Talk:High Speed 2/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Service patterns

These need updating.

1. Derby and Nottingham will now use HS2 to London and Birmingham.
2. Newcastle, Leeds and Sheffield will use HS2 only to Birmingham, not London.
3. Liverpool will only use HS2 to London being omitted from using HS2 to Birmingham.
4. Warrington will use only HS2 track to London. Wisdom-inc (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I belive Sheffield and Leeds will still use HS2 trains to London. Sheffield definetly will whereas leeds is subject to a study on how it will be reached by hs2 trains. 2a00:23c5:e680:9001:f425:cae:8a98:30b9

Read the IRP!! Leeds and Sheffield will NOT use HS2 to London. You do not know even the basics. Please stop amending the article to what you think HS2 is. Wisdom-inc (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

you need to reed the irp Leeds is subject to a study anouced in the irp as to how to get the trains to Leeds see intergrate rai plan page 86. Sheffield trains will be served by hs2 the intergrated rail plan moved the link to the east midlands hub where trains will coninue on the midlands main line on to sheffieldd. Can I also clarify another point you are confused about, hs2 phase 2b wester leg runs from crewe to manchester and the west cost main line south of wigan. Northern powerhousere rail is effectively phase 3 and runs from warrington to hs2 where npr trains will continue up the manhcester tunnel to manchester picaddily and then ffrom manchester picadilly to  marsden where it joins the line to leeds (all in the irp)

As is stand NOW, according to the IRP, Leeds, Sheff and Newcastle to London are off HS2!! UNDERSTAND THAT! A study to get Leeds on does not mean Leeds is on HS2. Leave the article alone. Leeds, Sheff and Newcastle use HS2 to only get to Birmingham. You do not have a clue. Wisdom-inc (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

you are wrong about sheffield which is served by hs2 trains read this https://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/news/transport/hs2-trains-will-still-come-to-sheffield-despite-scrapping-eastern-expansion-to-leeds-transport-secretary-confirms-3462495

The IRP clearly says:

"electrification of the Midland Main Line (already being electrified to Market Harborough) to Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield via Derby. Combined with the new East Midlands high speed line above, this would give Sheffield and Chesterfield almost exactly the same journey times to London as existing HS2 plans."

Leave the article alone. Wisdom-inc (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

"Electrification of the remaining sections of the Midland Main Line to Leicester, Nottingham, Derby, Chesterfield and Sheffield, bringing forward decarbonisation of existing diesel services, laying the ground for future high speed rail services to Nottingham, Derby, Chesterfield and Sheffield"

Note the word future. Sheffield to London is not on HS2. Wisdom-inc (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

What it means is that the midland main line will be fully electrified and sheffield hs2 services will use that electrified midland main line to get to sheffield from where they join the midland main line at east midlands parkway form hs2 see the 'hs2 east core network' map on page 75 of the intergrated rail plan that clearly shows this.

The map does not state that Sheffield uses HS2 to London.

From the IRP. Leeds is on the ECML: "(ECML) from London to Leeds and the North East, including elements identified for Northern Powerhouse Rail, with the aim of delivering benefits earlier. We will ensure digital signalling is delivered and also upgrade the power supply to allow longer and more frequent trains, increase maximum speeds up to 140mph in some places, improve the capacity of stations, and remove bottlenecks such as flat junctions and crossings. Because the ECML is more direct than the previously proposed HS2 route via the West Midlands, an upgraded ECML will deliver journey times from London to York and North East England similar to the proposed HS2 scheme" Wisdom-inc (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The east coast main line is being upgraded but that is not what we are talking about. Leeds will be served by an upgraded ecml but there will also be hs2 trains to leeds with a study to decide the route they take. You are simply wrong about Sheffield here is hs2s own website which clearly shows hs2 still serving sheffield https://www.hs2.org.uk/what-is-hs2/hs2-and-the-integrated-rail-plan/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c5:e680:9001:6103:25e8:180e:b972 (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Newcastle, Leeds and Sheff will NOT be on HS2 running to London. They will be on a 30 mile HS2 section running to to Birmingham. Read the IRP. Wisdom-inc (talk)

The irp (which i have read the relevent section of) includes these 4 things instead of the eastern leg 1) Electrification of the Midland Main line 2) A high speed stump from hs2 to east midlands parkway. This will link to a electrifed midland main line. The eldectrification is essential to allow the hs2 trains to be able to use the midland main line. This will be used for hs2 trains from London and Birmingham to Derby, Notingham, Chesterfield and Sheffield. Nothing in the intergrated rail plan claims or implies the bit to chesterfield and sheffield says these trians will run on the midland main line all the way to london instead of joinging hs2 at east midlands and the journey time, maps in the irp and media coverage all clearly demonstrate that sheffield trains do join hs2 at east midlands parkway. for further evidence see this article: https://www.itv.com/news/central/2021-11-18/hs2-east-scrapped-the-midlands-journey-that-will-drop-from-74-minutes-to-26 particually the "From here, HS2 trains will continue directly to Nottingham, Derby, Chesterfield, and Sheffield on the upgraded and electrified Midland Main Line" line. another bit of evidence also see the what has happend to hs2 section of this article: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/hs2-route-map-journey-times-25491014 also refer back to map 5 in the intergrated rail plan that shows trains from sheffield joining hs2 at east midlands parkway from where they continue to either Birmingham or London, here is one more piece of evidence, a twitter thread from a railway expert disputing the irp claims on journey time to sheffield that clearly takes it for granted the route from London is thorugh hs2 to east midlands parkway and then continuing up the midland main line: https://twitter.com/WilliamBarter1/status/1461637447058706432 3)An upgrade to the east coast main line which will allow faster trains from Newcastle and Leeds to London on the east coast main line 4)Newcastle and Leeds trains to Birmingham will use hs2 track for some of their journey to Birmingham although newcastle trains will not use any hs2 to get to London. The plan anoucnes a study on how to get the hs2 trains to leeds. Here is the unambigous eveidence that the sheffield trians will join hs2 to get to London- qoute the intergrated rail plan "electrification of the Midland Main Line (already being electrified to Market Harborough) to Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield via Derby. Combined with the new East Midlands high speed line above, this would give Sheffield and Chesterfield almost exactly the same journey times to London as existing HS2 plans." Note "Combined with the new East Midlands high speed line above" ie- the journey time from London to Sheffield is not just beccuase of the elefctrification of the midalnd main line but because of that and the high speed line to east midlands parkway. This means is some of the journey time benefit FROM LONDON TO SHEFFIELD is from the trains using hs2 as far as east midlands parkway and the rest is from the midland main line which takes the rest of the way to sheffield being upgraded.

Sheffield trains can go via the MML or HS2 at exactly the same journey time, give a minutes or two. The MML upgrade will come way before HS2 reaches East Midlands Parkway, so Sheff-London will have good journey times quite quickly. The MML route takes less energy to reach Sheffield as the route is much shorter. Why would the Sheffield train be taken off then put on a line that is more expensive to run? DfT is leaving it open to appease? Most I have read has said Sheff-London will be on the MML. Wisdom-inc (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Define your terms first

Ok guys, settle down. There are two different concepts here:

1. . HS2 track
2. . HS2 trains

HS2 trains can (and will) travel on conventional track. It is unlikely that conventional trains will (though they could if needs be) travel on HS2 track. In any case, this whole discussion is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. See WP:CRYSTAL. You have no idea what the actual service pattern will be. If you believed announcements, a HS2 train would be pulling into Leeds as I write. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Sheff and Newcastle were to run on HS2 & conventional rail track to London, they now are on the MML and ECML. Leeds was to be on 100% dedicated HS2. Leeds is now using 100% conventional rail to London. The IRP does clearly states that Newcastle, Leeds and Sheff to London will be on the MML and ECML. Someone else thinks otherwise. The same person writse that Warrington was not to be on HS2 as the IRP clearly states so. He deleted the Warrington branch on HS2 saying the IRP never said it was to have one. IRP... "The Government has therefore instructed HS2 Ltd to include passive provision for a future connection to Warrington in its design for the HS2 Phase 2b Western Leg route to Manchester." That must be Scotch Mist. This person should be ignored. A troll, pest vandaliser. Wisdom-inc (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• The map does not indicate anything, that is what you think it means.
• Study is just well, er, er, a study.  
• The IRP says that the MML to Sheff will 'equal' HS2, implying it will be on MML. But does not say Sheff to London will be on HS2. You are interpreting that Sheff will be on HS2, because the previous plan had it on.
• The IRP also stated Warrington will be served by HS2 trains on shared NPR/HS2 high speed track, making Warrington a branch of HS2. This you cannot understand.
• Will put Sheff on HS2 to keep this vandaliser away, as it sort of may be on but not sure.  Wisdom-inc (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

two points 1) important point about Sheffiled- The trains from Sheffield use hs2 from east midlands parkway to get to sheffield. The intergrted rail plan clearly states the journey time saving from Sheffield is from the electification of the midland main line IN COMBINATION with the high speed line to east midlands parkway. IE- it uses hs2 to east midllainds parkway (part of the journey time saving) and then the electrifed midlands main line the rest of the way to Sheffield (the other part of the time savin) 2) the pedantic pooint about warringotn- the line to warrignton is effectively an extension of hs2 phase 2b (hence passive provison) but it will not be branded as part of hs2 but instead part of northern powerhouse rail with that line and the line from Manchester to Marsden where NPR joins existing line ot Leeds making up the intergrated rail plan version of northern powerhouse rail.Trains using that branch (coming form Liverpool) will be able to go into Manchester on the HS2 track or down onto HS2 to London with a junction south of the HS2 tunnel into Manchester. So, although it will be a dedicated high speed line connecting by hs2 and used by hs2 trains it will be constructed as part of northern powerhouse rail not HS2. It may be simpler to call it a branch of hs2 for this article but the way I worderd it was fully accurate by not listing it as a branch of hs2 but then metioning the link at Warrington in the following paragraph about northern powerhouse rail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:E680:9001:C3F:3124:1597:6995 (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The IRP clearly has Warrington as a branch of HS2 reaching Warrington on shared HS2 and NPR tracks. The idea of the Integrated rail plane was to merge HS2 and NPR, although other parts were thrown in. IRP: "The Government has therefore instructed HS2 Ltd to include passive provision for a future connection to Warrington" It says HS2 not NPR for Warrington. Wisdom-inc (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The passive proviosn is becuase Warrringoton will be built by extending HS2 phase 2b but the extension to Warringotn is being branded as northern powerhouse rail not hs2 . See the map on page 96 of the intergrated rail plan. The irp was meant to intergrate the two scehmes but they are still being branded as two differnet schemes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:E680:9001:C3F:3124:1597:6995 (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

That map is a joke. HS2 is in two different colours. The colours of some of the lines are not even in the key. It cannot be taken seriously. Wisdom-inc (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Intro

This has to be a brief as possible, not a jumble of words, with detail in the sections below the intro. It must be easy to read describing what HS2 is in broad brush only. The intro was:

1. What it is - one line now, not a network.
2. Shares track with another railway.
3. From where to where north & south extremities, longest route - London to Wigan.
4. How it is configured - the branches - list of branches.
5. Where is goes to - towns, cities & airports directly served - list of towns and cities.
6. Types of trains.
7. Phases and status of phases.
8. Stations.
9. Support/Opposition.
10. Costs.
11. History.

