 3 always struck me as a bit of WP:SOAPBOXing anyway. It could have been improved some months ago, but our collective energies were being sapped by the demands of Our West London Correspondent. Cnbrb (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Errr "before you waded in"? I suggested changes to these paragraphs were necessary back in July and in the replies people seemed to agree something should be done, but then the discussion petered out. I thought this time round I would be bold and make the changes. I'm not tied to the new version at all really, but I would point out that everything now should be cited below in the article. I pretty much took sentences from various parts of the main text, so for me it's a much better summary of the article overall. It can always be improved, that's wikipedia! Mujinga (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

My apologies, @Mujinga:, I only read your comments from 16 September 2020 and reacted to them. I'm sorry, discussions back in July were clouded by issues with the disruptive IP editor insulting everyone and I had lost focus. I will try to scroll up the page next time before responding. Thank you for your edits, they're an improvement. Cnbrb (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, looking again I can see how my new comment could be read as opening a discussion and why you then would be surprised I had already made some edits, but like I said I thought the best way to generate discussion was to make the changes. No harm done and I'm glad you find the introduction improved. Mujinga (talk) 09:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

To expand on my motivation, I feel the lead should be updated often to reflect developments in the project and the article, since I reckon the majority of readers will be coming here to find out what HS2 is and what is going on with it currently. The lead had got a bit outdated, in addition to not summarising the article well. Mujinga (talk) 10:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Anyone tracking engineering works?

If so, see talk:Calvert railway station#First freight for HS2 engineering work arrives. Probably WP:trivia but? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Split protests into seperate article,

Currently, we have information on protests split accross a few different articles:

Perhaps it's best to keep this information spread out, however I'm thinking it would be better to try and bring it together in an article or a dedicated section of this page. I thought I'd note down my thoughts here in case anyone else wants to comment. NemesisAT (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The text about the protests in this article doesn't cover very much, and I think it could certainly be expanded and improved upon. I'm not sure if there would be enough to merit a separate article, but that may change in future. There are quite a few other construction sites that have attracted protest or dissent which could also be included -for example Calvert Jubilee. Naturally, I'll mention WP:NPOV and WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE - the material covering protests should not be given too much weight, but there's no reason it can't be improved. Cnbrb (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I think expanding the protest section may be the best way forward. As for coverage, I have no idea how much is appropriate. There has been a lot of protesting but I'm not sure if any of it has had a lasting impact on the project.NemesisAT (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Design speed wording

The route alignment allows for 400km/h with upgrades

Initial maximum operating speed will be 360km/h

This was not clear, I have changed the design speed to corroborate with the source cited clearly

Better wording could be added to make clear of this discussion AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 22:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The 2012 document states an initial operating speed of 360 km/h with a maximum design speed of 400 km/h, however, the 2020 document states a routine operating speed of 330 km/h with a maximum speed of 360 km/h. As I don't think the route has changed much since 2012, I agree that presumably 400 km/h operation is possible on the alignment chosen, but I don't think this "design speed" is relevant enough to go in the lead section. I prefer the "360 km/h (225 mph) maximum, but 330 km/h (205 mph) routinely" wording used in the infobox. NemesisAT (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The maxmium design speed is totally reveleant as that is the maximum speed trains can operate on the lines. The maximum speed has to be in the article. Wisdom-inc (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed that it is relevant, and a discussion of the speed is already here at High Speed 2#Infrastructure. My question was referring to whether it should be included in the lead section. Currently, it is included, however, my preference would be to list the planned operating speed instead which I believe will be 360 kilometres per hour (220 mph). There is however some confusion over what the operating speed will be. NemesisAT (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

What the network is designed to do, and can do, has to be up top. Operating speeds can change on different parts of the network, and over time. Max speed is fixed. Wisdom-inc (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

True, is what I was thinking, changed it to fit the source. The operating speeds are much more relevant. Its the route alignment which has been designed for 400km/h not initial services

Rewording would be good AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Phase 2a?

On page 10 of the May 2021 Modern Railways, there is this startling text

. . . in the draft [Train Service Specification] is a lack of northbound high-speed services from Birmingham once Phase 2a opens . . . no northbound journey opportunites from either West Midlands station. [i.e.Curzon Street or Interchange]

which implies that the time savings listed for Birmingham to the north-west are not going to happen.

