Talk:High Speed 2/Archive 3

4768:. And please stop accusing editors of having an agenda or "astroturfing" - just because someone takes issue with your edits does not make them a secret agent for HS2. Knowledge is supposed to represent facts impartially, and in order to do that, everyone (that includes you and me) must back up statements with references. It's in the rules. If you don't use references, it's more likely that other editors will remove the stuff you write, so you're just setting yourself up for disappointment. If you cite reliable sources, your content will probably be kept. That's how it works. If you in a collaborative spirit instead of picking fights with everyone who tries to help you, you will have a much better experience on Knowledge. Everyone is not out to get you. 825:(like any publication) wants to have its own "house style", which represents editorial consensus on how its content should be formatted. To copy styles from our sources in a piecemeal fashion would produce stylistically inconsistent, unprofessional-looking and potentially confusing articles. As it was once put to me, copying styles in this way is appropriate for a ransom note, not an encyclopedia. The second consideration is that such a proposal would amount to a gamer's charter – the mere fact that someone can dig up sources that use their preferred style is not a strong reason for a Knowledge article to use that style. 321:, if you mean the discussion linked to by Archon above and that was closed more than 18 months ago - I have read it. A notable difference is that there new editors involved here now, so a consensus may well develop to stick with imperial. We don't need any policy rewritten: we could decide that within the spirit of the current policy that this article is not engineering-related or we could decide that given the weight of secondary sources using imperial and our knowledge of British usage, that this article should reflect that or we could fail to reach a consensus and thus follow MOSNUM advice for that case and revert to 2864:

not an encyclopaedia. Yes HS2 is going to create jobs during the construction phase. Listing every single contract and a having a running total of jobs, is not notable. It is not done with other projects, and doing so here would necessitate a separate list article on just that, which would be absurd. The information while all accurate and factual, is not notable, due to the over-detail which is inevitable. Where is the line drawn on what is and is not included. Keep the article focused on the railway itself. Trades Union and the Government can worry about jobs and contracts.

3523:, received Royal Assent on 23 February 2017 and work has now commenced on Phase One. To implement Phases 2a and 2b of the HS2 proposals the government will seek powers through two further hybrid bills, one for each phase, as the railway will impact on private individuals and organisations along the route or elsewhere. Each bill is required to address the environmental impact and how this will be mitigated, and to allow individuals affected to petition parliament to seek amendments or assurances. 31: 4028: 948:

evidence brought here) that because British civil engineers generally work in metric that this scheme was draw-up in metric, that is not a good reason to buck the trend of UK publications and reliable sources written for the British public, which mostly use imperial. We should use the language of the people at large, and not that of the back-room boffins. This is a general purpose encyclopaedia and not a civil engineering text-book or scientific paper.

6248: 924:, another civil engineering article. In that case, I had instituted imperial measurements when working on the article. A few other users disputed this, resulting in a long discussion that created a compromise: the "engineering" clause. That clause was intended to allow projects that were drawn-up in metric to use metric, for the sake of accuracy. Source based units, on the other hand, have been repeatedly rejected by all parties. 4040: 5103:

the HS2 track and back on, as will be the case at Sheffield. Trains have to slow up greatly to pass through the tunnel, so the two branches north and south will not impede speed. The Crewe Hub gives greater HS2 connectivity to the existing classic lines splaying out from Crewe, its prime aim. The hub is vital facilitating a means of HS2 connecting onto the 6 classic lines that splay out of the Crewe junction.

1221:

issue for people. In terms of safety, high-speed rail has been used safely around the world - you would have to include sources which back you up to counter this. I have left a message on your talk page about my opinions and knowledge of HS2 - the talk page of this article is not the place for them and should be used purely for discussion of the content of the article, not for general discussion of the topic.

2213:

pretty clear. It is not even certain the station will be built as the private backers have not confirmed their funding. Many think the station will not be built as it will only be accessed via Birmingham or London, who have their own airports, NOT Manchester. I have seen your name on comments sections of newspaper and always taking up HS2 to the point of absurdity with many having to put you right.