All logical and easy to read. Wisdom-inc (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree the lead should be broad brush, in the sense of summarising the body of the article below. It should also follow MOS:LEAD and be accessible to new readers, right now it is not doing those things. Mujinga (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

It clearly is logical and easy to read and progressive. All too often these types of rail articles are written by people who work in the rail industry or enthusiasts, being just gobbledegook by outsiders. The article primarily must be understood by someone who knows nothing, or not much, about railways at all. The intro does that. Note that there are no abbreviations or acronyms - no WCML, the word West Coast Mainline is used, the list of towns & cities does not link to rail stations only the cities, etc, so the non-initiated can understand. Reading it he will understand what HS2 is, where its goes to, what towns and cities it serves, and extras to fill in like: costs, phases, and status of phases. It is controversial so a hint of that has to be in the intro and that the project design has changed. The numbered points above do all that. The last thing that is needed is a slanted article lauding HS2 written with rail-speak. Wisdom-inc (talk) 12:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Intro now is:

• What HS2 is;
• End points south to north - London-Wigan;
• Third high-speed line in UK;
• Towns & cities it serves;
• The branches off the line;
• Shares track with NPR;
• Prime cities served by HS2 trains that are not on HS2/NPR shared nigh-speed line;
• Types of trains;
• Upgraded stations and new station on the high-speed track;
• Phases and status;
• Support & opposition causing a review then a further IRP;
• Original plan and what is now omitted;
• Costs.

Wisdom-inc (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Selby diversion

Does the selby diversion really merit a mention at the very top of the article as the UKs first high speed railway. Although it could support 160mph wiht improved sgnalling and overhead wires which could arguably be described as high speed rail it only has trains running on it at 125mph which is not high speed rail, it is the standerd speed for the fasest services on the UKs victiorian lines and much slower than dedicated high speed rail. There is no prospect of trains ever operating at 160mph on the selby diversion and it is only a short diversion of a bit of the East Coast Main Line, not high speed rail, to facilitate a coalfield. As such although from a techinical and pedantic view it could be described as the first high speed rialway I think it may be simpler, less confusing and more relevent to describe HS2 as the second high speed railway after High speed one which is the only line in the UK that has high speed rial operrating on it and think thte inclusion of the selby diversion is superfluous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:E680:9001:1087:F26D:B100:3DBA (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

If we are mentioning high speed rail history then Selby does, as it was the first. Wisdom-inc (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

It is a high speed rial alignemnt and from a techinical point of view and as such is arguably the uks first high speed line but considering it is a tiny diversion of a non hihg speed line not anything which was ever imagined as part of a real high speed railway and the trains do not operate at high speed rail speeds, never will and it was never envisioned that they will its inclusion strikes me as very pedantic for the lead of this article. Maybe a note would be better. Also, upgrades to the over head wires would be needed to make it possible for trains to operate on the selby diversion at high speeed rail speads. It just seems a bit misleaading to put it on the same level as high speed one and two as one of the UKs high lines. I am not sort it is a particually rleavent or important piece of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:E680:9001:561:4098:88E8:5D24 (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Unless a reliable source describes it as being designed to HST specifications (which I strongly doubt), then it is WP:OR to describe it as the first. Indeed, given the 'low threshold' definition of "High Speed", ["lines built to handle speeds in excess of 250 km/h (155 mph) and upgraded lines in excess of 200 km/h (124 mph) "] the WCML would qualify (!) because it was used for APT (though not for long). And of course the original diesel electric Intercity 125s ran on the GWML. It comes across as a bit wp:POINTy to give the laurel wreath to a glorified siding. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/stories/the-architecture-the-railways-built-the-selby-diversion/

“Whilst the track was laid for 125mph (200km/h), the route alignment and infrastructure was built to allow for up to 270km/h, making it Britain's first high speed line by the modern definition that remains in place today.”

Wisdom-inc (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The Selby Diversion is high-speed but only a section of track, not a line. I am happy to exclude it as it is not a line. But, 124mph is the minimum threshold for high-speed rail, which makes most mainlines in the UK high-speed - just Wisdom-inc (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Removed Selby Diversion as it is a track section with no stations. Wisdom-inc (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Introduction is a jumbled mess

The introduction to this page is unnecessarily complicated and large tracts simply are duplicating what is and should be said later in the article, with huge numbered lists and very hard to follow. AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Wanting constructive feedback. What do you find hard to follow?

The intro as it is now is. It progresses:

• What HS2 is;
• End points south to north - London-Wigan;
• Third high-speed line in UK;
• Towns & cities it serves;
• The branches off the line;
• Shares track with NPR;
• Prime cities served by HS2 trains that are not on HS2/NPR shared high-speed line;
• Types of trains;
• Upgraded stations and new station on the high-speed track;
• Phases and status;
• Support & opposition causing a review then a further IRP;
• Original plan and what is now omitted;
• Costs.

Wisdom-inc (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Trimmed the intro. Wisdom-inc (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Impact on existing services

One thing that seems to be missing from this article, is what impact HS2 would have on services on the existing network. I understand that places like Coventry and Stoke-on-Trent etc have expressed concerns that HS2 will lead to a cutback on services to places like those. Is there any detailed information about it? Also discussions about HS2 always seem to ignore the existence of the Chiltern Main Line and focus soley on the WCML. The map on this article is a good example of that. Presumably HS2 might have some form of knock on impact on Chiltern services? G-13114 (talk) 13:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any definite info about what will happen to existing services. Under previous proposals, Stoke-on-Trent would be served by the Macclesfield trains, which are basically the same as existing services today. Coventry may have slightly slower journey times if more stops are added to existing WCML services, but would have a higher frequency service. It's all speculation though. NemesisAT (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

New page for HS2 rolling stock?

With the contract for the first batch of HS2 rolling stock now announced, is it the right time to start a new page just for HS2 rolling stock? The history of the rolling stock strategy and extended procurement programme (and legal challenges) can stay here, but new detail of the fleet should now go on a new page about the initial 54 trains, I think. In due course it's name will be "British Rail Class xxx", but for now it can just be "HS2 Rolling Stock" Spookster67 (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Great idea. JFDI 10mmsocket (talk) 14:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

...but "HS2 rolling stock" (note case) 10mmsocket (talk) 14:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd agree, much like the proposed stations have separate pages. Qazwsx777 (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd say add any relevant content to this page first, and if there's enough content to warrant splitting off the rolling stock, then that should become obvious. Bellowhead678 (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Runcorn

The article says that the irp makes no mention of hs2 services to runcorn and implies that means they have been withdrwan. I do not think this is accurate. The link to runcorn is under the scope of phase 1, when Liverpool via rucnron trains would join hs2 at litchfield and phase 2a where they would join at crewe. Phase 2b has no bearing on Runcorn because golborne is north of were the Liverpool via Rucorn branches of the WCML. The intergrated rail plan dealt with HS2 phase 2b and northern powerhouse rail, it does not mention phase 1 and 2a beyond just confirming they are going ahead as such the intergrated rail plan would not mention the services to Liverpool via Runcorn.

It is true the irp version of npr links hs2 and npr to lines towards lines Liverpool at Warrington that do not go through Runcorn but npr will not open until years after hs2 phase 2a and in the intermediate time the only way for Liverpool trains to get to HS2 will be through the crewe link which trains have to go through Runcorn to get to Liverpool from. After npr opens there has been no confirmation of whether all or just some of the HS2 trains to Liverpool will be diverted to go through Warrington instead of Runcorn. Also, this is not new because of the irp. The origninal northern powerhouse rail plans had the line that now ends and joins existing lines at Warrington extend all the way to Liverpool city centre and this would allow HS2 trains to access Liverpool (not going through Runcorn) in the same way as the trimmed back npr in the irp.

I don't see how the irp has much signifficance to weather HS2 trains stop at runcron. They certianly will after HS2 initially opens and it is unclear if this will remain after northern powerhouse rail opens. That was the situation before the irp aswell.

Unless there is a reliable source that says that HS2 trains will no longer stop at Runcorn (there isn't) the claim which implies that Runcorn has been removed from the plans should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncnub (talk • contribs) 21:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Runcorn was to be on HS2, but the IRP omitted the town. This was inserted into the article. Click on the refs.

Runcorn was to be served by HS2 trains. In the Integrated Rail Plan the town was omitted from HS2.

:Wisdom-inc (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC) Doing a contorol f serch for Runcron in the intergrated rail plan I can see a passage that makes it clear that once npr opens trains to Liverpool will go via Warringotn not Runcorn but between phase 1 and npr which is a long time they will still go via Runcorn so I will edit to reflect thisNcnub (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Intro-lead

I still think the lead/intro is too long. Not quite sure how to structure though. Am I in the minority? GRALISTAIR (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. 10mmsocket (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

The whole paragraph commencing "The original design for HS2 was a "Y" network..." can go. Then the three paragraphs beginning with the single sentence paragraph that starts "The Integrated Rail Plan for the North and Midlands of November 2021 merged west-east sections" can be merged and reduced. The paragraph beginning "HS2 is to have two classes of trains...." can be greatly simplified if it is posted after the three merged paragraphs that introduce the concept of dedicated and shared-line running. Does that make sense? 10mmsocket (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree it needs work to summarise the article. Maybe looking at MOS:LEAD can help Mujinga (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

For a start this paragraph could be delted from the lead: "The Integrated Rail Plan for the North and Midlands of November 2021 merged west-east sections of HS2 and high-speed Northern Powerhouse Rail track from Warrington to Manchester. HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail trains will share this section of track."

The line in the opening paragragh "served by dedicated high-speed HS2 or Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) track." alrady shows that hs2 trains will share sections of hs2 track and this line in the branches section shows that hs2 trains will use the section of track to Warrington "Millington junction with shared HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail track west to Warrington." It seems a very random, unincitfuel and unimportant little detail for the 4th paragraph of the article. It is also a little misleading in 2 ways: 1) By being the first mention of the IRP in the article it makes it seem like it is the headline impact of the irp on HS2 when it is clearly not even close (the headline impact clearly being the eastern leg changes which are given about the right prominence towards the end of the lead) and the idea of hs2 trains using npr to reach Warrington and Liverpool existed in npr plans before the irp. 2) It makes it seem like it is the only part of npr hs2 trains will use but hs2 trains from Birmingham to leeds apear to be going via the leg of npr to Marsden ( the astrict on the Leeds to Bimringham time on page 18 of the irp says "** Via NPR based on indicative train service.")