86.129.146.77 (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

There will certainly be northbound journeys from Interchange, even if they're just to Curzon Street. Even if only phase one is built, there will almost certainly be through trains on to parts of the existing network, north of Birmingham. Phase 2A is almost certain to happen now too, and the leg to Manchester seems likely. Currently, the only bit that's uncertain is the leg from Birmingham to Leeds, Sheffield, and York. A quick Google search doesn't return any discussion on this, and the quote you've provided isn't enough for me to determine why the journey time savings won't happen. Could you elaborate on your point and what you'd like to change in the article? Best wishes NemesisAT (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

86.129.146.77 stated north of Birmingham not the Interchange, also quoting a document. NemesisAT is giving pure opinion on every point. Wisdom-inc (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The service specification we're working with (included in the High Speed 2 article) says there will be services from both Curzon Street and Interchange north to Manchester, Glasgow, and Edinburgh. If you have an updated service specification that differs from that please link it here and/or update the article. NemesisAT (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Construction progress

These is no section for this. All I know is that scattered work is going on in preparation work, with the only solid work being in boring the Chiltern tunnels (at what rate I do not know), some at Old Oak Common and Euston stations, but no structures rising. There again at what level of finish are they? I know the eastern leg has been 'stopped'. I cannot find anything on the web that gives the full weekly status. Only two parts have been given the full go-ahed, ph 1 and ph 2a, with only ph 1 under consruction (ph 1 and 2a were supposed to be built as one). This does not jump out at you in the article. Wisdom-inc (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

True but problematic because of WP:NOTNEWS. The East West Rail article has struggled with the same issue: how to report what is happening in a coherent way, but it has needed serious weeding from time to time to discard transient events. But maybe it provides a template in the way that it has divided the overall project into segments and reported on each separately?

Right now, the HS2 works in progress are at Euston railway station#High Speed 2, Birmingham Curzon Street and the Chilterns tunnel project. Someone keen could summarise these, while being very disciplined about avoiding WP:FORK? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

And of course the EWR/HS2 flyover.^[1] ^[2] --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

References

^ HS2 starts work on EWR overbridge - Modern Railways (April 2021)
^ CALVERT CROSSING: EWR WILL PASS OVER HS2 - Modern Railways (July 2021)

In the United Kingdom

The lead currently reads high-speed railway network in the United Kingdom with a very 'in your face' note-tag (which, when you look at it, is a rather trivial legalistic nicety that is certainly wp:UNDUE for the lead). Can we not just simplify this to say high-speed railway network in England and just lose the note into somewhere in the body? There are no current credible proposals – let alone funded plans – to extend the high-speed rail into Wales or Scotland: continuance onto 'classic rail' is not HS2 in engineering terms, even if is claimed as such in political terms. It seems to me that whoever wrote the current text was distracted by the project's categorisation at the DfT and got bogged down in detail to the detriment of the article's value to a world-wide audience. Comments? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

From an international perspective (that of Wikipedia) it is in the United Kingdom - that's the sovereign state in which it is located. The trouble is, as soon as correct terminology is used, it triggers additional commentary from Welsh and Scottish nationalists who want to make the point that it doesn't pass through their constituent country. Cnbrb (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

True, I suppose. Well could we at least lose the note-tag? If the article used the {{efn}} technique (displaying as a discreet ^a rather than the "this must be a really important point to be do prominent" note-tag style? (Notes for the benefit of editors should be hidden.) But better just to delete it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, I feel "United Kingdom" is the most appropriate term. Also, while the new track does not pass into Scotland, High Speed 2 services will. There may also be upgrades to Scottish infrastructure to support HS2. Thus I feel the article should be written from the perspective of it being a British project. NemesisAT (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Dank · Jay:, I see that it was you who added that note very recently. Why did you consider that it merited such a high profile presence in the lead? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

IMO, arguments about whether this is a Welsh project or not do not belong on the lead, which is wordy enough already. I feel the note would be better incorporated into the article body, but not sure where. NemesisAT (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Note should be removed as the country is the UK. Wisdom-inc (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

