Talk:High Speed 2/Archive 6

Status of Old Oak Common: no longer "temporary"
There is an edit war over the status of OOC. The IP editor wants to mark it as the "temporary" London terminus, with Euston still the planned terminus. I disagree. When Sunak announced that the scope of HS2 was being curtailed, he abandoned (a) the main spine to Manchester north of Lichfield and (b) the tunnel to Euston and the station rebuild. Both these aspects have been removed from HS2 Ltd's remit. So they are not in any current plan.

As a face-saving exercise, he left open the option for a private sector consortium to pick up the Euston link but talk is cheap. It is a wild WP:CRYSTAL violation to pretend that this is actually going to happen. No such consortium exists. If a credible proposal comes forward, we can report it at that stage but right now there is nothing. Zero. Zilch. To claim otherwise is deliberate deceit. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Euston station is going ahead. That is clear. The only difference between Euston and the rest of HS2 is the funding. No other. He is saying in his edits that Euston is cancelled by the prime minister, which is totally incorrect. This editor is clearly disruptive giving a warped point of view to justify his illogical view. I suggest he be banned for a short period until he settles, as he is clearly highly disruptive at the moment. 2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with the IP editor here.
 * The CPC speech made it clear that HS2 would reach Euston, various media outlets have reported HS2 will reach Euston, but that the plan is for this to be funded through private investments.
 * In no way has Euston been cancelled. The rebuilding is simply no longer managed as part of the HS2 project, but it is still part of the High Speed 2 route. Davwheat (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I also would lean towards describing OOC as the temporary terminus, dependent on the funding issues. I'm sure you'll all figure out the correct phrasing. Content disputes aside, a reminder that the article talk page is for discussing content, not conduct. If any editor has complaint about another editor, then is can be dealt with on WP:ANI. This talk page is not the place to make accusations about editors or demand that they be banned. As per the talk page header here, editors are required to observe WP:CIVIL language. Insults like "warped point of view" are not acceptable here. Cnbrb (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well I still think it as fantastic as believing that a Labour government will reinstate the route to Manchester, but I recognise the consensus is against me and concede. In my crystal ball, I foresee future editors still debating this point in 2033. Meanwhile I will revert my reversion. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And 👆🏻 this is an example of how content disputes are resolved: by rational, adult discussion. Thank you JMF, we can all keep an eye on the situation and maybe update the article as things become clearer. Cnbrb (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There was no insult. We obviously disagree what an insult is. 2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There was no insult. We obviously disagree what an insult is. 2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Not to open the debate again (before 2033) but this article in the Architects' Journal gives an objective assessment of the position and is well worth taking time to read: Two quotes are particularly interesting:
 * One senior rail consultant close to the project told the AJ: ‘Rishi wanted to scrap the whole thing – or anything that hadn’t been started yet – wipe the slate clean and chalk up the project as a learning exercise. 'He was told after he came back from the party conference that he couldn’t stop Euston, but he decided to say "get on with it but do it with private finance". This is an impossibility – it's a shambles.'

and
 * A DfT spokesperson said: 'As has always been planned, the line will finish at Euston. This is a world-class regeneration opportunity and there is already extensive support and interest from the private sector to invest.

Take what you will out of that. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)


