Talk:High Speed 2/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Time for a page of its own

I did this because it feel its about time the High speed 2 deserves its own page as it was taking up quite a lot of room on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_the_United_Kingdom#High_Speed_1_.28HS1.29 article. Construction is soon to happen and we already have enough content to fill out a page, obviously I would be grateful if people contributed to making this page quite filled out, formal and educational. (unsigned comment by User:Jayflux 9 September 2009).

Subject to all the proceeding consultative, legislative engineering and contractual matters etc etc construction is not anticipated before 2018 so what content are you talking about?Tmol42 (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This is an old comment from 9th Sept 09 when this article was first created.PeterEastern (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Another Option

In terms of journey times, a High Speed line from Birmingham to London covering approximately 100 miles would only reduce journey times by 15 minutes, however a High Speed line from Manchester to Birmingham covering 75 miles would reduce journey times to London by approximately an hour. A high speed line between Manchester and Birmingham utilising existing track connecting Birmingham to London on the West Coast Main Line / Trent Valley would provide a quicker service to London for more people, including the populations of Manchester, Liverpool, and Leeds. This would therefore be a more feasible priority. However, in order to operate at high speeds, the appropriate rolling stock needs to be utilised. The Eurostar is the quickest option, and is unable to operate on existing track between Birmingham and London. One option could be to build additional track roughly parallel to the existing West Coast Mail Line / Trent Valley, or utilise the track currently used by Pendolino's in the Trent Valley specifically for High Speed trains including Eurostar. --Minotaur500 (talk) 13:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, this article is documenting the government's plans and any related notable comments, responses rather than our own point of view on what would be appropriate.PeterEastern (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Scope of article - scheme promoted by HS2 Ltd only?

I have done quite a lot of work on the article today and am considering what the scope for the article should be. I propose that it should be specific to the proposal being promoted by High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd. Other proposals (such as Network Rail's one) should be mentioned briefly but should not be covered in detail here - detailed content should either be developed within the High-speed rail in the United Kingdom article or in a separate article. Any thoughts? PeterEastern (talk) 12:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Great work on the article although I still think we should split the 'proposed route' section up a bit like before. Its a big section, let me know what you thinkJayflux (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I am not sure what you mean by 'like before' though, I have separated out the discussion about the route from the history of the project and other aspects to avoid a big mush of content. I have been wondering about how to improve the proposed route section which is indeed a bit long but don't have any great ideas. Possibly you would like to have a go? Do lets limit the history section to a brief chronology of the progress of the project itself rather than as a place for a lot of detail about route options. I do think we are going to need a section where the various arguments can be 'aired' - certainly we need a place for a discussion about the pros and cons of linking to Scotland. Also we will need to cover the very poor carbon performance of the proposed network to the midlands - personally there seems little point in replacing flying with something which is just as damaging and which is more expensive! PeterEastern (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have just made some changes to the route section by creating a new section for stations - each one will probably deserve its own section in time - and moving relevant content in these sections. I have also created a section for brief stubs about other proposals (such as the Atkins study and RailTrack proposal) and moved some content there. PeterEastern (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

route

High Speed Two Proposal
Leeds Manchester Sheffield East Midlands Birmingham London

The proposed route is still very much a matter of discussion. The best information seems to be for a 'Y' shaped route to Birmingham with spurs to Manchester and Leeds and then conventional rail to Scotland however the diagram shows a diamond shape with a route across the peaks! It also shows a station for Sheffield although I can find no evidence for that. Can someone edit the route diagram to get it to match the text or find citations to justify the diagram and adjust the text? A second question, how should we show the onward services to Scotland on conventional speed lines? PeterEastern (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• For the above reason the route diagram has been removed. I am placing it in this section for safe keeping! PeterEastern (talk) 09:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks peter, I agree the route is still under discussion and is best taking off the article. We wont know about the spur lines until march so no one can say for sure what will be happening. Until then any news i see I will add to the relevant placesJayflux (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't want Germany - Leeds/Newcastle/Edinburgh train to take this route. 121.102.47.39 (talk) 10:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Then you can sleep soundly; because there will not be any trains from Germany to destinations beyond London for a very long time.

bobrayner (talk) 11:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but: What you want is off topic. What I want is off topic. This is not a railroad new group or forum. We need to describe what is really happening.--Bk1 168 (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Where is the talk of a y-shaped route to Birmingham? Reports seem to be saying that it will have a fairly simply route from London to Birmingham, and then two spurs from Birmingham heading north east and north west. IE, the Y shape is the whole thing, with Birmingham as the point where the one line becomes two forks. Hobson (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Wiki map

I have created a 'wiki map' of the route using UMapper. The route is a quick attempt to interpret the details given in the summary document. Please feel free to refine the map which can then be exported as KML and the resulting map is available CCBYSA. PeterEastern (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

On brief reflection possibly UMapper should be a source of the KML version but someone should do an SVG version for the article itself which allows more people to edit it without using proprietary tools. PeterEastern (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I have updated the map using a new clearer basemap but it would still be good to have a more informative map showing tunnelled sections, the route of high speed 1 and the optional routes further north as well as the location of stations for HS2. Btw, the documentation seems to be inconsistent about whether the Leeds spur is part of the 'core network' or not. PeterEastern (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The 'command paper' shows the 'ES-1 diagram core route diagram' showing the core route is London-Liverpool but not to Leeds; however figure 4.6 of refers to the route as a 'Y' but then only shows the Liverpool fork of the Y; figures 4.1 to 4.4 do show the Y with the Leeds spur as core; the 'Leaflet' only shows the detailed route London-B'ham. I guess we need to read this stuff properly, however there is a question about how to show the route to Leeds is a detailed route has not be published. I will mark the map on the article as 'London-Birmingham' route. PeterEastern (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The map wiki is not working well. I have updated it twice and lost my work, possibly because someone else had it in edit mode at the same time? I have also had to remove some graffiti from it once - I guess it has not got safeguards about two people editing at the same time. Also, UMapper doesn't seem to have a change history and revert which is a big problem for administration. Possibly it will have to be locked it down soon. PeterEastern (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, so I have fixed the problem of the map getting trashed - I had created a link to the 'edit' view of the map rather than the normal view in the External Links section so it was inevitable that people would change the map when they had looked at it. Unfortunately there is no history view, no roll back, no transaction locking and no way to take a copy of the current content in UMapper at present. As such I suggest that we now lock the map down to a list of trusted editors. Would anyone like to be on that list? If so please add you name below here and I will add them to the map when I lock it down in about 24 hours. Thinking about it I will need people's UMapper user name which may or may not be the same as their Wikipedia user name. Please add your UMapper user name below here and I will add you:PeterEastern (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• PeterEastern (talk)
• ... more?

Northern trains take a strange route

The article replete with detail says that HS2 would take the Greenford Branch Line. That seems to reflect either unintelligent planning or careless editing. This map (said to locate the proposed route to within five metres at some points) has it running up the New North Main Line.--SilasW (talk) 10:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Fazeley Street/Curzon Street

Despite what Lord Adonis said and all of the newspapers faithfully parroted, he report actually explicitly dismisses the idea of using the Curzon Street site. The actual station is referred to as "Fazeley Street" in the report and, whilst adjoining the old Curzon Street site, will not occupy the same space as the former station. This needs to be made clearer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.116.196 (talk) 10:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

We should use Curzon Street

Firstly note that the actual roads Fazely Street and Curzon Street are extremely close.

HS2 considered separate station sites at Curzon Street and Fazely Street, slightly different but overlapping/adjacent. Their final preferred site was the one they termed Fazeley Street.

The govt in their command paper adopted the hs2 preferred site for the station, but called it Curzon Street.

Note that the command paper post dates and is a response to the high speed 2 report. Therefore Curzon St is the more up to date name. Also it has been referred to as curzon street in the press. For example see:

http://www.birminghampost.net/news/west-midlands-transport-news/2010/03/11/birmingham-s-eastside-plans-must-change-to-accommodate-high-speed-rail-65233-26014785/

And by MPs debating in the house of commons:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100311/debtext/100311-0009.htm

I don't think I've seen any reference to it in the media as Fazely Street. Therefore I think Curzon St is the name in general use and likely to stick. We should refer to the station as Curzon St, while noting the alternative name of Fazeley St.

I altered the article in accordance with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.90.64 (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Bad references to DFT source

The article has multiple references like this <ref>[[#Dft2009a|Department for Transport (2009a)]], pages 16 paragraphs 37</ref> First and most important, these lead nowhere. There is no section entitled Dft2009a.
If whoever did this had in mind multiple references, then see the ref name="shortname" style. But if every reference should be unique (which seems likely, as they are to different pages), then they should use the conventional reference style.
This is an embarrassing faux-pas in a very topical article and needs to be repaired ASAP. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

These refs work fine for me. Adambro (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're already at the bottom of the page, the browser can't scroll you any closer! (Experiment with making your browser window one line of text high, clicking, and seeing if you get a different result). —Sladen (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree that it takes you to the bottom of the page. But it doesn't take you away to the reference article, which is what it should do and which is what happens in every other article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see that WP:CITESHORT approves of this way of doing things, and that someone has just brought the article into compliance with it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, the citation format used for some references in this article is CITESHORT which seems to be the appropriate way to do it when there are many references into the same source documents however we had not implemented it quite right and I have now added a 'Notes' section heading as per guidance. I am still not clear if one should mix the two formatting systems in the same article and the examples given are note very clear on this. PeterEastern (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Old Oak Common: link to Heathrow and Plymouth

If I've read the DfT paper correctly through all the hand waving, I think that the link to Heathrow and the Great Western line is at Old Oak Common and not after it, as shown in the schematic. Could someone else check? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The diagram[1] shows the proposed interchange station at Old Oak Common with the Great Western Main Line (with trains towards Paddington railway station in one direction and trains towards Heathrow Central railway station and the West Country in the other. Could you be more detailed about what you believe to be incorrect (the relevant PDF is [2]). —Sladen (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It's ok, I misread the schematic. The text refers to the conventional line shown on the other side of the high-speed line. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Why

Why does every proposal for a railway yield virtual reams of material, often ill-considered and repetitive, while many an extant railway's article is sadly lacking in detail:(eg Great Western Railway gives precious little mention of branch lines?--SilasW (talk) 10:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Each to their own I guess. I have done a lot of work on railway lines in the East of England and most now have articles with a basic history, description and description of future plans. Feel free to do the same in other places, however the Great Western Railway article is already pretty long so possibly branch lines should have their own article. I will review this article for repetition and sloppiness and put also to ensure that there are either references of 'fact' tags for all claims. PeterEastern (talk) 08:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably because a lot of GWR documentation isn't available online, plus death rates (and birth rates) etc. Also current events always attract a lot of interest, often unwanted.

As far as the internet is concerned the universe was created sometime in the early 1990s.. :) .Sf5xeplus (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Up-issue of command paper to correct errors in original

Various minor errors in the original command paper appear to have been fixed in the last couple of days. The errors I have found are not material however it it interesting to note that there doesn't not appear to be a visible versioning system for the document. The changes I have noted are with the diagrams which had a number of errors in them. In particular:

• Corrections to some layering issues in the original document for various figure, cleared up in later version. The figures that have changed include the following: Fig ES.1 and Fig 4.2, Fig 4.4, Fig 4.5, Fig. 4.6, Fig 6.3
• An incorrectly labeled road (reference 'A4') on Fig 6.8 has now been corrected to 'A45'.
• I have not been able to check much of the document however, it was by chance that I copied the diagrams over the weekend.