For the moment, I've hidden it between comment tags, per WP:BRD. That is a temporary workaround pending agreement to delete or relocate the problematic text (which is cited, it is just that it is in the wrong place) and its replacement with an "advice to editors", something like Notice to editors: Wikipedia is written for a worldwide audience, so the article needs to say "United Kingdom" rather than "England" or anything more specific. Also, this section is written as a succinct overview: details go in the body of the article. Any objections? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The England-only issue discussed in the BBC article is interesting enough but it does not belong in the lede. It's essentially about funding, so could comfortably sit in the Costs section (should this be renamed "Funding"?), where the issue could be explained - that the government have classed it as an "England and Wales" project for funding purposes, but the line does not actually run through Wales. Seem fair? Cnbrb (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I added the note, and I agree and understand with some statements mentioned above. The issue of HS2 categorisation is much more important in Wales than Scotland due to the categorisation leading to a decrease in Welsh devolved rail funding which has raised controversy, with numerous MPs, the Welsh Government, and the Welsh Affairs Committee, leading to, which I deemed worthy of at least a mention in the article. In terms of 'in your face' I agree, I should've changed it to a {tl|efn}} (^a) and would be sufficiently okay with it. I chose the lead to provide some clarity over recent edits of "United Kingdom" to "England" (of which I'm impartial, but the lead only solely mentions HS2 connections in England, although wording along the lines of HS1, i.e. ...railway network linking London, Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester etc, could work.), but the note did focus on Wales too much. Instead, I fully support the movement of the note to a section somewhere in the body, I was thinking "Political Impact" but the suggested "Funding" could be more suitable, so I support @Cnbrb:'s proposal. Many Thanks — Dank · Jay (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Table colours

This change by 2a00:23c5:d012:2200:d58:e43f:66b4:fd83 suggests the table colours should match a map on this article, but the map I presume they're referring to, File:HS2 vector map.jpg, doesn't match. Am I missing something here? NemesisAT (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

"Proposed" or "under construction"?

We seem to have a silly edit war over a few words.

As far as I know, the London–Birmingham part of HS2 has definitely moved beyond the "proposed" stage. The stations at either end are actively under construction. Tunnelling under the Chilterns is going apace. It is wishful thinking to believe that there is any prospect of this being halted. The review is done and dusted. The work is fully funded. So "under construction" is an accurate report of the status quo.

The phase beyond the Midlands interchange is still at the "proposed" stage and its funding is far from certain.

So the HS2 that is going to happen is "under construction" and IMO that is how the lead should begin. There may never be a HS2 to Manchester etc so it seem strange that anyone would expect its status to frame the article. Discussion needed. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

My preference would be to revert to this wording which makes it clear that the London to Birmingham bit is under construction and the rest isn't. Perhaps with some rewording here and there. Agreed that it is very much under construction. It's not going to get cancelled now. NemesisAT (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The opening was giving the impression that the whole project has been given the go ahead and being built. Only ph 1 & 2a have been given the go ahead, with only ph 1 under construction. Ph 2b is not even fully planned, so still at the 'proposal' stage until given the go ahead. So HS2 as an entire network is still partially a 'proposal'. The opening must reflect that. The opening was misleading for sure. It needs the right wording. Wisdom-inc (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I've reworded the lead to try and make it clearer exactly what is under construction now, and I think it reads better. This is what I changed. What do you think? NemesisAT (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

"Planned" is much better. "Proposed" sounds like it's still on the drawing board/back of a fag packet, despite the fact that massive tunnels are already being dug. This wording at least recognises the fact that parts are definitely going ahead while other parts are forthcoming.Cnbrb (talk) 09:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The current wording is much better. HS2 is part under construction, part planned and a part still in concept as the northern part of ph 2b has to be designed to mesh into NPR. That will be announced in late 2021 - delayed a year or so. The wording had to reflect those three points above. I think it is about there. Wisdom-inc (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think your version was more or less right - succinct and clear. I see this is now attracting several attempts to overwrite it with cumbersome, poorly written explanations that are making too much of a meal of it. The article lede is meant to be a short summary, not a rewrite of the detail of the entire article. Can we just agree to stick with Wisdom-inc's version sensible summary? Cnbrb (talk) 11:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Amazingly, this argument has started up again. Wisdom-inc, what has changed from the consensus version of 07:35, 24 August 2021 to justify you trying to reinstate the "proposed" nonsense? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Did you see what the opening sentence was? It was drivellous and just plain poor English. Probably written by someone who dreams of it all being built. Reading the opening sentence it was like the whole thing is approved with the go ahead and all under construction. If media reports are correct, huge chunks of it will not be built. The facts on what the status is right now, is that HS2 is in three stages:

1. Under construction (ph 1).

2. Awaiting approval (ph 2a).

3) Proposed & awaiting approval when plan finalised (ph 2b).

The reader has to know that. Wisdom-inc (talk) 08:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I amended the opening to reflect the above. Wisdom-inc (talk) 08:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I saw (which is why I reverted my revert as soon as I realised that the 'cure' was worse than the disease).