7445: 6866: 408:, which largely discusses Britain's activities and roles be covered? We need to stand back and be objective. Do the guidelines mean "related" more loosely for some articles and contexts than for others? We should not allow our judgement on this be swayed by our personal preference for one unit system over another. If this article is considered to be related to engineering then why 1127:

consensus, which was the original consensus reached after the Edinburgh Trams discussion, to allow UK engineering articles to use the metric-first style consistently in cases where that is deemed appropriate (which covers most modern infrastructure, such as high-speed rail). This comment thread is going nowhere, and I have no idea what you hope to achieve by prolonging it.

2133:`The estimate was commissioned by the Department for Transport and produced by Michael Byng, the man who rewrote the book on rail cost estimation, devising the standard method of costing which has been adopted by Network Rail following several high-profile failures to accurately cost their projects.` - Telegraph. Note: `commissioned by the Department for Transport`. 180:

articles to reflect the normal practices of modern UK engineering. Different sources will follow their respective manuals of style, which is why we do not simply copy the style from our sources in any circumstances. Knowledge forms its own consensus about what styles are most appropriate in different contexts: a consensus which is detailed by our Manual of Style.

152:

make more logical sense to feature miles first with metric as a supplementary figure. Furthermore, in all of the news articles used as references on the page, the distance is always cited in miles. This surely proves that the use of kilometres in the UK is not the preferred method of measurement for long distances.--

6467:

and new high speed track. 21 stations in all. That is the complete HS2 network. These destinations and the tracks linking them should be in the map. Obviously one colour for new HS2 track and another colour for the existing high speed classic track. Then the map will display the complete network. cheers.

7470:

This is reporting, via leaks, that phase 2B will be the responsibility of NPR, who will merge the two - which makes sense. NPR will no doubt change the design of phase 2B. Chester may come on, maybe no new track from Birmingham to Derby/Notts with Leeds, Newcastle, Sheff using uprated MML & ECML,

7323:

is greater than 20 (under "Which stations will HS2 trains serve?"). Currently (September 2019) it stands at 28 - this is not speculation, this is the official HS2 website, although naturally this will probably change (especially after today's announcement) - "Based on current indicative train service

6891:

6744:

4513:

I wouldn't go as far as to say that, but it is true that the reader has to go a long way down the page before discovering (under "Perspectives" - whatever that means) that there is significant opposition to this project, not by any means all of it from marginal figures. It should perhaps be mentioned

4200:

This article is over 20k words, hard to read because of duplication, and shown the dates of the vast majority of the references being at least 5 years old, much of the content is outdated. There's a lot of discussion of alternatives and their pros and cons. This article could be made more readable

3644:

The map is useful to the reader as it shows HS2 in context of other HS rail. HS2 is clearly marked in the key, and the Scottish proposals are clearly marked as proposals with grey dotted lines, so there's no confusion there. I think showing HS2 in isolation would be less helpful to understanding the

3622:

The current first map is really a map for an article on high speed rail in Britain not HS2 per se. It would be more useful to start the article focusing on the railway as set out by the Government. It's significant that Phase 2 is now split into 2a and ab, with 2a due to follow closely after phase 1,

3534:

For each phase, HS2 Ltd consults on the scope and methodology of the EIA. HS2 Ltd published an Environmental Statement for Phase One at deposit in November 2013, which was updated with an ES for each of 5 additional provisions during the House of Commons Select Committee stage, and four supplementary

2863:

How is this keeping the article focused on the railway? Is every contract given to every single supplier going to be mentioned. Is every job given to everyone from a field clearance teams, to track installers going to be included. Including this reads like something a trade union baron would put out,

2587:

and try to understand them. Other editors have gone out of their way to to help you by explaining this. Despite this, you are persistently engaging in a petty edit war about a very minor point, and I strongly suspect that you and the anonymous IP address of previous edits are one and the same. Please

2380:

shows two platforms and a stand alone station. I can't help it if people cannot understand simple official maps. Wiki has to be factual and informative. Stating, or implying, that this station is a rail interchange is untruthful and even contradicts the map in the the section. "interchange facilities

2027:

The Sunday Times reported that the Department for Transport (DfT) commissioned Michael Byng to calculate the cost of HS2 and that he estimated it would cost £104 billion, significantly more than the £56 billion cost estimated by the DfT. However, a DfT spokesman said : "These claims are incorrect. We

1236:

I do not offhand have access to any polls or exact data. I am just a supporter of the anti-campaign. Most of the polls I came across were on the BBC site or part of newspaper articles. As a ballpark the numbers in these poles were generally between about 75% and 90% against. Also a simple counting up