This detail is pretty minor and is out of place right at the start of the article.Ncnub (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Cost

In light of the intergrated rail plan, the cost estimate for the entire project needs to be revised down the 80-106 billion for the full y is now outdated. Costs for phases 1 and 2a are easy to source but i'm not sure that there is a proper cost estimate for phase 2b as changed by the irp. How should this be phrased in the lead?Ncnub (talk) 14:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Good question! I think we should be cautious about estimating the cost, maybe just saying that the estimate is likely to fall due to the revision. Bellowhead678 (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Millington to Wigan section

Referred to as the Goldborn Spur. Transport minister is saying this section will not be built. DfT is looking at it and where HS2 can connect onto WCML. Added to article. Wisdom-inc (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

You call it the Golborne spur here yet override any mention of Golborne in the article. Why? External references are quite clear about its naming New Civil Engineer and The Guardian just to give two current examples. To be clear Wigan is a town and metropolitan borough. Golborne is a town in Wigan metropolitan borough, but it geographically distinct from Wigan. They are two very different places. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, Golborne and Wigan are different places. The metropolitan borough and the town itself are also different places. You cannot confuse the two. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

It is called the Golborne Spur for "engineering purposes". Golborne is inside the borough of Wigan. The main town is Wigan. Wigan has a WCML station that the HS2 track runs into from the south with conventional track leaving north. Golborne does not even have a station. Do we say HS2 runs into Camden, as that is where the track ends. No we do not. We say London because Camden is inside London, as Golborne is inside Wigan.

As aside, where HS2 runs onto the WCML north of Crewe has not been determined if the Golborne spur is dropped. The WCML and HS2 run parallel up to near the south of Winsford, then they diverge. Wisdom-inc (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, the current proposed junction is at Golborne not Wigan. The fact that the spur is under doubt is already noted. HS2 does not reach Wigan, it just happens that Wigan is the next station on the WCML after HS2's (current proposed) junction. Please wait for consensus from other editors and in the meantime stick with the cited facts which is Golborne. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Going to have to agree with @10mmsocket: here. I would say Golborne is the place for the junction; Wigan is the next station. Golborne, however, is distinguishable from Wigan and both should really remain separate. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Golborne is inside Wigan read the maps I gave. One on the Wigan web site. Wisdom-inc (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

If you want to be precise it is Bamfurlong,_Greater_Manchester https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69071/hs2-msg-wcm-zz-dr-rt-72201.pdf but it definitely nearer Golborne than Wigan. I suspect the reason Goldborne was picked is that there is some railway infrastructure with Golborne in the name, possible https://www.railscot.co.uk/locations/G/Golborne_South/, which is located https://www.google.com/maps/place/Windy+Bank+Farm/@53.4982189,-2.6103897,14.22z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x487b042d0dc630b9:0x5877d2f5e81b4612!8m2!3d53.490067!4d-2.593302. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I do want to be precise, Golborne is in Wigan. Look at Wigan's web site. Also a map making it clear: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Area-covered-by-Wigan-Metropolitan-Borough-Council-Wigan-Council-2018_fig5_331547057

This illogical stupidity has to stop. Wisdom-inc (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it is you that is demonstrating those characteristics.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Not this one again. He used follow me.(Personal attack removed) Wisdom-inc (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Not a personal insult. He cannot read a simple map. Wisdom-inc (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I applaud your desire to see accuracy. But Wigan Metropolitan Borough and Wigan are two completely separate entities. The borough has a population of 329,000. The town has a population of 108,000. Thus two thirds of the borough is not actually within Wigan. This includes settlements such as Leigh (41,000), Atherton (22,000), Ashton (24,000), Hindley (24,000), Lowton (14,000), Golborne (25,000), etc. Prior to 1974 all of those were towns within Lancashire. They were nothing to do with Wigan and only became associated by name because of a political decision to establish a different system of local government across the whole country. My point is simple and I will re-iterate it. Wigan and Wigan Metropolitan Borough are different. They are not the same. They are separate things. The latter is simply the largest settlement within the latter, but the latter contains many many distinct towns and villages. Hopefully that's clear now.

As for the accusation of our "illogical stupidity", you do your fellow Wikipedians and the institution itself a great disservice by accusing us of that. We stand for all five of the Wikipedia:Five pillars. We believe on Wikipedia:Consensus reached through discussion and assumption of good faith WP:AGF. If you can't understand that, or simply don't want to comply with that approach, then you should seriously consider what you are doing here and whether you should carry on. Otherwise, accept Wikipedia:It's not the end of the world to lose a debate and think about how you can work positively with your fellow editors. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

https://www.wigan.gov.uk/Council/Data-Statistics/Borough-Story/Locality-map.aspx From Wigan's web site showing map of Wigan. Golborne is inside the map. All in colour as well. Goldborne is a part of Wigan. I never made it up. Look! Get used to it. Getting some Wiki people to back you up for the sake of the clique sticking together is somthing you should drop. You are wrong. Wisdom-inc (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

This map say Wigan Council at the top. It is a map of Golborne. https://www.wigan.gov.uk/Docs/PDF/Council/Borough-Story/Locality%203/Golborne-Lowton.pdf Wisdom-inc (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing that Golborne is not part of Wigan Metropolitan Borough. It is, that's a fact. But it's not part of Wigan. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Wigan Council's full name is Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council and it controls the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, not just the town. It is not a clique sticking together it is a group of people who agree that your POV on this is wrong and because of the way WikiPedia works it means your edits do not stay.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, reading the service pattern (which admittedly will be changing with the downgrading of the eastern leg), none of the services using the Golbourne spur appear to stop at Wigan. So it feels a bit silly to say it ends in Wigan when the connection is outside of what most people think of as "Wigan" (and the Wigan you linked to, Wigan). NemesisAT (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Either the HS2 track ends in Wigan or it does not. It does. Service patterns are 100% irrelevant to where the track ends. Get it? Wisdom-inc (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by "Wigan". I reckon most readers of this article would associate "Wigan" with either the town Wigan or Wigan North Western railway station. The HS2 track does not end in Wigan and while Wigan North Western railway station is the first station north of the junction, the junction does not join the WCML at the station and no HS2 services that use the junction will stop there. So I don't think it is appropriate to say it ends at Wigan. NemesisAT (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Golborne is a few miles, tops, from Wigan town centre so I think it's pedantry of the most infuriating kind to say that it's inappropriate. For the sake of readers outside the UK, even outside England, we've got to explain things in ways they understand and using "Wigan" helps do that. Don't allow nerdery to hijack explanation doktorb _words^deeds 05:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. It is like talking to wall with some of them. The exact location is Bamfurlong in the south of Wigan. Most people in Wigan do not know where it is as its a clump of houses, known locally just by its road. Wisdom-inc (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Nobody outside of the UK is going to know about the Borough of Wigan, but they may know about Wigan itself or its railway stations. Saying it ends at Wigan may lead these readers to think it ends within the town, or at North Western railway station. NemesisAT (talk) 08:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Wigan is well known. It has a football team that was in the Premier League which has a world wide viewing audience. The team also won the FA Cup. You must be a southerner. HS2 as it stands ends in Wigan. I never made it up. Looks like that will not be the case looking at the HMG documents issued today, so Wigan soon to be a non-issue. Wisdom-inc (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Good point. Wigan just serves to confuse people. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Golborne link removed from HS2

Article will have to be rewritten. CONFIRMED link is removed. "HS2 minister Andrew Stephenson confirmed the Golborne Link will be removed from the HS2 phase 2b bill, connecting Crewe and Manchester." Wisdom-inc (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

This information has already been added. Ncnub (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Long article but how to split?

This article has a possibly too long tag on it. How could it be split up? Phase 1, 2a etc or other? GRALISTAIR (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @GRALISTAIR:, I placed the tag on the page last month, IIRC. In my view:

• The lead section is far too detailed for anyone to read properly and some of the information could be placed into other sections.
• Some of the information (e.g.: journey times, procurement timeline, planned stations) could easily be made to be more succinct than it is now.
• Perhaps the "Route", "Connection[s] [sic] to other lines" and "Planned stations" could be merged together, with a template of the proposed route map on the right side?

These are just my personal thoughts, but clearly the article is too long anyway. It's not my strongpoint to contribute to the article as I don't know enough about it, however. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• The lead section is far too detailed for anyone to read properly and some of the information could be placed into other sections. I Totally agree
• Some of the information (e.g.: journey times, procurement timeline, planned stations) could easily be made to be more succinct than it is now. I Totally agree

The history section could be vastly cut down as it even points to a main article on history anyway.

Same with Integrated Rail Plan which also already has its own article

My thoughts. Need consensus though GRALISTAIR (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I made an attempt to shorten and simplify the lead although this could be done further. The rest of the article remains badly organised, random, unclear and confusing.Ncnub (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

If it needs to be long, then it needs to be long. I do not think it long. It is well structured. The lead was poor, very poor. The first thing it said was that it going from London to B'ham. The first point must be the end points, not an intermediate city. I could go on. I put that right. Wisdom-inc (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

It intitiially says it goes from London to Birimgham (the main route) and later in the sentance the more northernly destinations. The lead then continues to mention specific towns and ctiies. It was not well structured it was random, repetative and confusing and gave many misleading impressions. I have corrected this. Ncnub (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The Lead....

High Speed 2 (HS2) is a planned high-speed railway line in the United Kingdom, with the first phase under construction. New track will stretch from the most southerly point at London in South East England to the most northerly point south of Wigan in North West England. The railway routes via Birmingham with branches from Birmingham to the East Midlands and Millington to Manchester. Dedicated high-speed HS2 track will serve the cities of London, Birmingham and Manchester, the town of Crewe and the airports of Manchester and Birmingham. HS2 will be the country's second purpose-built high-speed line, the first being HS1, the connection from London to the Channel Tunnel.

Broken down....