PeterEastern (talk) 09:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we agree on a better name for the 'Crossrail interchange'

I notice that the interchange referred to as the 'Crossrail interchange' in the HS2 documentation is referred to as the HS2 Interchange in the scheme diagram in the Crossrail article. Should we give the interchange a consistent working title of 'Old Oak Common Interchange' across both articles until a more formal title is published?PeterEastern (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I added that interchange on the crossrail route diagram and, whilst I concur that "HS2 interchange" might not be the nicest option it would seem to be the clearest for readers. "Old Oak Common" is pretty meaningless for most people who have no idea of the history of the area and it is highly unlikely to be the name of the interchange station (caveat:should it ever get built). All we know for the present is that there is an interchange station planned and which two crossrail stations it will be situated between. --AlisonW (talk) 10:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I take your point. Possibly we should leave it alone for now and allow people to make the connection between the two names. It is certainly good to be starting to add details and links to other articles that are affected by this proposal. PeterEastern (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Standard gauge, loading gauge and structure gauge

We should be clear about the difference between standard gauge (which relates to the separation of the tracks) and loading gauge / structure gauge which relate to the required dimensions of trains that can use the route. As I see it the route will be constructed using standard gauge for the separation between the rails but will use the larger European structure gauge to allow larger trains to use the route. PeterEastern (talk) 08:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Unwanted edits

The user at IP address 121.102.47.215 is a known troublemaker and other Wikipedia pages and other Reference websites have had issues with this particular person adding in Point of View references with no regard to the actual facts or referenced material - a simple Google of the IP address shows this and checking the IP address history in Wikipedia will show this too. I have traced the IP address to Excite Japan Co. in the region of Saitama, Japan and I will make a complaint to the ISP if this persists. --Geezertronic (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Having deleted his earlier rantings here which I see he chose to revert, I have added a suitable warning on his Talk PageTmol42 (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Community Groups

I have added a small section on the known community groups formed following publication of the proposals and the umbrella group where these groups are listed and their collective aims are set out.Tmol42 (talk) 23:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You are right to add the information but with the bulleted points, it is more like a Party Political Broadcast on behalf of HS2 Action Alliance. In my opinion you should remove the stated aims sentence and the bullet points to make it sound less of a campaign (as there are other forums for that, not Wikipedia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geezertronic (talk • contribs) 12:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with geezertronic fundamentally wikipedia pages must be unbiased, the community groups section has a definite anti HS2 bias, therefore it must either be removed entirely or the article re-balanced by also describing groups supporting HS2 eg Greenguage21 and the benefists of HS2 (economic, job creation etc). Until this is resolved I have removed bulletpoints re action alliance. brianthegiant (talk

The inclusion of information on HS2 Action Alliance is not a demonstration of "anti-HS2 Bias" nor is it campaigning just stating the factual aims of the organisation, rather its exclusion would be an example of cenorship of any information which relations to objections to the development of HS2. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view states:- "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a particular topic. It requires that all majority views and significant minority views published by reliable sources be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. Therefore, material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV", but it must not give undue weight to a minor point of view...". There is already information about the supporting organisations Greengage21, Scottish Government and HSR:UK.Accordingly I have restored the information which was deleted in any case without any explanation.Tmol42 (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

@Tmol42 i think we reached a good compromise :-) Brianthegiant (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

electrification

High Speed 2 will use 3 kV DC not 25 kV AC, because voltage system in UK will change from 25 kV AC to 3 kV DC. Nordic people want to convert to 3 kV DC, while Alpine people and Mediterranean people want to convert to 25 kV AC. Great Britain, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and northern Germany want to convert to 3 kV DC. 121.102.47.39 (talk) 07:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I have undone your edit because there is no proof anywhere that this is going to happen. If you want to prove your theory by posting a link to a valid source then please do so, otherwise stop abusing Wikipedia articles with your unsubstantiated claims. You have been warned before about this sort of edits on other European pages, please refrain from non referenced edits otherwise I will request that your IP address is blocked from editing Geezertronic (talk) 07:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

121.x.x.x, please forget about writing this junk about change from AC to 3kV DC and the totally absurd connection between nordic or alpine or whatever races and railroad technologies. It will be removed anyway from articles, is totally off topic in discussions and is just a waste of resources.--Bk1 168 (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Rolling stock information/pictures

Are we able to incorporate any of this info/pictures into the article - the pictures would be very good but obviously subject to copyright. [3] _Will^Dow (Talk) 11:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is impossible to include copyright pictures (or, indeed, just about any pictures that one has not taken oneself) in Wikipedia. Alarics (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Journey times

Someone removed content on real journey times, stating it was non NPOV and uncited.
The guidelines state inline citations are required for any material challenged or likely to be challenged.
I cannot see how the content can be challenged, or is likely to be challenged.
Real journeys do not start, or finish, at railway stations, still less HS2 stations. Discussion of journey times needs to acknowledge that fact.

Removal of contextual information is harmful, because of the article's heavy reliance on primary and quasi-primary sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources
Haskanik (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The edit contained an opinion about HS2 through contrasting travel by two different methods. As such and without a cite it amounts to original research contextual or ortherwise.Tmol42 (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Just reverted it again. You cannot compare journey times to Coventry since any existing HS2 plans do not include Coventry. Your comment regarding point to point journeys has no relevance either IMO as that applies to existing rail journeys as well. I wouldn't expect HS2 or VirginTrains (or London Midland) to give me a point to point time from my house to where I work in London? And your comments about locations close to HS2 is a POV and I can counter that since I live near Birmingham International as the time saving for a journey into London via any proposed HS2 line would be quicker than the existing VT or LM service for me.--Geezertronic (talk) 09:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"You cannot compare journey times to Coventry since any existing HS2 plans do not include Coventry."

They do include Coventry.

Because the stated purpose of the initial HS2 is a high speed line between London and the West Midlands. Not London and Birmingham:

http://www.hs2.org.uk/assets/x/55864

Most residents of the West Midlands county do not live in Birmingham, so it's necessary to look at the effect of HS2 journeys on journeys to and from Coventry, Wolverhampton, Walsall, etc.

"I wouldn't expect HS2 or VirginTrains (or London Midland) to give me a point to point time from my house to where I work in London?"

This is to confuse

railway timetables (the realm of railway operators)

with

average and modal time savings (the realm of transport planning).

"Your comment regarding point to point journeys has no relevance either IMO as that applies to existing rail journeys as well."

Like needs to be compared with like.

Whether made by existing rail or HS2, real journeys do not begin or end at railway stations, train-spotters possibly excepted.

It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

But disingenuousness is the result, if one presents, unannotated, material from Steer Davies Gleave.

SDG presents difficulties as a reliable source. It appears to have links with 'Greengauge 21', a supposedly 'not for profit' high speed rail advocacy 'group' with unknown membership, funding sources, telephone number, and address.

"And your comments about locations close to HS2 is a POV and I can counter that since I live near Birmingham International as the time saving for a journey into London via any proposed HS2 line would be quicker than the existing VT or LM service for me."

What matters is the time savings for point to point journeys. People living near Birmingham International, a tiny proportion of West Midlands county residents, would not significantly affect the economic evaluation.

Haskanik (talk) 20:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Going to, vis-à-vis, serving a destination

Someone reverted an edit, stating "HS2 does not go to Coventry".
But the edit didn't claim that it did go to Coventry. According to http://www.hs2.org.uk/assets/x/55864 the HS2 line is intended to serve the West Midlands. The narrower interpretation of the term 'West Midlands' - more favourable to HS2 - is the metropolitan county, which includes 7 boroughs, including Coventry.

Similarly

1. la Gare TGV Haute Picardie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gare_TGV_Haute-Picardie

isn't in Amiens (the LGV does not go there) but is intended to serve Amiens.

2. the HS2 East Midlands parkway station
is intended to serve Nottingham and/or Derby, but may not go to either of those cities.
Haskanik (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Boo hoo. HS2 won't stop in Aachen either. Shall I add text complaining that Aachener's journeys will be much longer if they use HS2? ;-) bobrayner (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

At the time of writing, the article states "High Speed 2 (HS2) is a proposed British high-speed railway serving the Midlands and North West of England with a possible "Y" shaped route from London to Birmingham and then two spurs, one to Manchester and the other to Leeds via the East Midlands."

If someone proposes a high speed railway between London and 'the Midlands', it seems reasonable for an article about it to document effects on journey times between 'the Midlands' and London.

Or perhaps not, given User: Sladen's contribution:

"Because High Speed 2 would only serve a very small subset of those destinations on the existing railway network, time comparisons can only be made when both the existing and high-speed services would terminate at approximately the same locations at each end. For many existing destinations, such as Coventry, rail users would continue to use the existing 'classic' services."

What, then, is this destination subset, that, according to Sladen, "time comparisons can only be made (on)?".

Wolverhampton - London allowed? If not, why not?

Tamworth - London allowed? If not, why not?

Solihull - London allowed? If not, why not?

They're all major towns in "the Midlands".

Yet the article states HS2 is a "planned British high-speed railway serving the Midlands".

Haskanik (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Eg. "Midlands" equals Birmingham, Nottingham/Derby, others...: the terminology is vague and encompassing because the final plans have not yet been announced. Since only four stations (two in London, Bickenhill, and Central Birmingham) have been announced thus far, any comparison is usefully kept to those and present similar journeys. The purpose of high-speed rail (much the same as for aeroplanes) is to go long-distances, quickly, without stopping at every village. —Sladen (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"The purpose of high-speed rail (much the same as for aeroplanes) is to go long-distances, quickly, without stopping at every village."

I don't call Birmingham - London or Birmingham - Derby, "long distance" (airlines' market share: about %0). And I don't call Coventry, or Wolverhampton, "a village".

Haskanik (talk) 00:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I agree. —Sladen (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Haskanik - it sounds like you are confusing the Labour plans for HS2 with the Conservative plans for HS2 (which are different in design, route and end location if the information available is to be believed). You should do more research on the differences between the two and if you want to carry out a discussion you should join a railway related forum rather than airing POV views on Wikipedia (www.railforums.co.uk is a good start) --Geezertronic (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

What "POV views"?

The POV is in claiming that journey time "comparisions" (sic) "only make sense when the end points are the same, or approximately for current and future high-speed services" (Sladen).

That's patent nonsense.

The undercurrent in HS2 promotion is that it significantly speeds up journeys between London and 'the Midlands'. If that's the case, it's rational to quantify the effects on Midland towns, not HS2 stopping points. Because people generally wouldn't be living in HS2 railway stations.

Haskanik (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Protest action

I am looking in to this aspect.--Wipsenade (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Protests and meetings.

A minor rally was held in favour of HS2 in W. Ruislip on January 2nd(http://www.steggarail.org/hsr/2 dead link), 2010..

The Chilterns Conservation Board held a meeting about HS2 in Wendover on 21st April, 2010(http://www.chilternsaonb.org/hs2/) .

According to the Banbury Guardian Newspaper (as of the September 30th edition), The transport minister met protesters at a rally in Brackley that week .

A protest was held near the Conservative Party conference on October the 4th, 2010 acording to the BBC .

According to The Bucks Herald Newspaper (as of the October 6th edition), angry protesters drove the transport secretary and his HS2 lobbyist out of Aylesbury that week .

According to The Bucks Herald Newspaper (as of the November 10th edition), a major protest rally took place Aylesbury that week .

--Wipsenade (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of well-sourced and accurate material by User: Adambro

User: Adambro has removed well sourced and relevant material, on the grounds of it amounts to synthesis.

The removed material is encyclopedic.
And of better quality than many other parts of the page, which are taken from primary sources - including the HS2 forecasts themselves.
Haskanik (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you considered WP:SYNTH, the section of Wikipedia:No original research I highlighted? This seems a perfect example of what isn't appropriate. It says "do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". That is exactly what you are doing here by reference to the East Coast franchise and the rest. Adambro (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The estimates for future use are from a primary source, and need to be tempered accordingly. How many people would would use HS2 is unknown, and unknowable, and to present conjecture from primary sources in an encyclopedia article, without tempering, is silly.

As is removing "insignificant" opposing organisations, while inserting apparently one-man outfits, such as Yes To HS2, in the supporting organisations sections. These sections should have been nuked.

Haskanik (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You may consider Yes To HS2 a one-man outfit but in reality most of the campaign groups both for and against are managed by a single or couple of individuals and gain support and momentum as their publicity increases. I also believe that groups which operate a restricted membership (such as the Facebook group "Save the Chilterns - Say NO to a High Speed Rail Link!") should not be included which is why I removed it a while ago (I am currently blocked from accessing this group because I politely corrected a few assumptions and false information that was posted on that page and the groups Administrator and Co-ordinator are unresponsive on the matter) --Geezertronic (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

"a few assumptions and false information"

"False information" is manifestly what Yes to HS2 is peddling:

"In my opinion and the opinion of rail experts the WCML is already close to if not at full capacity" (posted 12 November 2010 at Yes To HS2)

Maybe User:Chow32 will explain how this squares with Figure 5 in

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/infrastructure/pdf/hs2.pdf

Etc.