We have a problem I think with use of words. IMO

'Proposed' means that a proposal is a serious one, being considered by Ministers
'Planned' means that Parliament has approved the principle. [Were you thinking of the blue-print stage, all planning permissions received and T&WA issued? That can't be done until the project is 'funded'.]
'Funded' means that the Treasury has authorised the expenditure, which permits the MOT to place contracts
Insert name here means that Railtrack is doing the detailed specifications, has applied for planning permissions and/or is waiting for the T&WA so that they can invite tenders and place contracts.
'Under construction' means what it says on the tin.

If you accept those definitions than (again IMO)

All of HS2 (Euston - Birmingham and Manchester and Leeds) has completed steps 1 and 2. None of it is still 'proposed'
Phase I (EUS-BCS [sic?] has completed step 3. It is substantially "under construction" (see Euston, Chiltern Tunnel, Claydon EWR flyover, Curzon St). The status of the bits in between is unclear but I doubt that much if any of it is in step 4, it is just been phased to make the whole project manageable. But I don't know.
Phases II (MAN) and III (LDS) are awaiting funding to they are still just "planned".

So your "Largely planned" is opinion and uncited, it can't stay as is. "Partially under construction and partially planned but not funded" is accurate but rather a mouthful. Any better ideas? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

This change by an anonymous editor has caused some confusion. I'm happy to go with "High Speed 2 (HS2) is a planned high-speed railway network in the United Kingdom, with its first phase between London and Birmingham currently under construction." This way, we have both "planned" and "under construction". I agree with John Maynard Friedman that all of HS2 is long past the "proposal" stage, even with the current uncertainty surrounding the eastern leg. NemesisAT (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think "largely planned" in the opening sentence will mean much to many readers. It seems to me quite ambiguous, suggesting perhaps that the planning of the whole project is largely complete, whereas what we mean is that the first phase is way past the planning stage and is being built as we speak, while other bits of the scheme are as yet mere figments of the imagination. There must be a clearer way of saying this, but I can't think of one at the moment. -- Alarics (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The route is all but confirmed. HS2 is inviting firms to tender for construction of Phase 2a, from Manchester to Crewe (source). The eastern leg route was published in 2016, and altered the following year to avoid Sheffield Meadowhall and instead include a spur allowing trains to call at the central Sheffield station (source). It may still be cancelled but as of now I think it's fair to say that phases 2a and 2b are both "planned". NemesisAT (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

"High Speed 2 (HS2) is a planned high-speed railway network in the United Kingdom, with its first phase between London and Birmingham currently under construction." works for me too.

Alarics, the word you want is "specified". The route is 'planned' in outline, at government level: the rest is detail. The other bits are not 'figments of imagination' though it would have to be honest to say that funding for the Leeds leg is not burning a hole in the Chancellor's pocket - nevertheless it is still planned, just not funded. It may never be funded but it hasn't been cancelled either, so it would be WP: synth to claim that it has. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Phase 2a "awaiting approval". Really?

Wisdom-inc changed the lead today to say that Phase 2a is "awaiting approval". So is this invitation to tender not lawful?

Morby, Aaron (24 September 2021). "Six chase £240m HS2 phase 2a advanced works". Construction Enquirer. HS2 has invited six firms to tender for a major two-part enabling works contract for the phase 2a route from the West Midlands to Crewe.

That doesn't look like awaiting approval to me. The earth movers haven't actually moved in yet so I guess we can't say "under construction" either. Is there an alternative phrase? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps we are going round in circles but I couldn't help myself from editing again. I removed the second mention of phase 1 being under construction as that is already stated in the opening sentence. I have simplified the statement to simply say where the two future stages go and that they are both "planned". I simply don't think we need to detail what stage the future phases are in at the moment, we have the rest of the article to do this and as we've already discussed, it is tricky to summarise. Finally, "&" signs don't have a place in an encyclopedic article in my opinion, and I've removed it. NemesisAT (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Phase 2a is awaiting approval from Parliament. It does not have the full go ahead. Until Parliament approves it is not in the construction stage.