High Speed 2 (HS2) is a planned high-speed railway line in the United Kingdom, with the first phase under construction. (it is planned but with parts going ahead)

New track will stretch from the most southerly point at London in South East England to the most northerly point south of Wigan in North West England. (tells you where from and to giving its scope)

The railway routes via Birmingham (gives the intermediate city)

with branches from Birmingham to the East Midlands and Millington to Manchester. (Gives the two prime branches)

Dedicated high-speed HS2 track will serve the cities of London, Birmingham and Manchester, the town of Crewe and the airports of Manchester and Birmingham. (gives where it services on the new dedicated line)

HS2 will be the country's second purpose-built high-speed line, the first being HS1, the connection from London to the Channel Tunnel. (says it is not the 1st or one on many, just the second)

All simple and easy with a lay person understanding what the line is in one paragraph. Perfect. Wisdom-inc (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

the proplem with that first paragraph is that it just repeats what is explained in the second paragraph and much of the first paragraph and gives too much detail that should be later in the lead on branches and stations. The first paragraph as it is a clear and conscie overivew with all the branches and staitions in the second and phases parapgraph. Ncnub (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

You have no idea. The intro is logical telling the reader immediately what HS2 is. Leave the text alone. Make suggestion here. Wisdom-inc (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Your opening paragraph includes a town nobody has heard meaning somobody who googles hs2 and just reads the opening paragraph will be confused. The current opening paragraph. The new gives a broad intoroduction to the scheme and ellabortes in the rest of the introduction which has now been made actually releavent and readable. There are too many things you try to cram in everuwhere that you it repetative and you try to include some of your misunderstandings about HS2 and particually the effects of the irp which makes the article activelly misleading. Ncnub (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Your opening intro stated London to Birmingham first ina poor attempt to describe the whole of HS2. Are we to take you seriously? Wisdom-inc (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

It said London to Birmingham, the North west and East Midlands. It did not say London to Birmigham only, Birmingham was the first in a list of area. it opened by metnioning the key place and regions it goes to followed up with ellaboration on phasing, using exsitng lines, stations and branches for the rest of the introduction. Of course London to Birmingham is a very signifficant part of the scheme and should be given its appropriate waiting whereas you would give all the attention to Wigan (in slightly misleading and confusing ways) and Millington. Ncnub (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

You tell the reader where from and to. You emphasise anything in the Midlands. It looks like a 15 year old wrote it. Wisdom-inc (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

User Ncnub butchering the text

User Ncnub is wholescale buttering the text. Please desist! Wisdom-inc (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not deleting content, I am removing repetition, ensuring it reads properly and removing content that gives readers a misleading impression. Ncnub (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The article should have detail which it does but also must be easy to understand and can not simply grow and grow over time. I removed a bunch of ireelevent tangents that often created a misleading impression about various elements of the scheme and are in all cases deiscussed in a more clear, accurate and approopriate way in other parts of the article. I have made the introduction a clear overview of the schme rather than an unreadable mess made up of various edtirors pet obseesions. I have not removed one single piece of informaiotn. Ncnub (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The previous state of the article was unacceptable with it giving a ridiculous false balance and ton of misleading info on the effects the irp and having a way to long introdoction of wild tangents put in thorugh various edit wars that are and should be later in the text and failed to gives readers a propper understanig of the shceme. The article could still be improved a lot with changes to how some sections are organised and the introduction could still be made better but the baseline for people to begin to improve the article from is now passable. This bold edit was despratley needed and long overdue. sorry. Ncnub (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I am the first to say no repetition. But you need it in technical documents. You may need something mentioned in an overview then expanding in another section for more detail. You cannot understand this, not thinking in a logical progression. Much of what you were doing was POV. Leave the article alone and make suggestions on the talk page. Others will write changes for you. Wisdom-inc (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Some things will need multiple mentions but the previous article had section in the wrong place and then it repaeted almost exactly (just more clearly) in the right place. Your introduction tried to cram everything into the first paragraph and then repeat and repeat instead of having a broad and clear overview in the first pararpgrah and building on it with additonal detail in a logical way throughout the rest of the article. Ncnub (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

This disruptive editor need to be disciplined. Wisdom-inc (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

An apposite moment to draw attention to WP:EDITWAR. There are rules against this sort of thing. Sort it out, folks. Discuss your proposed changes here on the talk page like adults instead of adding and reverting over and over again. WP:3RR has been violated so you have to talk it over.

I suggest breaking down the things you want to add into bullet points on talk and dicuss them one by one. Creating a WP:RFC is also a possible approach. Cnbrb (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It is impossible to communicate with him. Wisdom-inc (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I see you have restarted the edit war. This will not achieve anything. Cnbrb (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The edit war was started by Ncnub. Ncnub writes illogical nonsense. Wisdom-inc (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Have you been to his talk page, user Ncnub? If not why not? Wisdom-inc (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

You need to read WP:CONSENSUS to learn how Wikipedia works, if you want to live up to your username. Cnbrb (talk) 08:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Calvert Infrastructure Maintenance Depot

If anybody fancies writing it, Calvert Infrastructure Maintenance Depot is a (cited) red link at Calvert railway station. Maybe it fails wp:CRYSTAL, given that the Daily Torygraph is still trying to get HS2 cancelled. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I doubt anyone is interested as the fate of HS2, in whole or part, is still in the balance due to the economy. It looks like it will be cut again. To what level we do not know. Many, like Lord Barkley, have insisted the project be dropped with sections in more advanced construction be merged into the existing network - HS2 track from London to Aylesbury may stay running onto an upgraded Chiltern Line to Birmingham. It looks like the very best it will be one line to Crewe from London with a branch to Birmingham only and the East Mids branch dropped.

We will know in the coming weeks. Wisdom-inc (talk) 11:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't matter whether it is built or not, there appears to be enough out there to write an article even if it gets cancelled. And I doubt anyone is interested in what Lord Barkley or the other "many" people you can't be bothered to name think. Your comment does not help us build the article and so I was well within the guidelines to remove it per WP:TALK (Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. If you want to discuss the subject of an article, you can do so at Wikipedia:Reference desk instead. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archiving or removal.). Garuda3 (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

The comment was why probably no one has taken up the offer. And that given that HS2 may change or be cancelled within the coming weeks, the article may change radically. HS2 may be no more. So no one is bothered just yet. Why should they be? It is senseless to write something that may be stripped away in few weeks time. Sharpen up!

I do see that you are a bit of a train spotter type obviously wanting HS2 to proceed, not wanting anything perceived as against it, hence the derogatory comment towards influential Lord Barkley, who wants HS2 to change. You are not the thought police. Wisdom-inc (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Article rating

Am aware of User:Qazwsx777 rating this as B in Dec 2021 but wondered if anyone wanted to change this? Not too familiar with criteria etc etc but know that a good deal of work, particularly on the lead, has happened in the last few months. Feedback to improve (imo it could feasibly go to GA Review at some point) would be helpful. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

The article is still poor. Dec 2021 is now a long time ago. The rolling stock section for example is outdated, needing updating, clarifying and trimming. HS2 has constantly changed since 2013, now being akin to a WCML relief line, rather than a high speed 'network', actually paralleling the WCML. So the article ends up with outdated and bloated text as it chopped and changed. NPR was to be extensive from the minimal effort offered in the Integration Plan, so the last PM said, which would of course impact HS2, as they share track, as new lines would be built into Liverpool. Then a few weeks later we are told that is no longer on the table. Now we are awaiting HMGs next imminent announcement, so it makes sense to leave the clunky article until HS2's fate is known. Wisdom-inc (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Disagree about leaving it "until HS2's fate is known". Conversely, now would be a good time to improve it using the sources which remain available. And do you have a reputable source for saying that there is an "imminent announcement"? If you think things are outdated, feel free to use the sources available to improve it and help build the encyclopaedia! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

"do you have a reputable source for saying that there is an "imminent announcement"?"

Have you been reading newspapers and watching TV? Spending cuts are to be announced by the new PM. Media speculation is that HS2 is one of them. How much? We shall see. Wisdom-inc (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed that there is easily enough here to write a GA-quality article, though I'm not familiar with that process. Garuda3 (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

There's certainly enough content and in enough detail in the article for it to be rated good, especially when comparing it to other GA rated rail articles like High Speed 1 but I'd agree the changing nature of the project means that the all the necessary sections need to be checked to make sure they are current. Qazwsx777 (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Interchanges

Article does not have a clear section on interchanges to other heavy rail networks/lines. At Euston and Manchester there are interchanges to the WCML. Old Oak Common has interchanges to the GWR, Elizabeth Line, Overground, etc. Wisdom-inc (talk) 12:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps a table with a summary of all stations, whether they are new or existing, and connections, could go in the "Planned stations" section. Feel free to start it Garuda3 (talk) 13:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

When we know the fate of HS2 in the coming weeks - maybe. If HS2 is still going ahead then worth including. Wisdom-inc (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Timeline

In the history section, it needs a factual timeline from the original proposal, with the removals from the project, to what is left of it now. Wisdom-inc (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Poor connectivity at HS2 stations

There is poor connectivity at many HS2 stations. HS2 at Euston will impose congestion on the station’s already overcrowded Underground services. Crossrail 2 will help solve it but this project is still only a concept. The mayor London, Khan has predicted that, without it, “thousands of passengers arriving at Euston on HS2 phase 2 could lose time saved on their journeys as they will have to queue to board onward [Tube] trains". Manchester and Birmingham are not served by mass transit trains at the HS2 stations. Old Oak Common is the best connected station, but lacks an London Underground connection.

This needs to be in the article. Wisdom-inc (talk) 09:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

If HS2 is severely cut in Nov 2022

If HS2 is cut to say only phase 1 with all other phases dropped. It may be worth keeping the article in an expanded form, for any service running on phase 1 (HS2) and then onto conventional track to other destinations. These destinations may include: Birmingham, B'ham Interchange, Crewe, Liverpool, Manchester, Edinburgh and Glasgow. Other destinations such as Penrith may be include if HS2 trains stop there. HS2 will be then where HS2 trains reach. Wisdom-inc (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Four phases

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

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

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

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

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

Euston station

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

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

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

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

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

Not a train buff article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fastest Journey Times

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

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

I feel both should be in the article, as it informs what the line is capable of and what is delivered. 2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Budget Estimates

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

I agree. The figures? From government sources though. That includes any dept, not just HS2 Ltd or DfT. The figure have to be reliable. 2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

HS2 goes ahead

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

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

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

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

As of Sept 2023 it looks like only phase 1 will survive, and only to Old Oak Common. Reported that Gvmt may put a 7 years delay on phase 2. We shall see. If phase 2 is cut then the article needs a major rewrite. Also mention that the trains have not yet been designed (they may be tilting for max speeds for WCML use), so times from OOC to say Manchester or Liverpool will have to be obtained, but for now that can only be speculative. 2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

HS1 to HS2 link

I do feel that the abandoned HS1 to HS2 link is a significant development in the overall project. I have reinstated some older references that refer to this early stage - I see no reason why they were excised, and it is better to have some record of this aspect of the project as a matter of historical interest. 20:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC) Cnbrb (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

You are right but wait for HS2 cuts announcement.