So, Yes to HS2 is not a reliable or notable source; it's an opinion, rather than analytical, site.

Yet it has both a listing in the supporting organisations, and external links.

"in reality most of the campaign groups both for and against are managed by a single or couple of individuals and gain support and momentum as their publicity increases"

That may, or may not, be the case. But people are having a consistency blind spot, removing opposing organisations because they're "insignificant", and inserting a 1-man opinion website or lobbying company under supporting organisations.

Speaking of, nice to see Greengauge 21 at last finally trying to comply with the Business Names Act. They must be reading Wikipedia talk pages. In which case, Jim, please publish details of who's bankrolling Greengauge 21, and how much money is it getting from public sector bodies.

Haskanik (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

So you are claiming that Yes to HS2 is not a reliable source or a notable source? I have read many of the No to HS2 websites and they are more than full of subjective and emotive claims which are made with the intention of pushing their adgenda with no considerations for facts. For example: http://www.stophs2.org has an article that virtually claims that HS2 will increase flooding in Britain and calling HS2 a "concrete bomb". I fail to see where those "facts" are mitigated via non sensationalist and non biased sources? At least Yes to HS2 attempts to get facts from valid sources --Geezertronic (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

If you want to protest about Greengauge 21 then you're in the wrong place. I'm still yet to hear a compelling argument as to why this article should violate WP:SYNTH. As it stands the article is in clear violation of that part of the Wikipedia:No original research policy. Again, it says "do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". That is exactly what you are doing here. None of the sources say the HS2 forecasts must be inaccurate but you are combining sources together to imply they must be. Adambro (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I've already hinted at the problems which will follow from trying to apply WP:SYNTH without common sense.

Here's another example.

Take the issue of number of houses which might be demolished (which has already cropped up here). Suppose a couple of 3rd party websites had data about the width of high speed rail formations elsewhere (e.g. on particular Neubaustrecke, or LGVs).

Then, even if similar or identical rolling stock were used on those lines as might run on HS2 (and there was the same loading gauge and track speed) - application of WP:SYNTH would apparently preclude this material being referenced. Which is bizarre.

Now back to the demand forecast.

Consider

Accurately forecasting transport demand to 2026 presents sizeable problems, with predictions over much shorter periods proving disastrously incorrect. For example, optimistic projections for the East Coast Main Line led National Express to default on its 2007-2015 East Coast franchise in 2009, and British Rail, SNCF, London and Continental Railways, and Booz Allen Hamilton overestimated demand for high speed rail between London, Paris, and Brussels. A large study of transport projects found that in nine out of ten rail schemes, passenger forecasts were overestimated, with the mean overestimation being 106%.

A synthesis involves combining A, B (...) to create or demonstrate X, where X is different. But in the forecast paragraph, the presence of B, C, etc (grayed out in the version above) isn't pivotal to the sense of the paragraph. The presence of B and C is informational only, so there isn't synthesis.

Haskanik (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

If it helps, let me clarify why I says this is in clear violation of WP:SYNTH. We have reliable sources which provide forecasts (A). We also have reliable sources which suggest forecasts are probably inaccurate (B). What we don't have it seems is a reliable source which says the forecasts mentioned here are probably inaccurate (C). You are combining A and B to reach your conclusion C but we don't have a reliable source that has published the same argument in relation to this topic. Hence why this violates WP:SYNTH. Adambro (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The number of sources = 1. Which obviously isn't multiple. So the synthesis definition fails immediately.

The paper used statistical analysis on railway projects in general. HS2 is a member of the class, it doesn't have to be mentioned by name.

And there is no 'implication' that the HS2 forecasts 'must be' inaccurate.

Haskanik (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

There isn't one source being used here. There are multiple sources. We have the forecasts from one source and other sources which say transport forecasts are often inaccurate and examples relating to ECML. None of the sources support what you are trying to imply, that the HS2 forecasts must be inaccurate because similar forecasts often are. Per WP:SYN: "A and B, therefore C is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article". The topic of the article is a specific transport project, not transport projects in general. None of the sources make the argument that HS2 forecasts are probably inaccurate so combining sources together to suggest this is synthesis. Adambro (talk) 11:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

"There isn't one source being used here. There are multiple sources."

Nothing is being synthesised with Flyvbjerg, Skamris Holm, and Buhl, which is one source.

"The topic of the article is a specific transport project"

"Specific" as in: precise, explicit, particular, or definite?

I think not. HS2 planning has encompassed various schemes, including new line (Y- and S-shaped, etc) as well as reconfiguration of existing lines (Rail Package 2, etc).

'Maximal' HS2 is intended to include Glasgow, Edinburgh, Leeds, and the East Midlands.

All of which are served by the ECML.

So the inaccuracy of ECML demand forecasting is pertinent to this article.

But it's freestanding, and as such, its inclusion does not extend, or transform, the meaning of Flyvbjerg, Skamris Holm, and Buhl.

"We have reliable sources which provide forecasts (A)."

This is a little dubious, if the 'sources' providing forecasts on HS2, is HS2. Wikipedia's discussion of reliable sources skirts around the issue of what 'reliable' means, but there's certainly acknowledgment of problems of dependence on primary sources etc.

Haskanik (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

remeoved ref-improve tag but

Saw no reason for it, however the article mentions the "eddington report", but no link.. That is an obvious ommision. Thanks. KUTGW.Sf5xeplus (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"remeoved ref-improve tag but Saw no reason for it"

I'd suggest looking at the article. As previously intimated, it's heavily dependent on a small number of primary sources.

Haskanik (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the notes from official sources there are 36 citations referenced for this article. It would be helpful if you could draw attention to those you consider to be the small number of primary sources on which you contend the artical is heavily dependent on. Tmol42 (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The use of a 'Notes' section appears to be an attempt to mask the narrowness and primary-sourceness of the citation base.

I'm not sure what the distinction is between 'Notes' and 'References' in this article.

Most articles do not use a separate 'Notes' section, and I can't see why (for example)

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2ltd/hs2report/pdf/chapter3d.pdf

isn't a "note from official sources", yet it appears in the 'References' section.

HS2 Ltd appears to be an extension of DfT.

http://www.hs2.org.uk/, "About HS2 Ltd", doesn't even explain its relationship with DfT.

Haskanik (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the links included on the HS2 Ltd site you will find links and references to the setting up of HS2 Ltd and its remit and these make clear the distinction between HS2 and the DfT and that they are clearly separate entities. HS2 Ltd is a Company with limited liability set up by the Government in 2009 to undertake feasibility studies with a view to identifying and developing route options, cost benefits and financing of a High Speed Rail Network. The DfT is a Government Department. See here.

The article sections describing the technical and related aspects of HS2 underpinned by notes properly refer to key Government Strategy document and the Government's Command Paper. You should assume good faith rather than accuse the editors who included these citations under a heading of 'Notes' of using obscuration tactics. These are the most appropriate sources for the factual information about HS2. No doubt one could move an individual citation or all of them for that matter from one list to another but that does not invalidate an individual citation or the validity of the article's content. Again, aside from the notes there are 36 cited sources and the article cannot be said to rely on a small number of what you prefer to classify as 'primary sources'.Tmol42 (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

"These are the most appropriate sources for the factual information about HS2."

According to whom?

Other technical articles do not generally use the Notes format.

Whether the information is "factual" remains to be seen, and whether DfT and HS2 Limited are truly distinct sources is up for discussion (same applies to Steer Davies Gleave and Greengauge 21).

But that they are primary sources, surely isn't.

Haskanik (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I see, you wan't more non-primary sources, I've changed the tag accordingly.Sf5xeplus (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Use of synthesis arguments

User: Adambro's use of synthesis arguments flies in the face of common sense and produces laughable results when applied to carbon dioxide.

The figures used for carbon emissions in HS2 'research', and those used elsewhere by DfT, are different.

This means that the same train would produce lower emissions on HS2, than it would on other lines. Haskanik (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Adambro is precisely right, you are precisely wrong. This is almost certainly a reflection of the fact that he is greatly more experienced on Wikipedia than you are. You would be better off asking for his advice rather than arguing with him. Any other questions? Guy (Help!) 11:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Number of saves under a particular name, or seniority, is an indicator, or predictor, of someone's writing or editing ability(?)

I think my contributions improved a not-very-good article, but comments, including snide ones, are welcome.

Haskanik (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

600 houses

"HS2's Birmingham stage would result in the demolition of around 600 houses"

Where does this figure of 600 houses come from? I've seen 440 mentioned, e.g. here. Adambro (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

440 can be used, in the absence of any other report. Unlike future traffic levels, there'd be no need to speculate about this. If the HS2 company provided high resolution mapping of the line and access roads, diversion of roads, etc.

Haskanik (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sadiq Khan MP - when Minister for Transport - stated in reply to a question by Tony Baldry (reference Hansard) that over 600 houses would be demolished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.131.197 (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

No he didn't, he said "affected" which doesn't necessarily mean demolished. Adambro (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC).

21,000 will be "affected". 600 will be demolished. This has been confirmed to me on a Freedom of Information request with HS2 Ltd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.131.197 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 28 November 2010}

Well I think we really need a better source than effectively "HS2 told me". Can we find a reliable source online anywhere that says 600 demolished? Adambro (talk) 12:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Department for Transport information not good enough for you? This page is clearly not interested in facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.131.197 (talk) 13:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Is the figure of 600 houses on the DfT website anywhere then? Adambro (talk) 13:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is another link to the same fact. http://www.london-property-market.co.uk/index.php/construction/impact-high-speed-2-london-property/

Not convinced this is a source that would meet WP:RS. However, having trawled through the HS2 Ltd documents the report Appraisal of Sustainability, A Report for HS2 Non Technical Summary December 2009 (see Comunity Aspects p.16) available on the DfT website here provides a possible source for both 400 or 600 that has been debated here as either houses demolished or houses affected depending on how it is interpreted. Not sure if this is a primary or secondary source as on the one hand it is clearly based on a more technical report elsewhere though not sure if this is in the public domain. It may also have been superceeded so I will leave the debate on relevance to others to decide but hope this helps Tmol42 (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"This page is clearly not interested in facts."

Unless Mr Khan's letter is publicly readable (e.g. at Whatdotheyknow), it's not referencable, and london-property-market is a poor source.

Haskanik (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is a property website a poor source for property information? 600 properties was the number given verbally in March by a minister for the Dept for Transport (Hansard link has been deleted by someone. Why?) 600 is also the figure given in a Freedom of Information response by HS2 Ltd. Why do you insist on using another figure just because it was in the Daily Telegraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.131.197 (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Why do you insist on using this 600 figure when the property website is a somewhat questionable source, it looks almost like a blog, and the comments in Hansard don't refer to demolition? The 440 figure doesn't just come from the Telegraph, HS2 themselves have stated it here earlier this month which suggests it was in the HS2 report. They also say in that response that since the report in March, "further work has been carried out to refine the route in order to reduce its impact", which likely means that rather the number of houses to be demolished being "around 600", it is probably actually less than their original figure of 440. Adambro (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

removal

diff

The [[return on investment]] was estimated by Network Rail at 1.6 times over a period of 60 years, without including the cost of capital.<ref name="networkrail.co.uk"/><!-- is this the network rail project or the hs2 ltd project, and what exactly is return on investment? -->

This figure is for a different route scheme, with multiple spurs.

also

===Cost=== The overall cost for the lines to Edinburgh, Liverpool and Glasgow, including rolling stock, was estimated at £20.5 [[1000000000_(number)|billion]]<ref name="networkrail.co.uk">http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/About%20us/New%20Lines%20Programme/5886_NewLineStudy_synopsis.pdf</ref> - £34 billion, factoring in a 66% allowance for cost overrun. This does not include a link to HS1.

This is the same - the figures refer to an unbuilt network rail scheme, not the actual plan. There is no mention of a 25billion figure either.