Phase 2b's planning is not yet finalised as NPR will, or may, influence the design at the northern ends. Phase 2b is not yet finalised in planning never mind been approved. Wisdom-inc (talk) 09:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Whether or not their design is finalised, the phases are still "planned". Where are you reading that phase 2a is waiting approval? It was approved by parliament in February 2021. Also, you've reintroduced the duplicate "under construction", stating that phase 1 is under construction twice just makes the lead wordier and more confusing than it needs to be. NemesisAT (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

My mistake. Ph. 2a has Royal assent, but not HMG/DfT approval to go ahead. HMG(treasury)/DfT issue the money, they have not so far for ph. 2a. But the article does NOT say Parliamentary approval, just approval, which is correct. The intro was confusing, not stating the status of the project. As I have written, each of the three phases is at a different distinct stage. The stages must be mentioned in the opening so the casual reader knows what the status is. The project does not have full planning completed, full approval and all under construction - the casual reader needs to know that. One thing is clear, and that is phase 2b is not B'ham to Mcr. Wisdom-inc (talk) 12:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that, the Birmingham to Manchester was a mistake on my part. I still stand by the rest of my changes however. The article I linked to above literally says "Phase 2a of HS2, the stretch of the project between the West Midlands and Crewe in Cheshire, has been approved by parliament". NemesisAT (talk) 12:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Could add that ph. 2a does not have HMG/DfT the 'go ahead'.

I am not being pedantic on this for the sake of it, it is just that the opening was just plain clunky and lacking clarity of the status of the project. You guys are just too close to it. Look at it from the angle of the average person not fully initiated. Wisdom-inc (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Article may need restructuring

Heavy inference by HMG ministers and the quality press such as the FT, is that the eastern leg of phase 2b is to be scrapped, with an announcement very soon. DfT has been gradually leaking this to the public over the previous months to prepare us for the big announcment. A leg of NPR from Leeds to Manchester may fill the bill in giving Leeds full high-speed rail access to London. The Leeds to Birmingham and London time will be no faster than conventional rail when scheduled updates are completed. If this is the case, then the article needs a substantial rework. It may need a section outlining the current Y design for completeness. Most of the info is there, just needs reworking into any new HS2 network configuration. Also, it depends on how linked NPR and HS2 are, both NPR and HS2 may need combining into one article. Wisdom-inc (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I think we should wait and see what any announcement says first before re-writing the article based on speculation. Also, I don't think the "amber rating" bit needs its own paragraph in the lead, it doesn't feel important enough to me that it needs to be in the already lengthy lead. NemesisAT (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Of course we must wait as we do not know the extent of any changes and/or mergers. I am just getting the ball rolling, getting people to think a little. Agree with amber rating - changed. After the announcement, the likes of Oakervee can be relegated to a sentence or two as its importance diminishes. Then the project will be more factual based with little to justify aspects of it. Of course opposition, which will still be strong, must be incorporated as it is headline news. The project will continue to be controversial, after any mergers with NPR. Wisdom-inc (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The top map would obviously need changing, or a new map based on it showing any changes or merges. It would still be needed explaining the original design. Wisdom-inc (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

"Conventional" rather than "Classic" Network?

The article currently uses the term "classic" to mean the existing Network Rail network, but the term commonly used now within the HS2 program is "conventional". See, for example, the definition of CRN (Conventional Rail Network) in the published Train Technical Specification. Shouldn't the article now refer to "conventional" rather than "classic"? Spookster67 (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree. I can see no compelling reason to use "classic", such as its use in references as an existing article. I would suggest either "conventional" or "existing" - the latter being used in some of the news sources referenced in the article. Please make sure to include references to use of "conventional" though to reduce the likelihood of future dispute. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Rolling stock award of contract

Little fanfare on this, but in today's Times, it says that Siemens are seeking an injunction to prevent the government signing off on awarding the rolling stock contract to the joint Bombardier/Hitachi venture.^[1] Not sure if it's worth mentioning as a cursory glance on the Internet shows precious other cites on this. As I haven't edited this article, I am unsure of its worthiness or necessity. If you type the article title into the Internet, it comes up but under a paywall. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Some additional coverage - Railway Technology Siemens Mobility joins a growing list of complainants against HS2, plus The Telegraph £2.8bn HS2 contract 'shrouded in mystery', Siemens lawsuit claims (behind paywall) 10mmsocket (talk) 07:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

References

^ Lea, Robert (16 October 2021). "Siemens sues HS2 over claims of failed procurement process". The Times. No. 73604. p. 53. ISSN 0140-0460.