Article should be HS2, just ph. 1, as that looks like what will be left of it. But a section on the whole original Y and then resulting cuts in order. 152.37.73.175 (talk) 09:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Lead

I've just given the lead a fairly big edit to reduce both its overall length and the number of paragraphs (MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests no more than four). I'm opening this discussion to encourage further discussion, particularly as the Manchester leg is going to be officially cancelled any time now. Feel free to contribute! A.D.Hope (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. The lead section keeps growing to stupid lengths because everyone wants to spotlight their favourite bit. Any attempt to trim it has resulted in controversy, and then it bloats again. Cnbrb (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Wait until gvmt announcement on HS2 cuts. Do not jump the gun. Also the first point is the most southern point to the most northern. phase 1 (which may be all of HS2) is OOC to Handsacre. Curzon St will be branch. 152.37.73.175 (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I've undone your reversion of the lead, as the new version does not state that Manchester has been axed, which was the reason you gave for the reversion in your edit summary. We're waiting for the official announcement. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining your reversions here? Edit summaries aren't the best way of communicating. I don't understand why you think the shortened version of the lead pre-empts the government's impending announcement when it does not state that the Manchester branch has been cancelled. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I fear the IP isn't actually reading the edit. It was probably a good move to self rv given you're on 4RR and sort it out once the formal announcement is made - I see the BBC are now reporting it as a fait accompli for tomorrow. DeCausa (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

It's annoying, given the lead is being reverted over an issue which doesn't exist, but there's no deadline on these things. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Where does Phase 2 start?

There appears to be a disagreement to where Phase 2 starts, with User:2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 editing the page to state it starts from Handsacre, while the HS2 Phase 2a bill states "This will run between Fradley in the West Midlands and Crewe in Cheshire." and HS2's own site corroborates this.

We should stick to what the sources say, unless we can find sources that state Handsacre as the Ph2 starting point.

I'd note that Handsacre is the end point of HS2 Ph1 as that's where the link to the WCML is, but that doesn't mean it's the start of Phase 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davwheat (talk • contribs) 23:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

phase 2 (west) starts at Handsacre. All official documents state that. 152.37.73.175 (talk) 09:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Yet you provide no evidence or support for this? Davwheat (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

You're right; the main line becomes phase 2a around Fradley, and the Handsacre junction is actually a spur to join the WCML. To directly quote the HS2 website:

"The Phase One route enters Staffordshire in the Drayton Bassett area, before passing through a number of rural parishes including Hints, Weeford, Swinfen and Packington, and Whittington. It continues north, to the east of Lichfield, after which the main line of Phase One merges into Phase 2a in the Fradley area. A spur of the route continues north west to a junction at Handsacre, that will eventually connect the route to the existing west coast main line – enabling HS2 trains to stop at existing stations, including Stafford in future."

A.D.Hope (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME?

HS2 is obviously much reported in the RS at the moment and has for some time been in the media eye. Nowhere (virtually) is is it called "High Speed 2". Is there a reason why WP:COMMONNAME isn't being followed? I couldn't find any discussion on this in the archive but maybe I missed it as it seems such an obvious point. DeCausa (talk) 10:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Correct, Wait for the Gvmt announcement of the line's future. They may call it a different name. 2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

It really depends whether this is the primary topic or not. Having looked at the other entries in HS2 (disambiguation) I suspect it is, but we should give it proper thought. I also agree with @2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 that we may as well wait until the government (eventually) announce what's happening with the line. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

There's no other candidate for the name because HS2 is currently a redirect to this article, and has been continuously since 2007. We could be waiting forever for a government announcement - if, in the unlikely event that any government announcement impacts COMMONNAME we can change again. But per WP:CRYSTAL that doesn't affect the correct name now. DeCausa (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

It's common knowledge that a major government announcement is imminent. There's little point changing the name before that happens, I don't think. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

What connection is there with the name of this article? I don't see what bearing it has whether the Manchester leg is cancelled or not. Even if he announces it's now called the Super-duper Birmingham Line it wouldn't yet have any bearing on WP:COMMONNAME per WP:CRYSTAL. I guess we can leave it until Sunak makes his speech tomorrow but there's really no point leaving it longer than that. DeCausa (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

If Sunak announces that High Speed 2 is now called the Super-duper Birmingham Line it will make a difference, as official sources will begin using the new name immediately and the media are likely to follow suit. We'll have to take that into account.

The current proposal is to wait until the announcement has been made (whether that is tomorrow or later this week/month) to make sure it doesn't impact the name. Nobody has suggested waiting longer than that. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

We can pick this up tomorrow after he's made his speech. Waiting much past that, eg, till the end of the month is definitey a WP:CRYSTAL issue. There's no indication whatsoever that there's going to be anything about the name - that's highly improbable speculation. DeCausa (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think WP:CRYSTAL really applies here, as the guideline as about avoiding speculation in articles. This is just holding off on a name change discussion until after a pending announcement which may affect that discussion. Even then, I'd be tempted to hold off on a name change until the article has been updated to account for the announcement (assuming Manchester is cancelled). There's no rush. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

This is going in circles. WP:CRYSTAL is, of course, exactly on point. Updating the article has exactly zero bearing on the name. There's no policy reason given in this thread not to move this to the appropriate name per Policy now. Let's see what what Sunak says tomorrow. After then, if someone can come up with a policy reason not to move it...then fair enough. DeCausa (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Media is firm that HS2 will only be phase 1, awaiting firm statement from the prime minister. Miraculously many come into the article changing it. It is reverted awaiting the official statement for the cuts to HS2. They still keep changing it. Agendas appear to be at play here. 152.37.73.175 (talk) 08:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The case here is that specific unregistered users continually revert edits that make no change to the article's statement of what phases are going ahead or not, which themselves are then reverted, to which the unregistered users revert the revert, et cetera until it essentially results in edit warring. If you want to push your own agenda that essentially no edits can be made until the party conference statement is made, register, then do it. Davwheat (talk) 10:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The case is that the article miraculously receives a lot of changes when the media state that HS2 will be cut, awaiting government confirmation. Changing the article is pointless until the official announcement, then HS2s scope is known. Common sense eh yes? All this seems to indicate agendas at work. 152.37.73.175 (talk) 10:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The lead was too long and contained unnecessary details, so I shortened it while maintaining the description of the route as it currently stands, i.e. including the Manchester branch. When that branch is cancelled, as seems likely to happen later today, it will be a relatively simple job to update the lead text. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

IP 152.37.73.175: Recent edits have not been problematic and have not touched immediately on the forthcoming government announcement. There is no requirement for a content freeze. You are reminded to assume WP:GOODFAITH and not to make allegations against other editors of "agendas". Thank you. Cnbrb (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

WAIT UNTIL THE ANNOUNCEMENT. 152.37.73.175 (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@152.37.73.175: Please don't shout. Engaging caps lock will not make other editors obey you. This is a collaborative editing environment and you are expected to discuss points you disagree with rationally on the talk page. Cnbrb (talk) 10:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I never mentioned any specific editor. Many changes have been made. All very odd to have this deluge of needless edits - some of which are just plain poor. Many of which will have to be changed once an official announcement comes. 152.37.73.175 (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

In the news nomination

{{ITN note}}

It is too inaccurate to be news. It is also badly written. . . 2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 (talk) 12:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

All phase 2 cancelled

Just been on TV, Sunak said "I am cancelling the rest of the HS2 project". Only phase 1 is active. So all of phase 2 is binned. 152.37.73.175 (talk) 12:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes indeed - as speculated for a few weeks. Current reports are light in detail of course, but I'm sure more specifics will become apparent soon. Perhaps the most constructive thing for article editors to consider at this point is the structure of this article, and in particular the Route section. As the cancellation details become clear, there will be a lot of "abandoned plans" material. We might start thinking about something like this:

Route

• Phase 1: London to Birmingham
  • Branches and junctions
• Abandoned plans
  • Phase 2: Birmingham to Manchester and East Midlands Parkway
  • Phase 2a: West Midlands to Crewe
  • Phase 2b: Crewe to Manchester, western section
  • Phase 2b: West Midlands to Midland Main Line branch, eastern section
  • Abandoned HS1–HS2 link
• Other proposed phases
  • Liverpool
  • Scotland
  • Bristol and Cardiff

Planned stations

• London and Birmingham (Phase 1)
  • Central London
  • West London
  • Birmingham airport
  • Birmingham city centre
• Abandoned plans
  • Birmingham to Crewe (Phase 2a)
  • Manchester Airport (Phase 2b)

I think if we agree a sensible structure, then there may be scope later for spinning off some material into a "History of HS2" article as things become clear. Does that seem reasonable? Cnbrb (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I've just done a fairly rudimentary update to the 'Route' section, broadly following your suggestion above. My intention is that it will get things roughly in order for other editors to build on, rather than being the final form of the article — I'm sure plenty of updated information will emerge in the coming weeks and months. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Yup, that's the idea. Thanks for getting it in order and adjusting tenses etc. Cnbrb (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

What do we know yet of the junction with the WCML? Will HS2 still link at Crewe or is this being curtailed? Cnbrb (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

As I understand it everything except phase 1 has been cancelled, so HS2 will link to the WCML in Staffordshire rather than at Crewe. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 (talk) 12:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Very sensible. HS2 is a line, not a network, that parallels the WCML all of its route and partially the Chiltern Line. Describe the line and what services provided. Small history with a link to the big history, which could be most of this article.

.

.

2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Trains

HS2 trains have not yet been designed. No one knows what they can or cannot do. . 2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Euston in doubt

It appears that the line will only get to Euston if someone else pays for it. BBC News Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Must be mentioned. Certain OOC to Handsacre. OOC to Euston uncertain as it stands. 2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Currently I wouldn't even count OOC to Handsacre as certain. There is pressure from the right wing to cancel it completely. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

You are speculating. 2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

At the moment, so is everybody else. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Read as it stands above. 2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

As it stands has changed already and may change further when the actual reductions are enacted. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Your speculating does not matter, neither does mine. It is How it Stands - factual. That is easy to grasp.

2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 (talk) 16:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

We can only report the official declared position as being "how it stands". We can report (provided that we attribute properly) that there are other views but it would be very much WP:false balance to give them any significant credence. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

👍 2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 (talk) 10:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

As it stands

Important points...

As it stands:

1. phase 1 only serves: Birmingham, Birmingham Airport, Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, West London and maybe central London. Nowhere else (article states other destinations).
2. Six certain destinations, possible seven.
3. HS2 is one line (not a network).
4. phase 1 does not exist as it is now HS2.
5. Line is from Euston to the WCML at Handsacre with a branch to Birmingham.
6. The Old Oak Common to Euston section is not certain as it is subject to private funding which is not in place.
7. parts of the line are under construction.

All other points are Dead. Only worth noting in an historical section. . . 2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Er, no, Phase 1 will only serve Old Oak Common, Birmingham Airport and Birmingham. There was a major announcement yesterday that the Manchester route has been cancelled. Liverpool and Glasgow were never on any confirmed phases of HS2. Cnbrb (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

1. HS2 trains will serve Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow using a mix of HS2 and WCML track.

2. HS2 trains will serve London to Birmingham and Birmingham Interchange using new high speed HS2 track.

3. Line is OOC to Handsacre with Euston connection only possible with private funding, which is not yet in place, so Euston is maybe destination.