The info is completely out of context - does not relate to any current, or previous official plan. Thanks.Sf5xeplus (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

List of Opposing Organisations and Groups

“ You have delete a list that I entered.

It was there to balance the list of supporting organisations and provide links for people who wish to obtain more information. The only other mention on this long page of such organisation was to a different website which does not provide balance.

Unless you have valid reasons to the contrary, it will be restored. I will wait a few hour for your response

” — Ladbroke76, [4]

I'm just struggling to see how such a list is particularly appropriate or helpful. Does it really matter in the grand scheme of things that such and such parish council or some very small local single issue action group is opposed? We should, just as with the supporting organisations, only mention the more significant organisations. Adambro (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The supporting organisations are given a complete section and each has a subsection and description. If the same coverage were given to the 60+ opposing organisations the page would be swamped. For this reason I gave only their names and I put them in a table to reduce the acreage of page they occupy. Greengauge 21 is also a single-issue organisation! Ladbroke76 (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Note that I'm not saying the article's coverage of supporting organisation is perfect, rather that a big table of every tiny organisation that may be opposed isn't particularly useful. Why do we need to list every group that is opposed? Adambro (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

There is an issue that a number of organisations you have listed are residents associations or councils; you would therefore need to cite reliable sources that state that these organisations are opposed. Furthermore there are umbrella groups (STOP HS2 and and HS2 Action Alliance) and it may be better to mention these, stating that they have a significant number of component, local organisations.

Alternatively, I can compile a list of chambers of commerce, local councils, passenger transport executives, regional development organisations and campaigning groups in favour of HS2, although I imagine that would also result in a huge list of organisations that really serves little useful purpose to the reader. Remember, this is an encyclopaedia. NRTurner (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Then I suggest that you remove Railfuture and Scottish Chambers of commerce: High Speed 2 Scotland —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladbroke76 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

A protest group in a small village might represent 100 people, that's probably 90 more than Greengauge 21 represents. Greengauge 21 is a vehicle for Jim Steer, and his opinion should carry no more weight than anyone who lives in the path of the line.

Ditto for Railfuture, I don't think they even publish how many members they have.

If local authorities and organisations (e.g., chambers of commerce) in favour in the route are going to be listed, then I can't see why local authorities and organisations who aren't in favour, should not be.

Haskanik (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

In case you missed my earlier comment above let me repeat it, "I'm not saying the article's coverage of supporting organisation is perfect". What we should be doing here is considering a criteria for determining that an organisation (supporting or opposing) merits a specific mention in this article. If there is an issue with the significance of some of the supporting organisations then that shuold be addressed by discussing their removal, not adding a big list of (yet more?) insignificant organisations who are opposing. On the long list of opposing groups, there must be a few that can be considered more significant and at a national level such as perhaps "Stop HS2", or "HS2 Action Alliance" as examples. Adambro (talk) 11:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't miss any earlier comment. There just needs to be some common sense in the article, so that Chiltern Conservation Board (et al) are mentioned, if Railfuture (et al) are going to be. Railfuture doesn't have any particular insight or mandate.

And describing Greengauge 21 as a "Supporting Organisation" is pushing it. In essence, it's a propaganda vehicle for high speed rail, consisting of Jim Steer, and his dog.

Haskanik (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought we were trying to discuss this? Instead it seems the entire list has been reinstated. What about trying to consider a criteria for mentioning organisations to assess their significance? Despite the comments that the removal of this big list wasn't an endorsement of how the supporting organisations are mentioned you seem to have taken it to be. As a start, we could consider as a minimum that the organisation works at a national level and has received coverage in the national press? That doesn't seem a too unreasonable criteria for considering whether a particular organisation merits mentioning but perhaps you could say what you might suggest? Adambro (talk) 11:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Both the opposing and supporting organisations content is problematic, and may stay that way, without some kind of rewrite or restructure.

I reinstated the opposing organisations table as a balancing stopgap. I can think of various problems with 'working at a national level, plus 1 instance of national press coverage' as a qualifier.

Some of the opposing organisations are listed without some sort of citation, or hyperlink, and I already mentioned some of the issues with the supporting side. So it might be worth considering dispensing with the listing of opposing and supporting organisations as distinct sections within this article.

Haskanik (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I say nuke both sections, see WP:Lists WatcherZero (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Done, unless we can agree on a criteria for what organisations may be significant enough to mention then it shouldn't be included. Particurly where some think the answer to a problem with the list of supporting organisations is to add a much large list of opposiing organisations many of which are much less significanct in the grand scheme of things here.

Haskanik's suggested there are various problems with my initial suggestion of "a minimum that the organisation works at a national level and has received coverage in the national press" but I'm not clear what these problems are. I can't say thuogh that I'm overwhelmingly concerned about keeping both lists so perhaps if we are content to not include either then we don't need to bother discussing a criteria. Adambro (talk) 11:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Although my initial gut feeling was that "national" implied the organisation might be substantial enough to mention rather than just one passing press-release among many, on reflection, I think that it's pretty natural that there will be some opponents to the scheme who work on a strictly local basis, so a rule like that would skew the list a little.

However, if an organisation got their claim picked up by somebody else at a national level (ie. when some major newspaper covered HS2, did this organisation provide a soundbite?), that could be a pretty good criterion which puts the key players in the list. Does that sound reasonable?

Aside from the local/national thing, I'm most interested in sourcing. If we can find a mention of any of these organisations in any independent source, that would make me happy. bobrayner (talk) 12:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there's also an issue of notability. If a small group of 100 people opposing HS2 did something notable as part of their campaign then they deserve a mention, such as amassing an x-hundred word petition or some form of direct action. Simply having an opinion about something isn't necessarily notable.

I broadly agree with AdamBro and bobrayner on this. NRTurner (talk) 12:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The section about supporting organisations was added to balance with the paragraph titled ' community organisations' which gives the HS2 page an anti-HS2 bias. and for a while it seemed a compromise had been reached. Now the supporting orgs section is deleted, but the "community groups" (which are all anti-HS2) is still included so we've gone back to the anti bias. I think use of the notability definition as a criteria to get a mention is a good suggestion, ie "is the organisation notable enough to get its own wikipedia page on a permanent basis". Perhaps also mention of opposing /supporting organisations should be limited to title and 2 lines of text, anything more should go in a separate page for that org (if its notable enough..)Brianthegiant (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The idea that having a "paragraph titled ' community organisations'...gives the HS2 page an anti-HS2 bias" strikes me as weird. Unless someone wants to pretend that there is no community opposition.

Creating a section for supporting organisations invited the creation of a section for opposing organisations. Which led to an arms race as to which 'side' could have the longest list, with inevitable double counting of the same people, arguments about eligibility, etc.

Haskanik (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If a particular section was problematic only in that one or more editors reacted to it with inappropriate editing elsewhere, that section wasn't really the problem at all. I shall restore the supporting section unless somebody can actually give a sensible reason for deleting it. If a different section is flawed, fix that other section instead of deleting relevant sourced content. If we actually agree on criteria for inclusion then I'd happily trim the list of supporters to fit those criteria, but I suspect the named supporters all pass the criteria that have been suggested so far. bobrayner (talk) 10:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"If a particular section was problematic only in that one or more editors reacted to it with inappropriate editing elsewhere"

No. There are other issues - dubious notability, copyvio, and POV. And I don't think it's easily 'fixable'.

"High Speed 2 Scotland is a meeting of minds between Scotland’s businesses and public sector to promote High Speed Rail from Scotland to London."

(Apparent copyright violation)

"Railfuture is campaigning for Britain to follow the example of France, Germany and Spain in building new high-speed rail lines. They help regeneration and are highly popular."

(I'd be looking for reliable evidence that high speed rail projects, in general, "help regeneration", and are "highly popular". A lot more people in Britain use motorways than long distance rail, so presumably that makes motorways 'highly popular', and 'more popular'.)

Etc.

Common sense appears to have been struck by a Velaro travelling at full speed. So, in the interests of balance, I'll put the opposing organisations back in.

Haskanik (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

There seems to have been some misunderstanding. If you are able to point out copyvio, you should fix that copyvio rather than pasting in a big unrelated list.

It looks like Adambro fixed what you pointed out (if he hadn't, I would have). But, y'know, just for future reference, if you can identify a specific policy violation, feel free to fix it directly, rather using it as a cue to add or remove large volumes of unrelated text.

bobrayner (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to add an opposing organisations section back in, when adding a supporting organisations section back in.

Rephrasing junk content, so that it doesn't break copyright is wasted effort, when there are so many other problems with this page, including the newly created balance issues associated with trying to exclude opposition groups, while adding Mr Steer's lobbying company.

Haskanik (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The Green Party neither support nor oppose HS2 until after their spring conference when they will be debating the issue. See reference on BBC website "There is a fierce internal debate on, for example, high-speed rail lines. Greens have supported those in the past. Now a conference motion suggests they are "not compatible with creating a fair and just society". I have deleted their name from Supporters section for this reason. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11263540 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.169.203 (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

So they changed position, yet couldn't be bothered to publicise that fact? The reference has to be to latest stated policy. Which appears to be pro.

Haskanik (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Until the Green Party actually come out and either support or oppose they shouldnt be on the list. See http://www.chilterngreenparty.org.uk/news/25/54/Concern-over-route-for-HS2.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.169.203 (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"Until the Green Party actually come out and either support or oppose they shouldnt be on the list. See http://www.chilterngreenparty.org.uk/news/25/54/Concern-over-route-for-HS2.html"

They have come out.

To reflect that there exists a spectrum of views, I added a section for ambiguous/noncommittal positions. I looked at organisations' statements of position.

Does The Green Party have a position?

Yes.

Is it noncommittal?

No. It's support, in principle, for HS2 (specifically mentioned, not just high speed rail "generally").

Verbatim from the linked article:

"While HS2 is not our priority for expenditure we do support it in principle."

If the stated position changes, that fact can be added.

Haskanik (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"While HS2 is not our priority for expenditure we do support it in principle." They then go on to list 17 points outlining their concerns. Therefore they are not in favour. Take them out or put them under ambiguous / noncomittal or you are not reflecting the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.169.203 (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Green Party support seems clearer than Railfuture's - whose draft high speed rail statement doesn't even mention HS2 by name. Complain to the Party, rather than claim, falsely, that they haven't "come out" on the issue.

Haskanik (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No point complaining to the Party - they have scheduled a debate on HS2 at their Spring Conference. This page is specifically about HS2 not High Speed Rail in general. 17 points outlining their objections to HS2 (as opposed to HSR) means the Green Party are not "supporters" of this particular proposal. Therefore the Green Party should be in "ambiguous" section or taken off the page altogether until after their Spring conference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.169.203 (talk) 09:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High_Speed_2&oldid=401301152 doesn't misrepresent the Green Party position, but if setting out further details provides better consensus, then great.

Haskanik (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

One of several confusions with the Green Party position is the apparently contradictory views when comparing the highly qualified support for HS2 of the National Party policy and the campaigning views against HS2 expressed by the Chiltern branch from whose website the citation used is drawn. see here.Tmol42 (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Loading gauge

There's no such thing as "European loading gauge". Now, or in the past.

"After Aylesbury, the line would run alongside the Aylesbury line, joining it north of Quainton Road and then broadly following the direction of the dismantled Great Central Main Line (whose trackbed is still very largely intact and which was built to a continental loading gauge, but whose curvature is said to be too great for very high-speed trains)"

I'm none the wiser after the citations were added.

What "continental loading gauge" was the GCML built to?

What is the GCML curvature, and what does "very high-speed trains" mean?

As "disastrous" means "ruinous; very unfortunate", the word seems reasonable to describe the consequences of bad demand estimation. Look at the fallout from NXEC on National Express Group (etc).
Haskanik (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It is rather disheartening to have spent quite some time finding the references YOU requested and then discover that you have deleted them.

There are several different continental loading gauges (that's why the text said "a" continental loading gauge, not "the" continental loading gauge), but what they all have in common is that they are bigger than any British loading gauge. The Great Central was built to such a loading gauge because it was originally intended to carry continental traffic to and from a Channel Tunnel that in the event didn't get built until 90 years later. The GC is often described as "Berne gauge" but it isn't because Berne gauge hadn't been invented then. See Great Central Main Line#Construction of the line.