 * HS2 Ltd are boring the tunnel to Euston under their funding, not private funding. Only the station is needing private finance. The Architects Journal is point of view.
 * Finance from the private sector would need a profit somewhere such as charging trains to use the HS2 platfoms, and/or retail in the station.  2A01:4B00:B607:3D00:3D84:E8B2:119C:F054 (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Remediation
If there was a need for HS2 to provide greater capacity, those interested in it will surely be interested in alternative ways of remedying the deficiencies that HS2 was originally intended to provide. I accept that Andy Burnham's and Andy Street's January meeting with Government was not about reviving high speed connections, but it clearly included increasing capacity between Handsacre Junction and the start of Northern Powerhouse Rail. Perhaps this article deserves a section about proposals to remedy the capacity deficiencies that the amputated limbs were designed to meet. TedColes (talk) 12:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The Burnham and Street initiative is clearly zero to do with the HS2 250mph track being built by HS2 Ltd, which ends at Handsacre. It is just a proposal, a concept at best. The route has not been determined which would involve upgrading/extending the WCML.
 * This is a factual encyclopedia not a rail gossip forum. Those forums exist for that sort of talk. 2A01:4B00:BB18:A600:E738:4C0D:38F4:6829 (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, not gossip, only factual reporting.--TedColes (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It is ZERO to do with HS2. 2A01:4B00:BB18:A600:E738:4C0D:38F4:6829 (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps peripheral, but not zero. HS2 was never solely about speed – the capacity issue was the real, if less politically attractive reason. --TedColes (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ZERO! HS2 is DEAD and has been for three months. Confirmed by the opposition leader. Take it to the WCML article where it belongs. 2A01:4B00:BB18:A600:E738:4C0D:38F4:6829 (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Please do not shout.--TedColes (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems legitimate, interesting and relevant to the article. We might want to review where it sits in the article structure, but it's useful to include this information. Cnbrb (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree.  2A01:4B00:BB18:A600:E738:4C0D:38F4:6829  is clearly pressed that the new proposal for the rest of HS2 is to be paid by private investment which is emphasised by the aggressive diatribes they have posted on the page. The new proposal for the rest of HS2 to Manchester to be paid by private investment, which it should be emphasised, Andy Burnham has said will be a brand new high speed rail line (which there is already Parliamentary approval under the High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Act 2021) if it goes ahead. It is not speculation or gossip, it is fact. The exact plans are subject to the review and that is why the part of the Article is entitulated "review" and not "the plan going forward" as the exact route of the review could change from that already approved by the HSR (WMC) Act 2021. The review should therefore remain on the Article and the Article can be modified once the review has been published by the Mayors which looks promising. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It is NOT HS2. 137.220.74.146 (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not legitimate at all. It should be in the WCML article. A sentence her with a link to is all that is needed. Are you clinging onto a forlorn hope HS2 is coming back? Forget it. It is not. East was canned over 2 years ago and the west over three months ago. 137.220.74.146 (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Not HS2. Burnham and Street emphatically even say it is not HS2 and that they are not reviving HS2. It will be a section of the WCML. That is obvious. If anyone cannot see that they should not be editing. It is is an factual encyclopedia, not a outlet for speculation about other lines. There are dedicated rail forums for that. 137.220.74.146 (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * It literally is fact and you're so pressed it's going ahead, it's completely laughable. It remains relevant to the Article and it will remain on the Article. Even if it is not "HS2" by name it will be high speed rail on the same or very similar route. It is consequently relevant. No further comment is needed. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 08:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Recent emphasis of services in lead
Hi, been a bit confused, since it was added a few months ago following the cut of the northern leg, but the lead of this article now gives a lot of attention that HS2 is "not just a railway line but also a wider network of services". Which seems off, considering as most of the article (incl. infobox) is on the railway line, even specifically stating "HS2" wouldn't extend to Scotland in a section, so bit contradictory. The company themselves only describes HS2 to be the new line, and would be comparable to describe all Eurostar services to be High Speed 1 services? In the end, AFAIAA, the services would be part the operator of the West Coast Partnership, that merely use the line.  Dank Jae  22:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right, the article focus should really be about the construction of a new line. There was (to put it mildly) some discussion about this a while ago, and to my mind, some of the material about services is there more to placate a vociferous editor than to provide encyclopaedic information. In the end, while there will be HS services in the future, the detail is only conjectural, and the bulk of this article discusses the physical line being built - or what's left of it at any rate.Cnbrb (talk) 01:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The obvious approach to take is have this article about infrastructure and construction thereof, and another article about services. But that editor was insistent that "HS2 will go to Liverpool" and found citations in support. Sloppy sources lead to sloppy articles. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