.

.2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

"Phase 1" refers to the line currently under construction between OOC and Birmingham, which is the core of this article as I understand it. The future possibility of HS trains serving further destinations is already discussed in the sections Connection to other lines and Proposed service pattern, so I don't see the problem. Cnbrb (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

As all phases are dead except one there are no phases, just one project which is going ahead.

The core of the article should be what it IS, not what it might be, or what someone wants it to be. It is OOC to Handsacre for certain. It might be extended to Euston. Euston is on the the schedule but with constraints. Euston is the only question mark.

.

. 2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The article should be what HS2 is, not what it might be. HS2 is a line, not a network. Cnbrb (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

HS2 is an inter-city line connecting:

1. A station in London, maybe two.
2. Two stations in Birmingham
3. Liverpool
4. Manchester
5. Glasgow.

That is it connecting FIVE cities.

. 2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 (talk) 14:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

No, HS2 is a line, not a network. I'm actually quoting you, 2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054. You've just described a potential future network. You're actually contradicting yourself. I'm not going to respond to any further replies as you are just going in circles and it's pointless discussing this. Cnbrb (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

You are the confused one circling.

1. HS2, the new track and project, is a line with one branch - clear.
2. HS2 the train service could be described as a network.

But this sort of network is still one line that consists of new and old track, with three branches.

You wrote "potential future network". You are speculating. You want to write how you think it might be, not how it is.

.2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

No, me telling you what you have just written is not me speculating. It reflecting on what you wrote. And your insistence that HS2 is a line that is going to Manchester and Glasgow is simply incorrect. Anyway, I said I wasn't going to reply to any more of this. Cnbrb (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Read what I wrote again. 2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 (talk) 10:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is just another case of "is it engineering infrastructure or is it a service" like we had at Crossrail v Elizabeth Line. So we need to assert firmly that HS2 is a project to construct a line between OOC to Birmingham, with an interchange with the WCML at Handsacre. That's it unless a HS line and terminus is built at Euston. What trains will run on it, whether they will transfer to WCML, or which TOC (if such will even exist by 2050) will run them where, when and how, is just speculation. It violates WP:CRYSTAL and is off topic because this article is about the civil engineering. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

"this article is about the civil engineering."

It is? Erm no! It is about HS2, in all its forms. 2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 (talk) 10:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Trains that don't exist yet are not HS2. Trains that might transfer from HS2 track to WCML track are not HS2. Train Operating Companies that might not even exist, let alone run the trains on HS2 are not HS2.

The only "form" that HS2 has is its tracks, embankments, cuttings, tunnels, viaducts, bridges, stations, haul roads – and the environmental impacts of construction. Anything else is not HS2, it is something else entirely. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

HS2 is the physical construction. It is also the trains running on the HS2 track, which may only run on HS2 tracks or a mix of HS2 and other tracks. The points are:

1. the HS2 infrastructure
2. any trains that run on or partially on HS2 track
3. where the trains go to and from.

2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

and if the article is cluttered with off-topic and incidental detail, it needs a good clear-cut. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

👍 2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Maps update

It's all been getting a bit confusing, but hopefully my update with new maps will assist readers and editors. The challenge is to illustrate what is actually going to get built and what would have been built, but without confusing the reader with too much detail. In summary

• Lead image - showing the line formerly known as Phase 1 only, as this is all that is happening now
• Map with historical phases 2014-23, for this history section, to illustrate all that has been planned and then abandoned.

I think I've got the detail right, but happy to discuss errors & omissions. Cnbrb (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Welcome. That is new track. But trains using the new track will also reach other cities on a mix of HS2 and WCML track - HS2 train services, using special HS2 trains. It would be best to have a red dotted line to Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow from Hansacre, showing HS2 services.

HS2 is not just the new track. 2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Illustrating further connections beyond HS2 was discussed previously, and I think the consensus was to show only new track in the lead image for simplicity. It could make sense, however, to have a separate map showing HS2 in the context of other lines for the "Connection to other lines" section. Cnbrb (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Having the WCML routes as the opening map shows the extent of HS2 services/trains. The big picture. Then it can be just the new track. 2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

If it is not HS2 track or related infrastructure, then it is not HS2. Period. Specifically, the WCML is not HS2. And there are no HS2 trains anyway, so see WP:CRYSTAL. (But to be clear, observe that there are no WCML trains, just trains that run on WCML and other lines. Same thing.) See also Crossrail v Elizabeth Line. You are still confusing services with lines. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

HS2 is the services HS2 trains provide. Wherever they go is the HS2 network. The name of the track is incidental. 2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:2418:2258:13A6:5A77 (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

So HS2 really does go to Manchester and Leeds and reports of their deletion from the programme are somewhat exaggerated. Right. Meanwhile in the real world away from Central Office, HS2 services to Manchester may run slower than normal trains ... ‘High-speed’ trains from Birmingham to Manchester could also impact west coast mainline service. i.e., the trains that don't exist yet will not be as fast as Pendolinos and thus not high speed. So somehow if we ever actually see services running to Manchester, they won't be called HS2, let alone High Speed. Either way WP:crystal applies, so your opinion is of no significance. Nor is mine, for the same reason.

Compare services running over HS1: they are called Eurostar or whatever, not HS1 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

NO! HS2 serves: London, Birmingham, Liverpool, Preston, Manchester and Glasgow.

Not Leeds, Newcastle, Sheffield, Edinburgh, etc.

That is clear.

This government doc (which was removed from article).

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/259487/NTS_for_web_ES_3.0.0.pdf

It states phase 1 serves Eight Stations:

1. London Euston (terminal).
2. London Old Oak Common (thru).
3. Birmingham Interchange (thru).
4. Birmingham Curzon Street (terminal).
5. Manchester Piccadilly (terminal).
6. Liverpool Lime Street (terminal).
7. Preston (thru).
8. Glasgow Central (terminal).

The above stations must be mentioned. 143.58.134.106 (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

You rambling opinions do not matter, only facts. 143.58.134.106 (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The document you cite here is 10 years old, and clearly describes these services as "The proposed HS2 network and connections to existing railways", and "Classic compatible services". It makes a very clear distinction between HS2 and other lines. It does not support your repeated assertion that Liverpool and Glasgow are on HS2, and no amount of arguing here will change the facts. Network services beyond Birmingham — Liverpool, Glasgow etc — are already mentioned in this article in the sections 3 Connection to other lines and 6.1 Proposed service pattern. Cnbrb (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

"The proposed HS2 network and connections to existing railways" It would be proposed as it is not built yet.

Nothing has changed in that 10 years relating to phase 1. please show a document that says otherwise.

The sections you point to in the article mentions phase 2 etc. They are mainly irrelevant as only phase 1 is being built. 143.58.134.106 (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

This HS2 doc is referenced.

https://www.hs2.org.uk/the-route/london-to-west-midlands/

It says:

London to West Midlands (Phase One)

"Phase One of HS2 will see a new high speed railway line constructed from London to the West Midlands, where it will re-join the existing West Coast Mainline. Services will travel onwards to places like Manchester, Glasgow, Liverpool, Preston and Wigan".

You have an odd idea of facts. I prefer real substantiated facts. I was wrong Wigan is served by HS2 as well. These are the only documents we have. Until other documents are issued, these stand. Guesswork is not valid. 143.58.134.106 (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

"...re-join the existing West Coast Mainline". Exactly, it's clearly a different line - the WCML is not HS2. The services may run off HS2 onto the WCML but this is already covered by this article, as you have been told several times. Your endless contradiction and keyboard warring will get you nowhere. Please stop arguing and antagonising. Cnbrb (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

HS2 is the services HS2 provide using their own dedicated trains built to their specification. In HS2 and government documents it mentions the locations served. Nine stations once phase 1 was completed. The trains may run on dedicated HS2 track or a mix of HS2 and WCML track. I never made any of this up.

You have been told this. It is not difficult to understand.

phase 1 is HS2 as all other phases are cancelled. Only factual documents relating to this phase matter. What you think HS2 should be does not matter. What HS2 IS matters.

143.58.134.106 (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the article is not going to be altered to suit the opinion of a single insistent IP editor. Current consensus among editors is that HS2 runs London-Birmingham. If you feel so strongly, you can raise an RFC, and maybe a different consensus will emerge. Endless contradiction is not an effective approach to content disputes. This thread has just become a tiresome, endless cycle of "Oh no it isn't"/"Oh yes it is", which contributes nothing to improving the article. For this reason I am now terminating this discussion with you and will not reply further.

As to my original question about maps, I shall infer satisfaction from other editors with my map graphics. Cnbrb (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I am only interested in FACT, not airy fairy notions of how they would like it be. Even when presented with fact you refuse to believe it. You need to have a good look at yourself. No wonder the article is a laughable shambles. 143.58.134.106 (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Intro needs tweaking

High Speed 2 (HS2) is a planned high-speed railway line and network of passenger train services in England.[3] The new railway line, which is currently under construction, will link the West Midlands and London, with a branch to Birmingham. The network of train services will use the new track and existing conventional track to reach destinations in the Midlands, North West England, and Scotland. HS2 will be Britain's second purpose-built high-speed line; the first being High Speed 1, which connects London to the Channel Tunnel. The majority of the project is planned to be completed between 2029 and 2033. A 2019 review of the project, as then planned, estimated that it would cost up to £87 billion, however, this is estimated to have risen to approximately £100 billion in 2023.[4][5]

The new track will run between London Euston railway station and Fradley in southern Staffordshire, with stations at Old Oak Common, in northwest London, and Birmingham Interchange, near Solihull. There will be a spur to a planned station in central Birmingham. A junction with the West Coast Main Line (WCML) at Handsacre, near Lichfield take s trains northbound. The rolling stock will run at a maximum speed of 360 km/h (225 mph) operating on both HS2 track and existing conventional track.

The length of the new railway line has been reduced substantially since it was announced in 2013. The line was originally planned to split into eastern and western branches north of Birmingham Interchange. The eastern branch would connect to the Midland Main Line, East Coast Main Line at York, with a branch to a terminus in Leeds. The western branch would connect to the West Coast Main Line south of Wigan with branch to a terminus in Manchester. In November 2021 the eastern branch was truncated to East Midlands Parkway railway station, south of Nottingham, and in June 2022 the link between the western branch and the West Coast Main Line south of Wigan was cancelled. In October 2023 the western branch and the remainder of the eastern branch were cancelled.[6]

The project has both supporters and opponents. Supporters of HS2 believe that the additional capacity and reliability provided will accommodate passenger numbers rising to pre-COVID-19 levels while driving a further modal shift to rail. Opponents believe that the project is neither environmentally nor financially sustainable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.37.76.153 (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Partially done – the network will run to Sheffield and Leeds, which are Yorkshire and the Humber, so 'Northern England' is the best term to use. Substituted for 'the first being' for 'after'. Have not changed first part of third paragraph, the added details are in the article body. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

No! The HS2 network will not run to Sheffield and Leeds. It stops at Birmingham. Services are planned to run on HS2 and then onward on WCML to Sheffield and Leeds but that is something else entirely. To say otherwise is almost exactly analogous to a claim that the HS1 network runs to Marseilles – "almost" only because LStP to MStC is high-speed track all the way whereas LStP to LDS is not. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I see the current text reads "the network of train services" so I have stricken my objection (but not reverted, it'll come up again I'm sure). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I've tried to clearly differentiate between the physical line and the wider network of services in the lead. We should definitely avoid referring to the new track alone as a 'network', to avoid confusion. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The HS2 network consists of new HS2 track and existing WCML track.