Curves on the GC have a minimum radius of 1 mile. It was built for high speed in the terms of the 1900s. Railnews (in the reference that I cited but which you have now removed) alleges that this isn't straight enough for "very" high-speed trains, by which is obviously meant those planned for HS2; I find this a bit surprising because it looks pretty straight to me on the map, and I assume it would be quite straight enough for ordinary high-speed trains of the order of 125mph. The fact remains that the present HS2 plan proposes to use the GC trackbed as a basis, but only for about 12 miles, from around Quainton Road to somewhere approaching Brackley.

I changed "disastrously incorrect" to just "incorrect" because I thought "disastrously" sounds a bit POV and non-encyclopaedic. It must be a subjective matter of opinion just how disastrous any given incorrect forecast is. Also, as currently worded it rather gives the impression that pretty well all transport demand forecasts are hopelessly over-optimistic. In fact there are also some that have proved wildly wrong in the other direction, and where capacity has had to be added later at greater cost than if it had been included in the first place, such as the M25 motorway and the Docklands Light Railway. There is also the example of SNCF's Paris-Lyon LGV, which within I think about 20 years was operating at capacity with no sign of traffic growth slackening, a situation now resolved partly by expensively redoing all the signalling and partly by introducing double-deck trains.

-- Alarics (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I too agree about the word "disastrously", it's not appropriate and is definitely a POV. Even if it was quoted in a reference, the word should be contained in quotes in the article. Seems like the one man mission continues.... --Geezertronic (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

"It is rather disheartening to have spent quite some time finding the references YOU requested"

It's good to see someone looking for references. But are these the best that can be found? It's likely that the GCML is better engineered than earlier lines. But the references don't state the loading gauge that the GCML was built to, or the curvature.

While putting attribution into the page, and flagging belly button fluff (such as estimates, from a different scheme, appearing as the HS2 cost) I noticed a lot of disheartening activity. There's Mr H S Sockpuppet on the one hand, and someone who keeps changing the Green Party's (stated) support for high speed rail into neutrality, on the other.

"Also, as currently worded it rather gives the impression that pretty well all transport demand forecasts are hopelessly over-optimistic."

It said "in nine out of ten rail schemes, passenger forecasts were overestimated, with the mean overestimation being 106%." There was a different spread for road projects. PSE was over- (number of TGV sets) and under-dimensioned (signalling). Both under- and overdimensioning can have significant consequences. Is "significant" more acceptable than "disastrous"?

It's fair to say that phraseology such as "curvature is said to be too great for very high-speed trains" would be better off replaced — if possible — by numbers and attribution.

If the design radius on GCML were verifiable as 1 mile (1609 metres), that would be an interesting addition.

Especially if data such as minimum high speed rail curvature turned out to be accurate.

It would mean that the face of the Chilterns was being disfigured, courtesy of HS2 Limited and Greengauge 21, when there was a ready made route, reusable for 200+ km/h, already in existence. (Leaving aside the Marylebone/Paddington - High Wycombe - Banbury - Birmingham line, which runs well under capacity.)

"The GC is often described as 'Berne gauge' but it isn't because Berne gauge hadn't been invented then."

If the 'Berne gauge' claim appears in print, under Wikipedia's "verifiability, not truth" mantra, it could end up referenced as fact, even though it's unlikely to be true. In the real world, loading gauge is important for freight (containers, etc) and more or less irrelevant for passenger traffic. And HS2 is primarily promoted as a passenger line.

Haskanik (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Some of the world's most popular high speed rolling stock is substantially larger than the UK's loading gauge. In what way is that irrelevant? Plus, of course, there should be the option of using the line for more than one type of traffic. It would be silly to establish a loading gauge with no futureproofing or flexibility whatsoever. bobrayner (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Future proofing? What's that? Should the line be built for double stack containers then? Or how about curve radii for 500 km/h?

"It would be silly to establish a loading gauge."

There is already is a de facto established loading gauge in Britain. But's nothing like that proposed for HS2.

Haskanik (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

@haskanik Re:"In the real world, loading gauge is important for freight (containers, etc) and more or less irrelevant for passenger traffic. And HS2 is primarily promoted as a passenger line" this is incorrect - Loading gauge is also important for high speed passenger services, the european GC gauge allows use of double deck (duplex) trains which offer significantly greater passenger capacity, even if double deck trains aren't used fom day 1 it allows for future growth without hugely expensive bridge & tunnel rebuilds.Brianthegiant (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Brianthegiant's contributions have, so far, provided minimal insight. Over at the Greengauge 21 article, created by Brianthegiant, there's the ongoing copyvio and balance issues.

As for the HS2 article

"And HS2 is primarily promoted as a passenger line' this is incorrect"

Of course it's primarily promoted as a passenger line.

"Loading gauge is also important for high speed passenger services"

No, it's more or less irrelevant.

"even if double deck trains aren't used fom day 1 it allows for future growth without hugely expensive bridge & tunnel rebuilds"

It replaces hugely expensive bridge & tunnel rebuilds, with hugely expensive bridge & tunnel new builds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High_Speed_2&action=historysubmit&diff=403204470&oldid=403199793

"The current Eurostar stock (British Rail Class 373) is an example of a high speed train which is compatible with Continental signalling systems and the British Loading Gauge"

Class 373 trains are signalling-incompatible with the overwhelming majority of the European railway network, and with the majority of the European high speed railway network.

As previously stated ad nauseum, there's no such thing as British loading gauge. Routes have had to be made compatible for Class 373 trains on an individual basis. The cost of doing this is not trivial, and of course, not necessarily limited to gauge clearance.

Haskanik (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I would these comments are an unecesarily personal attack. my main point was that loading gauge is relevant to passenger services, (which I still maintain). -- Brianthegiant (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Debeautification

"debeautification", is that even a word? clarify what is meant by "one of England's most beautiful regions"

Well, beautification even has its own Wikipedia entry. So it's just the existence of its opposite that's disputed?
http://www.macmillandictionaries.com/med-magazine/July2003/09-Feature-creating-new-words.htm
http://vodpod.com/watch/4024086-the-debeautification-of-america-anthony-marr
Etc.

"you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article...". sources cited deal with the issue of High Speed Rail etc in general, not HS2"

What's meant by "directly related"? The HS2 subject encompasses various projects, alignments, and alternatives (such as Rail Package 2). As far as Britain is concerned, discussion of HS2 is effectively discussion of high speed rail - there's no HS3 or HS4 being discussed.

This reality is already reflected in the article: "A number of organisations support the HS2 project or the development of a high-speed rail network in the UK more generally. These include Greengauge 21 (a lobbying company), Railfuture (a pro-rail campaigning group), and HSR:UK (a group of Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham, and Sheffield city councils)."

I can't see a reference to Cardiff council 'directly' supporting HS2, but they're still in the article. Etc.

"The visual impact of HS2 has received particular attention in the Chilterns which is designated an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty." Stylistically, this isn't an improvement on the previous version. But I can't be bothered changing it back.
Haskanik (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

On your final point, I didn't think it was clear what was meant by "one of England's most beautiful regions". Describing it as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty shows that the region is designated by the government to have significant landscape value rather than just a descrption from a single newspaper.

On debeautification, you are probably right to suggest that the word is properly constructed. I still don't think it is appropriate for the section title though as it seems unnecessary to "visual impact" which is a more neutral term.

As for the life cycle section which you have reinstated, I still suggest this violates WP:NOR. You have read the HS2 report, reached the conclusion that it "does not detail HS2 energy and emissions over the life cycle" and also that "the topic has received limited attention in Britain". Where is the reliable source for that? You've inserted your own conclusion about the HS2 report and the attention the topic has received in Britain. Is there a reliable published source that "directly support the material as presented"? As WP:NOR states, "Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research". I think it is quite a different situation here where you are drawing your own conclusions about the HS2 report etc and then using those conclusions to justify mentioning some other research to seemingly suggest the HS2 report is inadequate is quite different to simply mentioning that an organisation supports either HS2 specifically or HSR more generally in the UK.

Whilst your argument that "discussion of HS2 is effectively discussion of high speed rail" has some merit, it still wouldn't deal with the other problem with the content you added relating to how you've reach conclusions not directly supported by a reliable source. Adambro (talk) 09:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not drawing conclusions.

I didn't do the research.

The source is as reliable as any other in the article.

And its usefulness isn't related to whether it mentions HS2 or not.

For example

http://www.imeche.org/Libraries/Position_Statements-Transport/HighSpeedRailIMechEPolicy.sflb.ashx

states that a train going at 300km/h uses more than twice the energy of one going at 200 km/h. Like Chester's paper, the fact that it doesn't mention HS2 doesn't make the reference inadmissible.

Unlike Eurostar structure gauge, the laws of physics don't have to be cleared on a line by line basis.

Haskanik (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Carbon and energy

The paragraph on Delivering a Sustainable Railway at
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High_Speed_2&oldid=402777647
was instructive, in view of the subsequent government volte face. The trainspotter-friendly rewording at
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High_Speed_2&oldid=403381573
dispensed with the quote, in favour of:

"The Government White Paper Delivering a Sustainable Railway states trains that travel at a speed of 350 km/h uses 90 per cent more energy than at 200 km/h; which results in carbon emissions for a London to Edinburgh journey of 14kg per passenger for high speed rail compared to 7kg per passenger for conventional rail, air travel uses 26kg per passenger for the same journey. The paper questioned the value for money of high speed rail as a method of reducing carbon emissions, but noted that with a switch to carbon free or neutral energy production the case becomes much more favourable."

I don't mind this type of kilogram comparison, even if a contributor calculates it; after all, the inter-capital distance isn't in dispute. Rather, the problems are things like the pretence about assumed load factors, the assumed speed (HS2 "350 km/hr"), and the ignored twin elephants in the corner: construction carbon, and maintenance carbon. Traction energy required is approximately a function of the square of the speed, but not surprisingly, that's gone "missing" too.
Haskanik (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is here - the data is from the reference, not calculated by an editor, and the newer and current revision contains more information. Whilst the old version just direct copy pastes from the document with out good cause - which is "pseudo plagiarism" (especially when carried out on the scale it was in the article before) and breach of copyright.83.100.225.242 (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The revision contains less information. And there's no plagiarism in short attributed quotes. If there were, newspapers would be sued on a daily basis.

Haskanik (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

We are not a newspaper, this is an encyclopedia. Please recognise that having a good proportion of an article written using quotes directly pulled from other sources is not acceptable in any serious written document. see also Wikipedia:Copy-paste - quotes are good for things that should be quoted - like important statements, poetry, song lyrics etc, not to construct the body of the article. 83.100.225.242 (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

What information that was removed is it that you would like there to be in the article.83.100.225.242 (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Rail capacity

A tenet of HS2 is that the West Coast Main Line is approaching full capacity, and that lines to London from the Midlands would be full in a few years' time.
So excising information about capacity, such as at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High_Speed_2&diff=next&oldid=403120124

is extremely unhelpful.
Haskanik (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You mean this removal

This meant the DfT was predicting strong growth, since its report showed the WCML Rugby - Euston section as operating at only 61% and 80% of capacity in the 2008/2009 morning peak<ref name="percentcapacity20082009">{{cite journal |url=http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/infrastructure/pdf/hs2.pdf |title=Figure 5: Loading levels in the 3-hour morning peak period, 2008/09 |page=14}}</ref> with Rugby - Birmingham being in the 41-60% band. The Great Western Chiltern route between Birmingham and London was also shown as being used as 41 to 60% of capacity, with the Leamington - Aynho section being in the 'below 41%' category.<ref name="percentcapacity20082009" /> The same document's forecast for 2024-2025 was for continued unused capacity on the Great Western Chiltern route.<ref name="percentcapacityforecast20242025">{{cite journal |url=http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/infrastructure/pdf/hs2.pdf |title=Figure 6: Loading levels in the 3-hour morning peak period, 2024/25 |page=15}}</ref>

Yes they are predicting growth (over a 15 year period) - links expanding on their growth prediction would be more useful than a statement of current usuage. Also not that it is only the rugby to euston data that appears to be relevant in this case - extending the discussion onto other routes is helpful -- how? Is an alternative argument being formed here? (of sufficient capacity) ?If so.. please do it properly with reliable sources not synthesis. Thanks.83.100.225.242 (talk) 13:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

"it is only the rugby to euston data that appears to be relevant in this case - extending the discussion onto other routes is helpful -- how?"