Rolling stock is yet to be solidly determined, as the project scales back. Dedicated HS2 trains may be out with tilting trains being the norm as they go faster on conventional tracks. All to be revealed. Yes, you are right, in that such a move of compensation, as was Talgo compensated by HS2, should be mentioned in the article. Wisdom-inc (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I think we should keep in mind WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT. Will anybody in ten years time consider this significant? It might merit a single sentence if the injunction is awarded and it makes any practical difference (such bringing about abandonment of dedicated very high speed "bullet trains" in favour of Pendolino with go faster stripes. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Good point. However, as it is an active and changing controversial project, there will always be an element of news in it until it is completed. It may be a matter of writing it in a way it does not appear as news. Wisdom-inc (talk) 01:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

High Speed Lines

The ECML, WCML & MML are all classed as "high speed rail". They just qualify being 125mph. Other bits are high speed like the Selby bypass. The article mentions that HS1 was the first high speed line, which is not true. It should be mentioned that HS2 and HS1 are only faster high speed lines, not the only high speed lines. A brief mention that the UK already has lower speed high speed lines would make the big picture clearer. Wisdom-inc (talk) 13:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

It's tricky, going by the definition at High-speed rail the ECML, WCML, and MML could be seen as "upgraded" high-speed lines. The Selby bypass was purpose-built and so is too slow to be high-speed. For now, I've added back in "purpose-built" which used to be there, but got deleted with all the changes to the lead section. NemesisAT (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The ECML, WCML & MML are high speed. Not purpose built but high speed no less. The Selby Diversion is high speed at 125mph. British Rail said it could be 160mph with suitable overhead lines and signals. It was the country's first purpose-built high speed line built in the early 1980s.

The first high speed line in Japan in 1964 was little faster than the ECML and WCML. If the WCML & ECML used in-cab signalling they would be faster. Just to put it into perspective.Wisdom-inc (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Please feel free to change it again. However, I don't think it's appropriate to link to high-speed rail in the first sentence then make up our own definition of what "high-speed" actually is. Speaking from my own experience, even when you reach 110 mph south of Edinburgh that feels "high-speed" to me, especially after riding the Kyle and Far North lines! Whatever we write, we should stick to the definition on the high-speed rail page. NemesisAT (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

High Speed 1 is a cut above the rest of the network, speed-wise. High Speed 2 will be the same. I feel "purpose built" is a valid distinction here. NemesisAT (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

It may be worth finding out if there are high speed 'levels'. That is say the WCML is level 1 and HS2 say level 4, then just a brief mention. The reason I mention this point is that the article appears to put across that HS1 and HS1 are the first and only high speed lines, which is clearly not the case. I recall reading that there is an official designation of high speed. I was surprised to read that 124mph is the entry point putting most UK mainlines as high speed. Wisdom-inc (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Number of stations

I count 34 stations in total according to page 133 of the full business case. The article states 21. Am I missing something here? NemesisAT (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

If that is the case then put it in with a ref. But! Wait for a few weeks until after the party conference season has ended for the integrated rail announcement of NPR & HS2. There may be significant changes to HS2. Wisdom-inc (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Media says the Integrated Rail Plan will be released in November 2021. Wisdom-inc (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Map incorrect

The project is in three distinct phases: Phase 1, phase 2a and phase 2b. The opening map shows phase 1 and phase 2, which is incorrect.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisdom-inc (talk • contribs)

It is now, though older press releases such as this one from January 2012 talk about two phases so presumably the decision to split it into 2a and 2b came later. Pinging @Cnbrb: as I think they created the map. NemesisAT (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, presumably you are referring to File:UK High Speed 2 rail map.png? It was created in 2018 and naturally changes to the project will take place in time. The map is not "incorrect" as you claim — phase 2a and phase 2b are very obviously covered by the sections denoted as "phase 2". If you would like to request improvements to the map, I will happily try to accommodate your suggestions. Cnbrb (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I was going to say something along the lines of "it isn't incorrect, just not as specific as it could be" but left it out. I think Wisdom-inc was suggesting it show phases 2a and 2b as different colours? Personally, I'm not fussed, I think it's fine as is but I'm also not opposed to adding phase 2a and 2b to it. Best wishes NemesisAT (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The other map in the article does show phases 2a and 2b. The top map is clearly incorrect. The project moved on with phase two split into two distinct phases, with each needing its own Parliamentary approval. The map was not updated. Someone who sees a TV news item on HS2, then wanting more info then Googles, then clicks on this Wikipedia article - well it needs to be clear. The open sentences were misleading putting it across that is was all under construction and on the go, which it is not. The opening was misleading, as is the map. Wisdom-inc (talk) 09:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Going all the way back to July 2021 before you started editing this article, the lead still only said "The 176-kilometre (109 mi) first phase is under construction", not that the whole project was under construction. NemesisAT (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The project is three distinct phases with each at a different status. The reader needs to know that right in the opening few sentences. Wisdom-inc (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Right, that's a bit clearer. It's not "incorrect", you just think it should be more specific and represent phases 2A and 2B in different colours. That could be arranged, if Wisdom-inc asks nicely. 10:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I always ask nicely. ;) Difficult when writing quickly between doing other things.

