Talk:High Speed UK (Advocacy Group)

Learn more about this page

Trains: in UK Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).

More information:
/
	This article lacks references.
	It is requested that an a map be included in this article to improve its quality. Please work with the Maps task force to create and add a map to this article.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Woodhead Tunnel

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

According to the Woodhead Tunnel article: "The Victorian tunnels, rebored to a Channel-tunnel diameter, are the main east–west route of the High Speed UK alternative proposals to HS2/3". I don't see this in the HighSpeed UK article. Roberttherambler (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Found it and added ref.[1] Roberttherambler (talk) 23:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

NPOV and lack of citations made

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article after RailwayEngineer1958's edit sounds more like a manifesto rather than a statement of the plan and the claimed benefits if it was used. There are very litle citations used and it seems that he is just basing it off his personal opinion. As a result, I am reverting the edits due to a lack of neutral point of view and a lack of citations made by RailwayEngineer1958. Stoyfan (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Add topic