Most of the article needs cutting out then merged into a HS2 history article. 143.58.134.50 (talk) 09:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The HS2 Network does not run to Leeds or Sheffield. The ECML and MML serve those cities, as I am aware. What links do you have? 143.58.134.50 (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The network will run to Glasgow, Edinburgh, Liverpool, Manchester, Macclesfield, Leeds (via Sheffield), and Nottingham. The services will use HS2 between London and the West Midlands and then switch to conventional track for the rest of their journeys. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The HS2 Network does not run to Leeds or Sheffield as all of phase 2 is cancelled. There will be no branch to the east from the London to Handsacre HS2 line. There are only three end points to the new phase 1 HS2 track: London, Handsacre and Birmingham Curzon St. None of those points take HS2 trains to Sheffield or Leeds. That link is showing phase 2, which is not relevant to phase 1, which is now HS2 in its entirety. Phase 1 documents show no Leeds or Sheffield services. HS2 now is clearly London to West Mids, North West and Scotland services.

The integrated Rail Plan clearly shows where Sheffield and Leeds are served from, from London, which not by HS2. The plans states:

We will complete the electrification of the Midland Main Line, allowing high speed journeys from London to Chesterfield and Sheffield in the same times to those originally proposed by HS2

taking forward an ambitious package of further investment on the East Coast Main Line (ECML) from London to Leeds and the North East

We are therefore taking forward a substantial package of investment for the East Coast Main Line between London and Leeds and the North East

Completion of upgrades on the East Coast Main Line from London to the North East and Leeds.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62389f1ae90e07799cd3de47/integrated-rail-plan-for-the-north-and-midlands-web-version.pdf 143.58.134.50 (talk) 23:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

143.58.134.50, you misread it same as I did. The text says that a "service network" will run on over WCML to Leeds etc. It's a meaningless marketing term to hand-wave over HMG's incompetence. Actual HS2 will be a point-to-point line between London and Birmingham, not a network. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

HS2 is a network using dedicate HS2 trains specific to HS2 requirements to HS2 destinations. All services will run on HS2 track and some on a mix of HS2 and WCML track. No HS2 service runs only on non-HS2 track. HS2 services have to run on HS2 track even if running on other track. Got it?

HS2 is not a point to point line. HS2 documents state the destinations of phase 1, which morphed into being only HS2. If it was point to point only London and Birmingham destinations would be mentioned. This is not the case. This has previously been explained to you. 143.58.134.50 (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

and as has already been explained to you, HS2 (like HS1 and WCML) is a track infrastructure. Your wish to redefine it has not been accepted and the discussion has been closed. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

You have problems reading HS2 documents which state destinations their HS2 trains reach not on the new track. You obviously cannot understand something so simple. Please desist in editing the article. 143.58.134.50 (talk) 09:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The Integrated Rail Plan document cited above dates from November 2021. The announcement that HS2 Phase 2 would be cancelled happened in October 2023. The document is therefore out of date. It may be some months before a revised outline of HS2 plans becomes available and until then, the planned connections and services via MML, ECML and WCML are not clear. All this article can do at present is focus on what is known about the London-Birmingham line now, and describe what has been planned in the past. When revised plans are clear, the article can be updated in the "Connections to other lines" section. Cnbrb (talk) 11:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The latest edit the intro has some good points, but it is problematic. It contradicts itself by initially stating that HS2 is a network, and then going on to describe the construction of a new line. This will confuse the reader and contradicts much of the main article. It needs to be clear that this is a construction project of a new line which will enable future new HS services. Cnbrb (talk) 11:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I've undone that edit. It confusingly conflates the new track and the service network and presumes that the planned services to Nottingham, Sheffield, and Leeds have been scrapped. As you note above, a lot of information is yet to be updated after the cancellation of phase 2 and so the article and lead will be vague in parts — this includes describing the destinations of the HS2 passenger services as being in the Midlands, Northern England, and Scotland rather than by city or smaller region. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

We must be very careful to avoid WP:CRYSTAL violations, especially in Wikivoice. As the Leeds then Manchester leg cancellations have shown, we must not accept at face value anything (let alone everything) this government says. So any predictions must state clearly who it is that says so. We also need to avoid being sucked into marketing hype: we don't for example say that WCML serves Stansted and Plymouth, just because CrossCountry trains serving those locations transit WCML infrastructure to do so. So services that transit HS2 infrastructure are Avanti services, GrandCentral services or the services of whatever franchise TOC [if any] exists at the time, not HS2 services; right now, we have no idea nor does anyone else so to pretend otherwise is a WP:CRYSTAL violation at the very least. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a difference — the WCML is just a line, but HS2 is a line and a network of services. You will be able to take an HS2 service from Glasgow to London, but only part of the journey will be on the HS2 line. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

No, that is just marketing hype. It may well be branded initially as Avanti-HS2 but the line from Glasgow to Birmingham is still WCML, not HS2.

So you will (probably) be able to take a train from Glasgow to London that will run on WCML then HS2. The train itself will be Shinkasen-type rather than Pendolino, so it will be slower as far as Birmingham interchange then faster. Overall journey time may be much the same as Pendolino on WCML all the way, when HS2 capacity reduces the congestion on WCML between Coventry and London. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

That Glasgow-London journey will be an HS2 service, based on the information we currently have. We can’t just write it off as marketing spin, that’s not the role of Wikipedia. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

No, but we can make clear who is making these claims. We certainly can't give them any credence by reporting them at face value in Wikivoice. I agree that equally we can't describe them as marketing spin before a WP:RS calls them out on it. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we give them credence? HS2 Ltd and gov.uk are reliable sources for what's happening with the railway, even if we don't agree with it. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

You really should take note of A.D Hope. 137.220.85.218 (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

You are the one speculating. 137.220.85.218 (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope:, within Wikipedia policy, WP:PRIMARY says in essence that primary sources may only be used to support easily verifiable facts: it is verifiable that HMG says so, that's all. Outwith the policy (a clever Scots phrase), the Government have shown themselves to be consistently unreliable on HS2 and not to be trusted. An article in today's FT (subscription required but accessible via news.google.com with "Rishi Sunak’s rail plan is policy as performance art") has the wonderful gem

Ministers then confirmed that a £100mn study aimed at determining how to get high-speed trains to Leeds in the future – this was only promised in the first place as consolation for cutting the city out of HS2 two years ago – was also being cancelled. Local leaders had only received the terms of reference for that study a few weeks earlier.
...
By this week, Sunak said some of the projects he had announced were merely ”illustrative”. Mere transport vibes, if you will. A gobsmacked local government contact objected to the constant improvisation: “I love jazz, but not in a policy development sense.” 
Meanwhile, although the government insists it is committed to everything not now deemed “illustrative”, each proposed investment still needs to be signed off “on a case-by-case basis”, according to the DfT, which is hard to reconcile with a definite outcome.

— Financial Times, 14/10/23

which (a) puts in doubt (at least) our statement that TGV-style trains will call at Leeds and (b) has the DfT acknowledging unambiguously that Government pronouncements are not reliable. So we must not report them without attribution and (where possible) balancing assessments by actual RSs. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The article does not, to my knowledge, use government 'pronouncements' as sources. It does use information from the HS2 website and gov.uk, both of which are reliable. The main issue at the moment is that the situation has changed and we're waiting for reliable sources to catch up, not that the primary sources are unreliable. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

HMG cancelled all HS2 except what was under construction. Only phase 1 is under construction. Only documents relating to phase 1 matter as that is now HS2. All the rest does not matter and is now history.

HS2 phase 1 serves: London, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Wigan, Preston and Glasgow using a mix of new HS2 track and WCML track. Until otherwise announced, that is the case.

I cannot see why some cannot understand something so simple. 2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

This website has not yet been updated to reflect the decisions announced by the Prime Minister on Wednesday 4 October. Any enquiries should be directed to the Department for Transport.

https://www.hs2.org.uk/why/connectivity/

HS2s web sites and documents have not been updated yet to reflex Sunak's clear announcement. 2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 (talk) 11:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope: Yes, in principle, but health warnings apply. HS2.org.uk statements are credible (insofar as they have any idea what is going on either!) but the government increasingly is using gov.uk for political pronouncements so care is needed. I would tend to err on the side of caution and give overt attribution where there is any doubt.

More practically, I propose we open the article with a hat note that says that the status of the project is in flux in the light of recent abandonment of the Manchester leg and doubt over the Euston terminus, consequently the article may not reflect accurately its current status until HS2 Ltd is able to announce revised plans. Thoughts? Open a new topic for discussion? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I do see where you're coming from, but I don't think the article has an issue with weeding out the spin from gov.uk material. It's nothing new — if you look at some of the announcements from when HS2 was originally announced they're full of puffery, but that hasn't been carried into the article.

We could insert a hatnote, but maybe more general wording would be better: 'This project has recently been significantly altered, and the article may not reflect the latest information'? A.D.Hope (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

JMF there is no spin. It is clear only phase 1 is left of the HS2 project. 2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

What's happening with Euston? Will the link to phase 2 at Fradley still be built? Which destinations will the trains using the line serve? We don't have good answers to these questions yet, it's not just a case of taking phase 1 as it stood last month. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

It was clear from HMG that phase 1 only remains of HS2, with a proviso that Euston requires private money to complete. Euston is still in the project. 2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Phase 1 as originally planned didn't rely on external investment to complete Euston, so do you see how we can't take phase 1 plans from before the Conservative Conference at face value? A.D.Hope (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The HS2 project is NOT in flux. Sunak's announcement was very clear. You are very confused on HS2. please do not contribute to the article. 2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 (talk) 11:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

This is really not helpful, please don't tell JMF not to contribute. The project as a whole is in a state of flux, a lot of things needs to be changed and updated after the Prime Minister's announcement and we may not have all the details for some time. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

HS2 IS NOT in a state of flux. It is clear only phase 1 is left of the project. Also Leeds is not being served. How anyhow can conclude Leeds is when Leeds was omitted 2 years ago I do not know.