As I see it the map is incorrect as it does not show the current three distinct phases. The map shows what it was before phase 2 was split into two. It should have been changed to phase 2 B'ham-Crewe, phase 3 the rest, making it simpler. But logic escapes HS2. ;) Wisdom-inc (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi - I will have access to my original design files next week so I will adjust the map key as you suggest. By the time I get arond to it, it will all have changed no doubt! Cnbrb (talk) 08:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

The map may have to be three maps for the history section. One the original Y as is shown. One with ph. 2a and one without the eastern leg with ph. 1 & ph. 2a. Media is saying a new high speed line will be built from Leeds to Clayton then onto existing lines south. Appears to be a part of NPR rather than HS2. The integrated rail plan will reveal all soon. Wisdom-inc (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The map now depicts phases 1, 2a, 2b and 2b scrapped. Cnbrb (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hold your horses

The integrated Rail Plan has been released. It needs some digesting, then the article amended to suit. Piecemeal amendments do no good. Wisdom-inc (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Any ideas to get us going? NemesisAT (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

First the intro. It no longer reaches Leeds, so Leeds must be left out (apart from the history section). Then amend the relevant sections to suit. Warrington has been added so must be in the intro as one of thee end points.

Huge parts, like Sheffield, can be ripped out. HS2 is now effectively a straight line to Manchester with a few branches off it.

NPR rail (what is left of it) is using a section of HS2 from Warrington to Manchester, or just into Yorkshire. 20 mile HS2 line from Leeds to the MML near Doncaster is still just a concept, so not in the main explanation body.

But, parts like ph. 2b to East Mids Parkway and Warrington has to go though parliament for approval, so this may even change in coming months.

So the project has: ph. 1 under construction, ph. 2b east to gain parliamentary approval, ph. 2b west to Warrington to gain parliamentary approval. Ph. 2a needs funding approval.

Then maps have to be created. Maybe the maps in the IRP document can be used, as they appear vox-pop. The existing maps have to stay for the history section. Tables amended. That is for starters. It must not read like a news bulletin. Wisdom-inc (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

What is HS2 and NPR?

The IRP has been released - over 100 pages. So what is HS2 as parts of NPR appear to mix with it?

NPR rail as originally envisioned is effectively scrapped, resorting to mainly just electrification of existing lines.
HS2 is now the Manchester High Speed line, with a spur to Birmingham because it passes the city.
HS2 has been extended to Warrington, between Liverpool and Manchester. Looks like a part of NPR but IRP says it is HS2.
The high speed extension (on stilts) from Manchester to Marsden in the Lancs/Yorks border is a part of NPR.
Eastern leg has been cut back, not scrapped, with Birmingham to Toton section remaining, but Toton diverted to nearby East Midland Parkway running north onto an upgraded MML.
A twenty mile high speed line from Leeds to the MML north of Doncaster is NOT included but could be later. This could be NPR or HS2.
Liverpool accesses HS2 and NPR at Warrington. Liverpool time to Warrington are a few minutes faster than accessing HS2 at Crewe much further away.

Leeds & Newcastle will connect with London on a upgraded ECML, with timings not far off HS2 times.
Sheffield will connect with London on a upgraded MML, with timings similar to HS2.

All this has to go through parliament, so expect changes.

So, HS2 is a line from London to Manchester with branches to:

Birmingham
East Midlands Parkway (MML connection)
Warrington
WCML connections at Crewe, Stafford and south of Wigan.

NPR uses HS2 tracks from Warrington to Manchester. New high speed track from Manchester to Marsden on Lancs/Yorks border is NPR, not HS2.

Should the article be renamed British High Speed Rail merging HS2 and NPR, as parts of track are used by both?