Last time I looked, HS2 isn't going through Rugby. So the discussion is "already onto other routes".

Haskanik (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a footnote stating the current (2008/9) usage along with some info on the how the DfT is predicting growth would be more suitable.Sf5xeplus (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Why relegate capacity to a footnote?

Haskanik (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

New map

Someone created a map claiming that LGV Nord, and the Channel Tunnel, are part of HS1. I'm afraid this isn't accurate. The article appears to be in a steep dive.
Haskanik (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a link for that.83.100.225.242 (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_high_speed_rail_map.png

Version 30 May 2010.

Haskanik (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you see the red and black, and the labels at the bottom of the map? If you are colour blind then maybe the map can be altered to a different method of presentation. I don't think you can object to a map that shows a vital connecting line in another colour?83.100.225.242 (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It'll be news to Eurotunnel, and RFF, that their property is part of HS1.

The Channel Tunnel did not open in 2007.

Zzz.

Haskanik (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Stuff that needs re-adding

Probably from the 21 decemeber philip hammond speach

Transport Secretary Philip Hammond stated on 20 December 2010 that only a traditional speed link would be created between HS2 and HS1, rather than a high-speed connection. A UIC GC gauge-cleared "classic line" route would be created, leaving HS2 at Old Oak Common in additional tunnels and running via the North London Line, enlarged versions of the existing Primrose Hill Tunnels and through Camden railway station to the triangular junction at St Pancras

Transport Secretary Philip Hammond announced in Parliament that the first London-Birmingham phase of the project would have no direct link to Heathrow airport. Passengers would change at Old Oak Common. Hammond said a spur to Heathrow would be retrofitted in the mid 2030's and would open at the same time as the routes to Manchester and Leeds

and the bit about "backed the previous route laid out by the preceding government albeit with some modifications to the exact route. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12035524"

When referenced and the third bit rewritten.83.100.225.242 (talk) 13:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I've readded most of this, without mentioning any of the specific changes. diff

I haven't found info about the link to HS1 yet.Sf5xeplus (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Passenger forecasting problems

This [5] was removed, whilst I understand the stuff about WP:OR I don't think this is anything but a borderline case - specifically the document http://flyvbjerg.plan.aau.dk/Traffic91PRINTJAPA.pdf seems particularily straight forward; I've added that with a reference that directly relates to HS2. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High_Speed_2&action=historysubmit&diff=403599963&oldid=403599156 diff , also had to remove some crazy stuff, same edit)

Please comment.83.100.225.242 (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi 83.100.225.242 do you have a username? much nicer to talk to a name than a number ;-) Brianthegiant (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the machine signs be out a lot, and I'm quite lazy about signing in. (sf5xeplus=83.100 etc) Sf5xeplus (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The Met Office can't reliably forecast tomorrow's weather, but civil servants can accurately forecast rail passengers in 2026. Or that's what some contributors believe.

Not borderline. Straightforward.

Haskanik (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems clear to me from WP:OR that we are not allowed to mention the Flyvbjerg article unless EITHER (a) it itself refers to HS2, which I don't see that it does (if it does, page number should be mentioned), OR (b) it has been cited by another reliable source writing specifically on the subject of HS2. Failing that, the point should be covered, but not by reference to that article. For instance, Christian Wolmar has expressed scepticism about the passenger forecasts for this scheme (and transport forecasting generally). He is one of a number of anti-HS2 experts so we should be quoting him as an example of that view, balanced with some other expert e.g. Jim Steer taking a different view on the pro-HS2 side.

This brings me to a wider point on this article generally, which is that it doesn't appear to reflect the deep lack of consensus among transport professionals and specialist commentators over the scheme, entirely aside from disputes over its possible environmental impact on local communities, even though it is the latter that have generated most of the mainstream press publicity. This ongoing conversation revolves around a number of distinct issues including (a) carbon emissions vis-a-vis other alternatives, with particular reference to average load factors (closely linked to yield management policies and thus assumptions about fare levels) and the extent to which it can be assumed that future electricity generation will be largely carbon-free; (b) affordability and whether or not the scheme risks abstracting finite investment funds that would, or at least might, otherwise go to improving the existing rail network; (c) the unpredictability of the future, including demand forecasting and its reliability or otherwise on past schemes, as well as things like the so-far un-knowable extent to which, if at all, changing technology and changing social habits might undermine all previous experience about the relationship between transport demand and economic growth; and (d) whether the economics of such schemes should be judged in U.S.-style narrow accountancy terms (projected return on investment, or cost-benefit analysis) or in a much wider European-style context of regional economic planning and other probably unquantifiable external factors. Wikipedia ought to report these disagreements fairly without taking sides. What the article does *not* need is proponents or opponents trying to push their own POV. -- Alarics (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I found two white papers that are sceptical or critical of the DfT forcasts, and added those. They are

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmtran/writev/economy/te07.pdf

and http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmtran/writev/economy/te30.htm

I actually don't see a problem with some mention of the flyberg article given that there are now direct references that express concern over the reliability of the DfT estimates - personally I think the flyberg article is relavent in a wider context, though maybe it should be in a different article - it seems useful to say that "rail projects are often over optimistic in their expectations of demand" .. though I see that a strict interpretation of the guidelines might consider it unacceptable.Sf5xeplus (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyway here is the section as far as I got it rationale section - is it ok or not ok. I definately don't think what I've put there has biased POV in any direction ? Sf5xeplus (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Would it be better moved to the criticism section, or maybe not suitable at all, or ok now ?? (I'm honestly not bothered myself - even after spending the 10mins needed to find some sources - all I would say in its defence is that is seems sensible to show that there exists some doubt on the estimates)Sf5xeplus (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article would be better for reporting all sides of the argument , for and against, one of the problems I've encountered is that alot of the commentary is coming from blog posts, which aren't usually suitable for references. Wolmar is one place to check, since he's respected as a journalist. I'm not sure where else to look.Sf5xeplus (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Brief attempt to find more stuff:

http://www.transport-watch.co.uk/hs2-reports.htm (is transport watch reliable - never seen it before) - similar concerns on passenger expectations in conclusion section

Wolmar : http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/2010/09/rail-652-the-arguments-mount-against-hs2/ - passenger figures again - briefly mentions concern over the funding situation on the rest of the railways. (I also recall him using the phrase "voodoo economics" but can't find a source for it now)

point a. found a few not-particularly insightful things on carbon - mostly saying the same thing - carbon benefits come from changes to the way electricity is generated, not from the trains.. eg http://www.publicservice.co.uk/feature_story.asp?id=14125 , also some of the references in the article from DfT already cover carbon. In general they seem to be saying no net benefit, or relativly small effects on total carbon.

point d. Haven't seen anything excluding government sources on justifying the scheme in terms of public investment rather than a cost to benefit ratio.

I've found it difficult to find anything (excluding stuff about the chilterns) about most of the points above, and very little positive coverage - various rail groups eg the Association of TOCs appear to have been mostly silent on the matter.Sf5xeplus (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The ATOC position - vague but possibly useful http://www.atoc.org/clientfiles/File/Policydocuments/High%20Speed%20Rail%20October%202010.pdf

CBI - generally positive view http://www.cbi.org.uk/ndbs/press.nsf/0363c1f07c6ca12a8025671c00381cc7/90f4e6238662dba1802577fc003d2fdc/$FILE/CBI%20brief%20-%20The%20business%20view%20on%20high-speed%20rail.pdf

Could think of anywhere else to look.83.100.225.242 (talk) 05:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

All the debate that I mentioned has been going on over several months in RAIL and Modern Railways (neither is on line, I think, except for Wolmar's columns) and to an extent recently the Daily Telegraph and possibly other serious mainstream national papers. The Times is not now on line but Telegraph, Guardian and Independent are. I have all back copies of RAIL and Modern Railways. If nobody else is willing, I will have a go at this but it will take time and I cannot do it over Christmas. -- Alarics (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

ok I'll just add this link http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8213277/Is-this-another-high-speed-train-crash.html that tmol42 gave above, so I can find it easier later when I get around to it.

It is worth considering some sort of merger of the "rationale" and "perspectives" section, since they have a lot of overlap in terms of arguements for and against HS2. I can't think of a suitable way to do it right now. But if anyone can suggest a way (including suitable section headings) I'll add some of the info from the links above to it. The ATOC paper is quite interesting on a second reading as they are against the current plan for a station a Old Oak Common, but otherwise support.83.100.225.242 (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Why not merge "Rationale" into "Perspectives" and call the combined section "Controversy". This should maybe start with a summary of the official rationale for the scheme, followed by a subheading for each main topic of dispute. -- Alarics (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Edits from IP 83.100.225.242, 21 December 2010

1. 'Rational' is not a noun.

2. Given the tedious nature of the prose in the HS2 page, I'd strongly suggest leaving interesting quotes - like Hammond's "wet" - in.

3. Why is historic capacity information repeatedly deleted? Or a longstanding quote about the effect on door to door journey times (Rationale section)?

5. I got a notice about edit warring. But it's IP 83.100.225.242 who has started reverting, and ploughing up seemingly consensus content. Funnily enough, there's no sign of a edit-war warning on that user page.
Haskanik (talk) 00:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point might have been written for you. You can easily fix spelling or grammatical errors if you are aware of them. You could try WP:Third opinion on things you think need an outsider to look at. Also take a look at the message I left you on your talk page about making blanket revert after I've tried to fix problems you've raised.Sf5xeplus (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Sf5xeplus (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"You can easily fix spelling or grammatical errors if you are aware of them."

I can fix all kinds of errors. But I'm not minded to fix, or teach, spelling.

"back slowly away from the horse carcass"

It's the article that's becoming a horse carcass. It has enough factual and coverage problems, without adding more. Or dumping more bad spelling and grammar on it.

Is IP 83.100.225.242 the same as User:Sf5xeplus?

Haskanik (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Last question - yes.

The point is that if you'd rather bring up spelling errors here rather than just fix them on the main page then you're not acting like you are trying to help.

The article about the horse relates to the phrase Beating a dead horse - eg such as making an argument entirely about the incorrect spelling of "compatible" as you did above.

As for the information on historic passenger usage, I already said to you that I though I may have removed too much on your talk page. I've re-added some. diff I can't guarantee that other editors will agree with that.83.100.225.242 (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Haskanik, if you can't be bothered to fix a typo but you can still be bothered to whinge about it here, you have your priorities all wrong. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and collaboration requires good faith and courtesy. Your hostile tone of voice is unhelpful to say the least. -- Alarics (talk) 09:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"Haskanik, if you can't be bothered to fix a typo but you can still be bothered to whinge about it here, you have your priorities all wrong... Your hostile tone of voice is unhelpful to say the least."

Before making a baseless accusation, I'd suggest checking out

the numerous factual, structure, grammar, and spelling issues I've corrected - e.g., for spelling

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High_Speed_2&diff=prev&oldid=399425137

Nice to be, um, appreciated? Anyway, once again, for people having difficulty keeping up, there was no whinge about a typo.

There comes a point when the underlying prose is so bad, that fixing spelling doesn't really improve overall quality.

The page wasn't in that state, but now is a very hard slog for the general reader. General coverage is very poor, article structuring is odd, some quotes are fetishised into blockquotes for no obvious reason, other quotes removed (because they're "pseudo plagiarism"), and so forth. I've also had 'warning' messages about this talk page having been "deleted since (I) started editing it". Given this funny business, and the amount of deleterious revert activity, there's no point contributing at the moment.