I suggest the pair of you to keep away from the article as you are both confused. 2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 (talk) 12:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Where have you got Leeds from? The updated parts of the article don't say that it will be directly served by HS2, unless I've missed something. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The parts put in by you about Leeds were removed by me.

Once again...

HS2 is now just phase 1. That is firm and clear via Sunak. We are awaiting HS2 to update their web site to reflect this, which they say is coming. I cut & pasted their comments.

This website has not yet been updated to reflect the decisions announced by the Prime Minister on Wednesday 4 October. Any enquiries should be directed to the Department for Transport.

https://www.hs2.org.uk/why/connectivity/

2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Which parts about Leeds? When I updated the lead to include the passenger service network I only mentioned 'Northern England', and it's stayed that way since. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Quite so, A.D. Hope, there is much that remains uncertain. And yes, I agree that the WP:UNCIVIL IP comments are not acceptable. I suggest ignoring the WP:BLUDGEONing from the anonymous IP address and try to focus only on the article issues. It's difficult, I know, but it's just a distraction. Cnbrb (talk) 12:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

What is uncertain? It is clear only phase 1 remains. That is certain. Very clear. You may not like that as you are train enthusiast or whatever, but that is hard fact.

I also advise you to keep away from article until you know the framework of what HS2 is. 2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 (talk) 12:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

You are trying to intimidate. Stating and reminding those who are wayward of hard fact is WP:BLUDGEONing? My oh my!

It is like I am conversing with those who insist the earth is flat. 2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 (talk) 12:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

None of us are disputing that only phase 1 remains, but the details of what exactly that means are uncertain. It's reasonable to assume that the cancellation of the rest of the project will lead to the original phase 1 plans being amended. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Go by FACT!

Yes only phase 1 is left. That is a start. We know what that is as it is documented. Anything outside the framework of phase 1 is speculation and should not be entertained. Stick to the facts, not speculation of what you, or anyone else might think will happen.

HS2 phase 2 is dead, clearly dead. 2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we all agree that phase 2 is dead and that only phase 1 is left. What we do not know is what that means in detail, because much of the HS2 documentation — including that relating to phase 1 — is now out of date. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Not out of date. phase 1 plans are still phase 1. Until they are superseded, which they have not been, they remain valid. 2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

That's just not an assumption we can make, because the project is interconnected. The disclaimer about the HS2 website being out of date applies to every page, for example, including the those related to phase one. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The FT article clearly states that phase 1 of HS2 is cancelled. The article is mainly about the the outline of projects for the North of England, not adding anything of substance for this article. 2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Cancellation document

https://beleben.files.wordpress.com/2023/10/rail-gb-dft-accounting-officer-assessment-of-decision-to-complete-phase-1-of-hs2-letter-from-dft-permanent-secretary-to-public-accounts-commitee-04oct2023-1.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.58.134.117 (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

HS2 is a Network

To conform that HS2 is a network not a single line. Cut & pasted from a government document

High Speed Two (HS2) Limited is the company responsible for developing and promoting the UK’s new high speed rail network.

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/high-speed-two-limited — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

A week ago, this IP editor told us (I quote) "HS2 is a line, not a network". Which must we believe? Cnbrb (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, tbf, when that page was written, it had branches to Manchester and Leeds, it was a network. Now, it is what mathematicians would call a trivial network since it has zero nodes. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

And their linked "About us" page announces proudly that

As a high-performing, innovative organisation, we will deliver value for money. We will do this by applying the best in worldwide design and construction techniques. We will keep a tight grip on costs. We are determined to deliver HS2 on time and on budget. We will achieve new standards in infrastructure delivery, operational resilience and passenger experience.

Yes, new standards certainly. But not in a good way. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Believe the document. It is easier that way. 143.58.134.117 (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Showing cancelled segments in map

I personally think the cancelled segments should be shown on the map in a reduced prominence to show readers where the project was intended to go and what its route would have looked like. Curious as to what other editors think. IntUnderflow (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - yes I was trying to get a view on this on the previous discussion section above, but it went off at a considerable tangent. So my thinking was to have:

• File:High Speed 2 map 2023.png as the lead image, showing only the current London-Birmingham scheme as of October 2023; I thought perhaps that showing the cancelled phases in the lead might be confusing;
• File:High Speed 2 phases map 2023.png in the History section, showing all the abandoned phases as a matter of historical information.

Depending on what other editors think, I could re-introduce the abandoned phases into the lead image as, say, grey lines, so they don't look too prominent. I have a preference not to do that, but let's see what consensus develops as regards the lead image. Cnbrb (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

IMO, the current arrangement is the correct one. The infobox image shows what will (probably) exist, at least it is under construction; the #History section has a graphic that shows the whole thing. (And it would need to be there anyway, since it illustrates the text.) You could have the cancelled sections in the infobox image greyed-out (or in washed-out colours, {{routemap}} style) but to my eye it is just clutter. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with JMF - the history section is the appropriate place for an image of the cancelled segments, and this is already present. ResonantDis_tortion 14:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this arrangement as well. The lead also has a full paragraph dedicated to the original plans, so readers do have that information handy. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Will run between?

The lead currently says ... run between the West Midlands and London, with a branch to Birmingham. Would it not now be more accurate to write ... run between Birmingham and London?

Or perhaps ... run between Birmingham and London, with a branch to interconnect with the West Coast Main Line near Lichfield

Comments? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense to me. In the context of the recent cancellation of Phase 2, the HS2 line destination would be better described as Birmingham, with a branch to the WCML enabling wider HS services - assuming that doesn't get canned as well! Cnbrb (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The line to Birmingham is officially a spur, as the long title of the 'High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Act 2017' explains:

An Act to make provision for a railway between Euston in London and a junction with the West Coast Main Line at Handsacre in Staffordshire, with a spur [...] from Water Orton in Warwickshire to Curzon Street in Birmingham; and for connected purposes.

So, although it would make sense to describe the railway as running between London and Birmingham, it technically runs between London and Handsacre with a spur to Curzon Street. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, so it is a legal definition, so we may have to go with that for the present, even thought it dates from 2017. Let's see if HS2 official publicity changes its description in future. Cnbrb (talk) 08:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Annoying, but I guess we have to wait for RSs to state the obvious. But even then, no doubt, unless the Act is amended (unlikely), we will have to acknowledge it in at least a footnote. Kick into long grass for now. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The new track of the network must be described by its most southerly point and its most northerly. That is Euston to Handsacre. Birmingham is not the most northerly. 2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:A835:8A3C:26B9:2BDF (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

"Will" v. "is to"

I boldly changed multiple instances of "will" to "is to", since we can only give the intent of the current plan. On past performance, we can have very little confidence that these plans will be realised. This bold edit has been reverted, so time for a WP:BRD discusssion.

Let me start with a particularly egregious example: The new track will run between London Euston and a junction with the West Coast Main Line at Handsacre in southern Staffordshire. As Andy Lord, Transport for London's commissioner, puts it succinctly: "I can't really see a scenario where the private sector is going to pay for the tunnelling from Old Oak Common to Euston". So for Wikipedia to say that the track "will run [from] Euston" is worse than WP:CRYSTAL, it is contrary to the consensus of expert opinion since Lord is far from the only one to be sceptical of this Cunning Plan.

Of course it would be easy to dodge this specific example by changing the text to say Old Oak Common, but it leaves the basic point that the plans for HS2 have been changed repeatedly. We cannot rely on Government statements as having any connection with reality. We can't even rely on the fact that works are in progress, as the present wasteland around Euston demonstrates. The form "is to" recognises the plan exists but does not use wp:wikivoice to give it credence before it actually happens. What have I missed? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Correct. This project is too fluid. Nothing is certain unless it is in place.

Must NOT speculate as you appear to be doing in some cases. As it stands Euston is still on HS2 - until it definitely is not. Of course it must be mentioned that funding is not via HS2 Ltd.

140.228.51.5 (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

When the Government announces that it is no longer funding Euston, then it is no longer in any plan. It is not planned. No speculation involved. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Well it does seem that HMG is in its usual cakeism mode and continues to pretend that the tunnel and station will be built but the private sector will splash the cash.. So I have reverted my edit that scrubbed Euston pending wider recognition of the inevitable. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

References

WCML connections

Can we clarify - this edit has added statement that the connection of HS2 to the WCML at Handsacre (north of Birmingham ) "is the only connection between the new and existing track". Is this definitely the case? Has the Lichfield connection definitely been cancelled too? Just asking so that the article is accurate, and I don't have the information to confirm either way. Thanks. Cnbrb (talk) 11:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

All documents on phase one, and the recent cancellation of phase 2 have only one WCML junction at Handsacre north of Lichfield. In effect, the HS2 network is one line from London to Glasgow with new track from from London to Handsacre, then existing WCML track north of Handsacre. One branch on the HS2 track to Birmingham and two branches to Liverpool and Manchester on the WCML. 140.228.51.5 (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, "near Lichfield" is the more recognisable nickname for Handsacre Junction.

No, HS2 ends at Handsacre, where it joins the WCML between Euston and Glasgow. Different line, the clue is in the name.--𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

HS2 ends at Glasgow. All HS2 documentation says so. please understand this. please do not edit the article. 143.58.134.89 (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

OK thank you. I think the way the way the article is phrased, it seems to suggest Handsacre and "near Lichfield" are different locations, so perhaps this could be tweaked, but thanks for the clarification JMF. Cnbrb (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Handasacre can be phrased all thru as near Lichfield to clarify and ensure people know that Handsacre is near a well known town to identify the most northern point of the new HS2 track. 143.58.134.89 (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and pov by editor JMF

This editor does not understand that the furthest point of HS2 Ltd services are Glasgow. He also removed references to Euston station insisting the station is not on the HS2 plan, which it is. He is unable to understand funding with a plan to build. I suggest he is given a short ban. 143.58.134.89 (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Handsacre, Fradley or somewhere else? Which is it?

Do we have a reliable source that says with any precision where the HS2–WCML junction is to be, following cancellation of phase 2 etc? Presumably the topology will be completely changed since HS2 is not continuing on towards Manchester. Right now, we have a mix of both names. The section headed High Speed 2#London to Handsacre and Birmingham says Fradley throughout. The actual location could be somewhere else entirely.

If we don't know with any confidence, then maybe we should say "near Lichfield" until we get a reliable update? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC) revised --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• This reports the Transport Secretary saying Handsacre, so are there any objections to me removing the references to Fradley from the article? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

No objections here - it's more helpful to the reader if it's consistent. I got confused earlier myself about the "near Lichfield" description. Cnbrb (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done (Part of the confusion is that Fradley was the original dividing junction of HS2 "near Lichfield" and now Handsacre is the HS2/WCML junction, also "near Lichfield". I have added an explanation to that effect.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

This was all discussed in talk point 5, where we showed every official HS2 source said Handsacre was where the the WCML link is, with Fradley being where Ph2a would have joined Ph1. Davwheat (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)