And round and round we go
Yet another edit war has broken out between those of us who prefer "High Speed 2 (HS2) is a high-speed railway line which is under construction in England. The same name is used for services which are planned to run on the line and beyond." versus those who prefer "High Speed 2 (HS2) is a planned high-speed railway line and network of passenger train services in Great Britain." Is there any way we can reconcile these view points? AFAICS, the first version is in line with all the media analysis; the second is in line with political position. IMO, the second position was defensible when it was slated to go to Manchester and Leeds, it stretched credulity when Leeds was axed but now, when it only goes to Birmingham (apart from a spur to the WCML where HS2 trains are too long for the platforms and too slow for the track), it is just silly. , you keep reinstating the second version but you appear to be in a minority of one. Can you provide a justification that cites any competent sources later than last October? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The two options convey essentially the same information, but the original wording is more succinct and so I don't see a need to change it. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I prefer option 2. We can't hide from the fact that HS2 has been curtailed, cut back, and redrawn, and the remit has been altered over and over again. To me, that means we must use "planned". Were it today the same scheme as in 2020, we could use the first option. It isn't, so we shouldn't. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Prefer option 1, although as said before I wonder why we need to mention services at all, especially in the first sentence(s), unless it’s part of a recent initiative to “revamp” HS2 by the Government to justify it being shrunk, making it bigger than it is. Most of this article is not on the services and services are even more WP:CRYSTAL than physical infrastructure under construction. Most sources won’t say HS2 goes to Scotland, even if the other lead argued it would.  Dank Jae  12:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Plus where is the source that states HS2 is a network of services? “HS2 services” can be descriptive meaning services using HS2, the line, but not considered HS2 itself.  Dank Jae  13:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Most recent sources won't even say that HS2 will go to Manchester, only that some HS2 trains will go there, will be slower than Pendolinos, will worsen congestion at Crewe, and won't fit the platforms if they get there. Total crystal ball meltdown. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have caught up on your comments: it should be noted about the ongoing review etc by the Mayors of Greater Manchester and the West Midlands and the conclusion of that review. I have included that in the section about the review, but the review has said it will be producing its report in the Summer with the exact details. The review as a summary said a brand new line will be built by private investment on the same line as HS2 from Birmingham to Manchester. A map has been produced but I have not included this yet. I would assume to leave it as this until the entire report has been produced in the Summer because of the exact details yet to be fully disclosed. If this review confirms this I would propose that the article be amended to say that it is a HSR line from London to Manchester under construction as it currently does in option 1. It is a HSR line but it is under construction. That overtakes the fact of it previously being planned as the plan is being constructed. Is this ok? UnicornSherbert (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We can say that it "is under construction" when the earthmovers move in. Before that, see WP: CRYSTAL. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I know that, I am saying I agree that the introduction should remain as it is, and then wait for the report of the review to come and then put the report's findings in? Other than that, to include what the Mayors of Greater Manchester and the West Midlands have said in relation to the revived scheme until the report comes I would assume is factual. The name of the entire project could change given the circumstances surrounding the review etc, but until then the name too should remain the same. Thanks :) UnicornSherbert (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The Manchester bit is only at the report-writing stage so for now I moved it out of the 1st para of the intro, which was long enough already. -- Wire723 (talk) 08:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It may be at "report-writing stage" but both Mayors have confirmed the plan, which they have published a map, which can be seen from the other sources on the article about this matter. It has enough notability to publish this, and it is relevant to the ongoing review, which has been part of the introduction since the review was announced months ago. It should therefore be restored to include this information in the introduction so people are aware of anticipated change which is further explained down the article UnicornSherbert (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The plan can be mentioned in the intro but the 1st paragraph should describe HS2 as currently constituted. The plan is unfunded and lacks government approval. -- Wire723 (talk) 08:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The railway is authorised by the High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Act 2021. It therefore has approval notwithstanding being announced to be cancelled by Rishi Sunak. Indeed, the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill has been carried over to this session after that supposed cancellation. It would follow therefore that the project remains to be approved formally and that approval has not formally been withdrawn, which means it is legally still approved. The Mayors have even said that their plan is for a new line on what HS2 Phase 2 would have been but this is paid by private investment (and they have produced a map to assist with this). This should therefore remain on the introduction as well the main substance of the review as it has been set out. UnicornSherbert (talk) 11:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Stating the obvious a bit, but if it is an Act, then it is law. If it is a Bill, then it is not law. (Also, afik, bills not passed in the same parliamentary session are lost. Do you have a citation for "carried over"?) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It really goes to underline the fact that you do not understand the procedure of Parliament if you require to have a carry-over explained to you. It means the Bill does not fall, and can only be made by a Minister of the Crown . This speaks to the Government's intentions particularly where HS2 Phase 2 is announced to be cancelled by the Government in October 2023 but no steps have been taken to withdraw its legal authorisation, and the Bill to authorise Phase 2b is carried over in November 2023. No more really needs to be said. UnicornSherbert (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please WP:assume good faith. I said "afik" (as far as I know). The Carry-over article explains Ordinarily a bill that does not receive royal assent by the end of the parliamentary session fails; to become an Act, it must be re-introduced in the following session. and includes multiple cases where that is true. A motion to carry-over is clearly the exception to a general rule. Either way, it is a bill, not a law. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I will also point out, it is a Hybrid Bill. This means that special rules apply in terms of its Parliamentary passage. This means it can be carried-over to a new Parliament and not just a new Session. This has happened in many Acts for new railways recently. I do however note your comments. I am sure it will be more apparent in the Summer when the report is released by the Mayors as to the way forward. UnicornSherbert (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)