Haskanik (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Some info out of date after 20 Dec 2010

I just noticed that some info was out of date eg diff - I'm not aware of the full plan, so please check and correct for other changes needed. (and rewrite what I added as needed as improvement).Sf5xeplus (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just added a summary of all the changes to the line of route set out in the HS2 Press Release here along the line of the already included changes elsewhere in the article.Tmol42 (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haskanik (talk • contribs)

Suggestion on structure

With the news on what will and will not be built as part of "phase 1" being released on 20th Dec 2010 I wonder if parts of the article should be grouped into "phase 1 of construction" and "phase 2" sections. ? ? (ie the route info) Sf5xeplus (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I would be inclined to reduce earlier plans to a brief summary. Probably only the latest version of the scheme needs setting out in detail. -- Alarics (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

eurostar loading gauge

diff compare the reference

http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Railway_Group_Standards/Infrastructure/Guidance%20Notes/GEGN8573%20Iss%201.pdf

First of all when adding a reference please provide a page, or section. Additionally please check your facts against the reference. No where in the document can I find a confirmation of the statement, which seems incorrect.83.100.225.242 (talk) 13:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Second of all, when reverting a back to a sentence with no supporting reference at all, please provide a reference.

Haskanik (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it is trying to say - you changed the sentence to something that added no value to the article.

Apologies if I've misread that, but giving a place in the document where it supports whatever you were trying to say would make it easier to find out.

Note the point of the text was to show that "classic complatible" high speed trains exist - you changed it to what seemed like an irrelevant statement about the class 373 ? does that make sense, if not please explain.83.100.225.242 (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

No, "classic complatible" high speed trains do not exist.

To state the obvious, new build Class 373 would be caught by RVAR, and probably a few other things too.

Haskanik (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, all existing French TGVs and German ICEs are "classic compatible": they run both on new-built high-speed lines and on existing classic lines, in particular so that they can (a) reach existing city-centre terminals, e.g. in Paris, and (b) travel beyond the high-speed network, e.g. to Bordeaux, Brest, Strasbourg, Nice, etc. -- Alarics (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as HS2 Ltd is concerned, "Classic compatible" is a term used for rolling stock that could reach Glasgow and other destinations using London - Staffordshire HS2, and existing lines. Nothing to do with TGVs reaching Chamonix, or whatever.

Haskanik (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that it is *exactly* analogous to TGVs reaching Chamonix. The point is, all existing high-speed trains in France and Germany are "classic compatible" in that they are not confined to new high-speed lines. The DfT's idea of building some new trains that will run only on new infrastructure is a bit of a novelty, I think. -- Alarics (talk) 11:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

British_Rail_Class_373#GNER made it as far as york/leeds - I think that is the type of thing they are referring to. And yes any new "classic compatible" trains would have to be designed to meet modern accessibility standards.Sf5xeplus (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"classic complatible" high speed trains exist"

No.

Haskanik (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

ok so there is a typing error above. have you read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point - I don't know what your point is, but you are certainly being disruptive. I suppose if you carry on like this I will recommend you for a topic ban - ie stop you editing this page . Does seem fair but you are being a pain in the ass. You argue with everyone else on this page too as far as I can see.83.100.225.242 (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"ok so there is a typing error above. have you read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point"

The typo is completely unimportant. I copied and pasted for speed. The point is that 'Classic compatible' refers to a future train design for HS2 service to Scotland, which does not currently exist. Pointing that out is not arguing with everyone, disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, or "being a pain in the ass". I'd have thought that if people are going to have elevated privilege rights, they might consider avoiding using those rights as a threat against another editor, when they're a party to the dispute. I guess that's how a warning appeared on my user page, but not on the "active party" in the reversion. Anyway, feel free to flex big muscles. If the article goes down the pan, I will enjoy the flush.

Haskanik (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

ok so I misunderstood that - in which case why you just restate "classic compatible does not exist" is not clear to me - nobody else seemed to have any real problem with the addition that class 373 are an example of classic compatible.

I'm guessing that everyone else thought it was ok to take "classic compatible high speed train" as meaning "a high speed train that can run on UK tracks and the high speed network" - such as class 373.

I don't have any editing priviledges to abuse (except reviever status which does very little) - and I couldn't anyway - decisions are made by consensus as far as I know. I'm just trying to tell you that you are being a pain in the ass in general. ie you wasted plenty of my time on this talk page to little benefit to either of us. And it's not me - my other interactions with other editors have been simple and resulted in no problems. And you seem to be argumentative on this page in general - all adds up to a possible topic ban . I can only recommend you for one, not ban you. Sf5xeplus (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Back to reality - what you did actually doesn't make any sense - you say you don't think eurostar trains can be considered "classic compatible", but you added a reference and statement saying that The British Rail Class 373 trains used by Eurostar are not compatible with most Continental signalling systems, and their loading gauge restricts their use on existing British track. - why did you even do that - if "classic compatible" doesn't exist, and class 373 aren't "classic compatible" - as you say - then any mention of them is by your own definitions - totally irrelevent to this article..

I think you might be just nuts - but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe tomorrow will be a better day for you? :)

83.100.225.242 (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

A better day would be one where someone in a so-called edit war doesn't issue an edit-war warning to one party, but not the other party. Especially when the reverts were initiated by the other party.

"but you added a reference and statement saying that The British Rail Class 373 trains used by Eurostar are not compatible with most Continental signalling systems, and their loading gauge restricts their use on existing British track....any mention of them is by your own definitions - totally irrelevent to this article.."

Yes, totally irrelevant. But I didn't bring this stuff into the page, that was User:Brianthegiant. If I'd taken it out, some misguided soul would doubtless have put it back in. So I just changed an inaccurate irrelevant reference, into an accurate irrelevant reference.

Haskanik (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

What you just done is "disrupt wikipedia to prove a point" - which isn't helpful - by your own admission you added an irrelevant reference to the article. The above discussion was a waste of my time caused by you. If you don't think the addition should be there bring it up properly and don't mess people about.Sf5xeplus (talk) 10:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Editing difficulty

I had to switch browser to even post to Wikipedia today, and I don't know how text copied across for the talk page ended up as an edit of the article. User:WatcherZero was quick to pounce, claiming "vandalism".
Haskanik (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Haskanik What ever your reasoning for copying the talk page to the article page you statement that User:WatcherZero was quick to pounce, claiming vandalism is out of order. 13 minutes between your edit and his is long enough for an editor to correct a blanket error and it was reasonable for User:WatcherZero to assume it was vandalism not least as you had added Verfall to the edit summary. Whatever your frustrations on this article I suggest a quick retraction/apology might help. Tmol42 (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It's the claiming of "vandalism" by two editors, that's out of order. Along with someone called someone else an idiot. In the last 48 hours, four editors have ignored "Assume good faith". My edit history does not show page blanking, so an accusation of "vandalism" was, at best, ill-considered. I did not register that the material had been posted to the wrong page. Had I done so, I would have corrected it. As will be seen, I noticed a later edit had been lost from the copying over, and corrected that. The end.

Haskanik (talk) 01:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You titled your edit 'Verfall' - in english 'decay', one of the meanings of which is 'the criminal removal of property' this looked highly malicious, particularly when combined with your anti-rail/tram agenda and numerous previous warnings and suspensions on your talk page. WatcherZero (talk) 04:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as hasanik then posted what I assume is the same info the the talk page, I can assume it was a mistake and posted to the main page in error. That's what hasanik has said above - and if they have been having technical problems I guess that is why they didn't correct the main page immediately. Let's WP:AGF here on both sides - I agree that it looked like vandalism, and I accept that it was a mistake.Sf5xeplus (talk) 11:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Verfall means decline or decay. It does not mean 'the criminal removal of property': that is called Diebstahl. I used the term to refer to the quality of the HS2 article's readability, usability, and factual accuracy, all of which are in decline. And if User:WatcherZero thinks I have an anti-rail or anti-tram agenda, I'd suggest he provide some evidence. Rail topics on Wikipedia tend to be edited by enthusiasts/trainspotters, etc, creating articles with balance and content issues. I don't think most of the currently active editors have the writing ability, or editorial judgment, required to make this anything other than a deeply flawed article.

As even spelling faults are being reinserted by these editors, the page itself isn't worth fixing. I'll give one example each of readability, usability, and factual accuracy decay - which occurred in a very short timespan - using

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High_Speed_2&action=historysubmit&diff=403860206&oldid=403788011

1. Usability example

The name of the development company is High Speed Two Limited. What was the benefit of changing the introductory full use of 'Limited', to 'Ltd'? How do people using screen readers handle this, for example?

2. Readability example

"High Speed 2 (HS2) is a proposed high-speed railway between London and the Midlands, the North of England, and potentially at a later stage the central belt of Scotland, being developed by High Speed Two Ltd, a company established by the British government."

Wasn't the sentence long enough as it was? The unwieldy lengthened version conveys the impression that the North of England is part of the first stage, creating a dissonance with the third sentence in the paragraph.

3. Factual accuracy example

"The WCML Rugby - Euston section was operating at 80% of capacity in the 2009 morning peak, Rugby - Birmingham being in the 60% band, the Great Western Chiltern route between Birmingham and London was also shown as being used at 60% of capacity with unused capacity on the Great Western Chiltern route expected up to 2024-2025."

This isn't correct. The capacity, shown in bands (61-80%, etc), was correctly represented when first introduced into the article. The data was taken out, and then reinserted, but in corrupted form.

Haskanik (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You are a fine one to cast doubt on other editors' editorial judgment, if I may say so. Your examples 1 and 2 were by me, so I suppose I had better defend myself:
1. What was the benefit of changing the introductory full use of 'Limited', to 'Ltd'? That is how it is usually written in British English when part of the name of a company, that's all. It is slightly briefer. You are nitpicking.
2. The unwieldy lengthened version conveys the impression that the North of England is part of the first stage. No, it doesn't. That would be so only if I had written "at a second stage". Instead, I wrote "at a later stage" because, as it stood, the paragraph didn't make clear that the section onwards from the north of England to central Scotland is a considerably more distant prospect, in terms of both timescale and the likelihood of its ever happening, than the Y-shape as far north as Manchester and Leeds. I agree that it would be good to divide the sentence up a bit, and I will do that -- but if your writing ability is so superior to everyone else's, as you imply, why didn't you do it yourself? Oh, I see -- you think the article "isn't worth fixing". In that case, leave it alone and if you are not going to contribute constructively then, to quote Clem Attlee, "a period of silence from you would now be welcome". -- Alarics (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Point 3 has been corrected, thanks for pointing that out.Sf5xeplus (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

As an excuse I was working from this [6] which says " This meant the DfT was predicting strong growth, since its report showed the WCML Rugby - Euston section as operating at only 61% and 80% of capacity in the 2008/2009 morning peak" the only grammatically correct way to interpret that statement is to assume it was 61% in 2008 and 80% in 2009. Unfortunatelt agents unknown failed to spot that error when it was added - sometime before I started editing - were you able to spot that mistake Hasanik - I can only assume from you superior attitude that you cannot have possibly written that misleading sentence. Muphry's law ? Sf5xeplus (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Line connecting HS1 and HS2

As I understand it the connecting line will not be built for high speed operation, so somewhere (it's mentioned in High_Speed_2#Public_consultation and High_Speed_2#Connection_to_other_lines) it should say "a non-high speed connection.." - but I can't find anywhere that states this. If anyone else can please alter or leave a message. Thanks.83.100.225.242 (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Not being, as another editor has pontificated above, a railway enthusiast or spotter of trains etc and therefore unworthy to contribute lacking the appropriate writing abilities I hesitate to add this in case I am critisized for being inadequate, but here goes! The report on the DfT site here provides the options that are being recomennded to be persued for the connection between HS1 and 2. On page four under section 2.1 Structural Modifications it says However, since running speeds would be severely constrained, the enhanced clearances associated with high speed operations have not been assumed. Hope this is what you are after. Tmol42 (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

ok thanks, I'll fix that later if nobody else gets there first.83.100.225.242 (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

actually, even though I'm sure it is true I'm not keen on using this reference as it predates the actual announcement, and doesn't say which option will be built. I'm sure more info will turn up soon.83.100.181.45 (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Urm, all of the maps announced in the announcement predate the announcement. If they hadn't already been drawn up the announced decisions based on them couldn't have been announced in the announcement(!). —Sladen (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

ok you've confused me enough to make me add it :)

Yes you're right - the linked proposals(above) were marked as final.