When people write they must be aware of the differences. What runs on what and what is shared. And what is not HS2 or NPR. Wisdom-inc (talk) 12:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

New trains

Now, only three destinations, London, Birmingham and Manchester would use dedicated HS2 trains as initially proposed. Will these be cancelled for classic compatible trains, only having one HS2 train class? Needs to be determined, or we wait for an announcement. Wisdom-inc (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

New destinations on HS2

Nottingham and Derby city centres are now on HS2 leaving HS2 track at East Mids Parkway onto the MML, with Notts time from London is 57 minutes. Need to find out what destinations are served by HS2 using HS2 & conventional tracks and times. HS2 track will reach Warrington, however will Warrington be served, or will trains just run through Warrington on their way to Liverpool? All needs to be nailed down from IRP doc. I am making a start but takes time. Wisdom-inc (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Construction timescales

These appear very long indeed. Need to be included. Wisdom-inc (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Schematic map

This needs updating to reflect the Nov 2021 IRP. I would do it but do not know how to. Wisdom-inc (talk) 10:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Map

The HS2 map has Crewe where Warrington is. From East Mids Parkway to York and Leeds needs omitting. Wisdom-inc (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

That bit is clearly marked "cancelled". No need to omit it. Cnbrb (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

That map is great for the history section. People want to see what HS2 is right now. Wisdom-inc (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Any new map it is best to give the Warrington to Manchester section its own colour indicating in a key that is it shared HS2/NPR track. Wisdom-inc (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

News bulletin

It is an article not a news bulletin. Any speculation must be relevant, powerful, and meaningful. Wisdom-inc (talk) 13:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Hear hear. See policies WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

After the Integrated Rail Plan, which is firm by the DfT, HS2 is now nailed down in more than broad brush outline. Wisdom-inc (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

User 2a00:23c5:e680:9001:c5b5:f29e:492c:65d5

This user is amending the article to what must be concluded as vandalism. He is removing text and inserting HS2 alignment pre IRP. Wisdom-inc (talk) 15:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Wigan directly on HS2?

The northern extremity of HS2 ends inside the borough of Wigan, where it runs onto the WCML. Wigan North Western station is about 2.5 miles away from the HS2 WCML branch. Technically WCML track runs through Wigan North Western, but as the train would be slowing down greatly at this point, that is a moot point. I would say Wigan is directly served by HS2, not conventional rail, as the HS2 track is so close to the station. So that would make three cities and three towns are served directly by HS2 track. What do others feel about this? Wisdom-inc (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Seems possibly WP:SYNTH. Fine if you can support with an RS citation. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Segregated track runs from London to a mile or two of the Wigan station, on the station approaches, inside the borough of Wigan. If the HS2 track ran right into the station, no train could move any faster than the speed limit through the station. The speed through the station applies to all trains, whether WCML or HS2 trains. As the segregated HS2 track is on the station approaches and inside the borough of Wigan I would firmly say Wigan is directly served by HS2. Unlike say Liverpool. To say Wigan is not directly served by HS2 track is being pedantic. Wisdom-inc (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

"I would firmly say…" But what do the available reliable citation sources say? (Please provide exact URLs and exact sentences, and we can collectively look over those.) —Sladen (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

One thing is certain, is that HS2 track's northern extremity ends "inside" the borough of Wigan. The HS2 line runs from London to Wigan for sure. I would say teh borough of Wigan is served directly by HS2. Wisdom-inc (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Interestingly the Union Connectivity Review was published in the past day or so.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1036027/union-connectivity-review-final-report.pdf

It "recommends" HS2s northern extremity be south of Preston, not south of Wigan station. This about 10-11 miles further north. This would totally bypass Wigan. But the plan as its stands is to end HS2 inside Wigan. Wisdom-inc (talk) 16:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

So it seems. ["Anger as new HS2 proposals suggest bypassing Wigan". Wigan Today. 26 November 2021.] --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I cannot see any more money being spent on HS2, after the media backlash on costs. So this may be just that, a recommendation and no more. Wisdom-inc (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Wigan will be an ‘integrated high speed station’. Not a conventional rail station that HS2 trains can access.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/575898/RFS14_Wigan_V2.pdf

"HS2 services in Wigan"

"HS2 trains will serve the current Wigan North Western station. It will become an ‘integrated high speed station’, where passengers can catch HS2 trains." Wisdom-inc (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

[1] HS2 starts work on EWR overbridge - Modern Railways (April 2021)

[2] CALVERT CROSSING: EWR WILL PASS OVER HS2 - Modern Railways (July 2021)

[3] Lea, Robert (16 October 2021). "Siemens sues HS2 over claims of failed procurement process". The Times. No. 73604. p. 53. ISSN 0140-0460.

[1]

[2]

[1]