Annoyingly there is no way to get to Europe from Euston ( and no possibility of using St. Pancras as an alterative terminus.)83.100.181.45 (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

St Pancras platforms 5–10 would be accessible via the existing Silo Curve[7]. My personal hunch is that DB et al would probably want run something like Brussels Z.→Lille E.→London St P.→London O.O.C. (✈Heathrow)→Birmingham C., with a reversal at St Pancras in both directions (foreign recognition of St Pancras makes it too important a destination to miss out), whilst I suspect that a shorter-distance British-originated service might be Birmingham→Old Oak Common→Stratford International→Paris Gare du Nord. These are my own hunches though. —Sladen (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

There may be physical access to St Pancras but will platform capacity not be tight? I thought I had read somewhere that the main point of Stratford International was that there could be e.g. Birmingham to Paris trains calling there and not needing to go into St P and reverse there. -- Alarics (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking through the various documents available (Southern Route Rules of the Plan, Network Statements, ...) the minimum headway on the CTRL is 3 minutes (or 2.5 minutes for a stopping train following a non-stop train), and the minimum re-occupancy times for platforms 5–10 is 4 minutes. I can't find a minimum turnaround time for those platforms with a Class 373/1 unit but for a HST in platforms 1–4 is given as 30 minutes (or 10 minutes for incoming ECS, generally a change of driver at the reversal reduces that as they don't have to walk 400 metres). Based on six platforms, 30 + 4 minutes turn around minimum and 60 minutes per hour I make the capacity to be 10.5 trains/hour of terminating international traffic—for reversing through traffic, some of which might be reversing back through London Tunnel 2 to the single-line Temple Mills Depot connection. I suspect you could handle four reversing services on a single platform per hour (10 minutes dwell, 5 minutes re-occupancy == one to Leeds, one to Manchester and the returns to the continent, per hour). A single-track HS2 link would match this if the platform capacity worked out.

IIRC, there are eight international paths per hour per direction on the CTRL, which moves us on to the elephant in the room: the Channel Tunnel itself. For the CT there are twenty 140-km/h paths per hour at three-minute headways; a single 160-km/h path eats up multiple slots, but "flighting" is allowed for consecutive 160 km/h paths at four-minute headways. Fifty-percent of that slot capacity is available to Eurotunnel itself (shuttles) and fifty-percent for mainline through traffic—there is some capacity available but not infinite. Of ten trains per hour at St Pancras, eight could go back down towards CTRL1, but two would need to go somewhere else ECML, Temple Mills, HS2... it's all a bit hypothetical though; Eurostar operate about 1.5–2 trains per hour as of 2010 so there is lots of space on paper and by-passing trains going straight from Stratford International to Old Oak Common don't appear to increase that unless everyone goes and re-assesses their timetables carefully (see EMT turning around five-trains per hour) on four platforms next door. —Sladen (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Green bridges and tunnels

I see someone has already linked these terms, but a Pedestrian separation structure is probably not technically what is meant by green bridge. See http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/proposedroute/routemitigation01/pdf/routemitigation01.pdf (eg section 2.4 , 3.2) - it seems that a green bridge specifically means a (short cut and cover) (or maybe a bridge) that preserves a right of way (ie scenic walk). Possibly also a bridleway (pedantic) - but in all likelyhood an article "green bridge" or at least a definition is needed.83.100.181.45 (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I originally left the two 'green' terms unwikified then another editor added clarify tags so I wikified. The HS2 report does not refer to wildlife benefits for any of the sites of the bridges and tunnels so did not opt for the disambiguation page and only for the Amersham green bridge does it refer to the preservation of two public footpaths. My personal and therefore an irrelevant opinion is that the use of green bridge is a misnomer or a flawed attempt at "properganderising".Tmol42 (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, see greenwash. Still the page Green Bridge exists so problem solved I suppose.83.100.181.45 (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

oh you changed it back - I was assuming that at sometime in the future someone might change Green Bridge into a proper article. Doesn't matter. Should something be added to Pedestrian separation structure ? about the term "green bridge" - my only worry is that people clicking the link don't actually get it explained what is meant by "green bridge" - they'll probably be able to guess anyway.83.100.181.45 (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry changed it ahead of seeing your comment above. I'll go with your suggestion and revert again given you have also improved the definition on Green Bridge page.Tmol42 (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

A number of changes - mostly minor

Below a number of point arising from the dozens of edits made see all the edit differences combined

External links - some removals

• http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/hs2 (Warwickshire council's info)
• Umapper map of proposed route with KML description

The warwickshire.gov link mostly linked to the already present dft website - seemed of little use.

The umapper link isn't clear on source - which version of the route does it refer to - also only really duplicates the other maps??

83.100.225.242 (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Copy-paste

get an education! see WP:TROUT and cluebat

Some of the sections make heavy use of copy-paste additions to write the article. To clarify - this is not right. See Wikipedia:Copy-paste. In general please write in your own words. Quotations should only be used where the actual thing that has been said is important, and not when only the general meaning of what is said is what is being presented.

I will attempt to fix it. But. I will be removing any similar additions on sight in future. Writing articles by joining to together stuff from external sources is not a good way to proceed, and if excessive is sufficient to be a cause for deletion, please don't do it. Thanks/83.100.225.242 (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Also does anyone want to admit to doing this, or know who's been adding all this quoted stuff - I need to "tell them off"..83.100.225.242 (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

references

Some (a lot) of the primary references are messed up - the page numbers don't match (I think the pdfs have changed), also this http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2ltd/hs2report/ links to different parts by chapter.. (These are the references linked to from the notes section)

It would be better to link by chapter/section/subsection, as that wont change. eg like this diff the chapter lets the right pdf be picked easily, and the section helps the text be found without any page number problems. If somone fixes this please have a gold star..83.100.225.242 (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

more references council opposition (opposition section)

Citations needed diff and this reference removed

<ref>{{cite news | url = http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/8719453.HS2__will_go_through_Chilterns_/ | newspaper = Bucks Free Press | first = Andy | last = Carswell | date = 3 December 2010 | title = High Speed 2 line "will go through Chiltern AONB" | location = High Wycombe }}</ref><!-- ref doesn't mention councils by name -->.

Note - if the references don't do it just tag, remove, or fix it.. We can't see the hidden comments very easily - not sure if the removed reference should go back in with more text? 83.100.225.242 (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

reference needed please help (carbon emmissions section)

removed this

The Department for Transport's ''Delivering a sustainable railway'' stated, "Increasing the maximum speed from 200km/h to 350km/h leads to a 90% increase in energy consumption. In exchange, it cuts station-to-station journey times by less than 25% and door-to-door journey times by even less."<ref>{{cite journal|publisher=Department for Transport|title=Delivering a sustainable railway|date=July 2007|page=62}}</ref>

Found the report eg http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/whitepapercm7176/ , but can't find page 62 , or the statement. Can someone else find it?83.100.225.242 (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The quote is correct and it is section 6.14 on page 62. The document has been moved by DfT so new link is http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/about/strategy/whitepapers/whitepapercm7176/hitepapersustainablerailway1.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.116.197 (talk) 11:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

And so you put it back in, complete with the copy edit unchanged - idiot. Try writing the article in your own words, as hinted at above in the section "copy-paste". I've removed it - and frankly I'd like to see a reliable secondary source for such claimsm not a pov pushing primary source.Sf5xeplus (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just been told off for calling you an idiot. Sorry. Thanks for your other contributions anyway, such as the references. But please no copy-pastes in the article.Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Why do you need a secondary source? The reference was to a Dept for Transport White Paper. A secondary source would very likely be inferior? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.116.197 (talk) 10:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Because the primary sources may be promoting a particular point of view (not the case with clear cut data such as maps) - and may not be considered to be accurate in the data they present - that's why secondary sources from reliable experts are needed to confirm, deny, or comment on the case the DfT is making.

I don't mean a news report repeating the same info, but a proper independant analysis of whether or not high speed rail in the UK is a good idea. (I agree that a secondary source that just re-reports what the DfT is not as good). Sf5xeplus (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources

Having gone through the article I've come to totally agree with User:Haskanik see Talk:High_Speed_2#remeoved_ref-improve_tag_but that the article needs to be referenced with reliable third party references. I accept that the primary references are useful, but in places the primary references and the arguments therein just look like justification for the line, and cannot be considered to be truly measured or balanced - I say this after having read a lot of them. - the fundamental issue is that they are selective so that they can present a positive case for HS2.83.100.225.242 (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

A interesting article, possilbe reliable seconday source, and one of twol articles today from Andrew Gilligan and Patrick Hennessy in the Daily Telegraph about the HS2 business case, with good references to the HS2 Ltd primary sources here. Needs to be balanced by another source putting the other point of view. Tmol42 (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Please add if possible, if you are willing to do that (could use the "opposition" section) - note that the other point of view already exists - it is the DfT documents. I'm not sure about the claim that "none of the carbon calculations, incidentally, include the CO2 cost of constructing the line, which would add a substantial environmental burden." since I've seen DfT reports that do included construction carbon. The criticism loss of other services, and the placement of the Birmingham station, as well as the criticism of viabilty based on passsenger growth do seem to be entirely valid points though.83.100.225.242 (talk) 13:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(it should be noted that the primary case for the line has always rested on the assumption that extra capacity would be needed, and not on any green credentials - I think the original Adonis document makes that clear, and the rational has not changed. I don't remember any claims that it would reduce co2, though there was some spin about "high speed rail being part of britains low carbon future" etc etc - probably the telegraph has got ahead of itself slightly on that one.)83.100.225.242 (talk) 13:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

route template

High Speed 2
As of October 2023
to Liverpool, Glasgow & Edinburgh Handsacre Junction West Coast Main Line Snow Hill lines Birmingham New Street Birmingham Curzon Street Birmingham Moor Street Birmingham International Birmingham Interchange West Coast Main Line Old Oak Common Euston pedestrian walkway to St Pancras International interchange with National Rail at all stations
Original plan, pre-2021
Northern Powerhouse Rail Manchester Piccadilly Leeds to East Coast Main Line to York & Newcastle West Coast Main Line to Liverpool, Glasgow & Edinburgh Midland Main Line Manchester Airport High Speed Classic-compatible loop Sheffield Crewe Chesterfield Classic-compatible loop East Midlands Hub Handsacre Junction to Nottingham, Derby & Leicester West Coast Main Line   Phase 1 ╲ Phase 2   boundary Snow Hill lines Birmingham New Street Birmingham Curzon Street Birmingham Moor Street Birmingham International Birmingham Interchange West Coast Main Line Old Oak Common Euston pedestrian walkway to St Pancras International interchange with National Rail at all stations

removed the template (see right), template doesn't include the Y route, and in my opinion is superfluous since we have fairly good proper maps with the route on the in article.

Either way, the latest route is soon to be announced, so maybe it's best to wait and see. Again: personally I don't think the route diagrams work very well in terms of easy of reading, compared to a proper map (which we have).83.100.225.242 (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't want Germany/Netherlands - East Midlands/Sheffield/Leeds/Newcastle/Edinburgh trains to take this route. 121.102.122.122 (talk) 12:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

final comment - regarding talk page discussions

I've tried to understand some of the older discussions above, but the main problem is the total absence of links to edit differences - so all I can see is "you removed x", and then some discussion. For third parties - who might help, or be able to edit the removed part to everyones satisfaction it's not much use - since for anyone but the two (or more) people discussion it's very difficult to find out exactly what they were talking about...

eg Talk:High_Speed_2#Removal_of_well-sourced_and_accurate_material_by_User:_Adambro, Talk:High_Speed_2#List_of_Opposing_Organisations_and_Groups

In the future please try to include diffs. Thanks.83.100.225.242 (talk) 04:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Platform height - clarify

Not a question about where this is measure from (though that would be useful), but what it means .. is it higher and lower than standard. ?? I see Railway_platform_height#Great_Britain, maybe should be wikilinked - but could there be something about how this compares with HS1 etc?

Railway platform height is measured relative to the top of the rail. All of the stations on the CTRL have two groups of platforms: TSI international platforms at 760 mm, and British domestic at 915 mm.

Platform	Height	Ashford	Ebbesfleet	Stratford	St Pancras
International	760 mm	2	2	2	6
Domestic	915 mm	2+	4	2	3

For more information see the CTRL/HS1 Infrastructure Registers. —Sladen (talk) 08:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)