1166:

While among the British people HS2 seems to be pretty much universally loathed and derided. - As a complete and vast waste of money, as an obsolete solution that will take decades to build, as extremely elitist, as fundamentally stupid, as a pork project that lines the pockets of everyone involved in

1126:

It isn't an "amendment" to clarify the original intent of the guideline. Now two people (RGloucester and I) who were involved with the drafting of that guideline two years ago have explicitly told you exactly what it means, and you have ignored us and have begun to act disruptively. There is indeed a

5833:

I would comment that construction is all going to be in future or present tense for quite a long time. Perhaps when the thing has been built, it becomes history, but until then it makes sense to me to have it in a standalone section - between Planned stations and Operation conveys some chronological

5309:

A much needed improvement of this article is a re-organisation to bring together the multiple parts covering the operation of the railway. This will make it more readable and simplify future editing when more details becomes available about this. The following sections & sub-sections should be

4912:

What, the maps that I created and added myself? Yeah, they're worthless. And as for all that repetitive illogical nonsense about complying with Knowledge guidelines when editing articles on Knowledge? Yeah, you have a lot to put up with, you poor chap. I am so sorry you have been inconvenienced with

4050:

I saw that the phase 1 map was deleted. Agreed, it's not best quality, but I think a map graphic is helpful here. There was some question over it being inaccurate/out of date, and that the northern tie-in has changed. I will happily run up a replacement in a style consistent with the current phase 2

3530:

A legal requirement of the hybrid bill is the production and deposition of an Environmental impact assessment (EIA) to identify the significant impacts on the community, property, landscape, visual amenity, biodiversity, surface and ground water, archaeology, traffic, transport, waste and resources.

3509:

Although Parliament has approved the first two phases of construction, precise details of the plan and route for Phases 2a and 2b have not been formalised, and are still open to negotiation and change. For example, the spur to Heathrow airport was dropped in 2015, as was the HS1 to HS2 link. In July

1176:

I would add my own O.R. opinion as a scientist and engineer. - That from an engineering standpoint HS2 is fundamentally unsafe (because of high KE) and vulnerable to small deviancies or single point failures. Also that any accident or failure at high speeds (because of high KE) has a high chance of

1161:

There seems to be almost universal agreement among the three main political parties and among career establishment politicians in favor of HS2. Their reasons are obscure except that they believe it will boost the economy by reducing the amount of time top executives spend travelling - between London

877:

isn't meant to be used with nominal values (such as a design speed or a speed limit). But Sceptre's underlying argument that it is more accurate to reflect real-world use (I mean, for example, that it's misleading to talk about speeds and distances in imperial when the project actually uses metric),

261:

above. To argue that the primary sources related only to the inevitable engineering content of such a transport project give a fair reflection of British units used would be disingenuous and misleading. We all know that, outside of the drawing office, the physical characteristics of this project are

179:

You are incorrect to imply that the use of kilometres is extremely rare – speeds and distances on this project (and on the related HS1) are typically measured in kilometres. This was a major reason why the style was changed last year, and why the MoS rule was changed: to allow UK engineering-related

7144:

HS2 is all the network that HS2 trains will run on and serve. The dedicated new high speed tracks are a subset of that. This article has HS2 as the new high speed track, referring to the rest as additions or connections way down the article. The classic tracks HS2 trains will operate on are classed

6565:

6466:

Cross wires I think. HS2 links Birmingham, Birmingham airport, Carlisle, Chesterfield, Crewe, East Midlands, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds, Liverpool, London, Manchester, Manchester airport, Newcastle, Oxenholme, Old Oak Common, Penrith, Preston, Sheffield, Warrington and York on a mixture of existing

6380:

Thank you for the updated document. I think that the lead image was deliberately kept simple so as to avoid constant updates in the early development phases, but it could of course now be improved or replaced, as 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F581:7D0F:ADCE:E437 suggests. I'll give it some thought. 13:48, 12

5817:

Should the construction section be a subsection of the History section, go just after the History section, or go right at the end? My personal preference would be a subsection of History until there is enough content to be its own section, at which point it should go just after the History section.

5102:

Crewe hub station is not on HS2 track. HS2 track runs under the station in a tunnel by-passing it. There is a branch south of Crewe onto the WCML and a branch just north of Crewe onto the WCML. HS2 trains visiting Crewe will not be captive trains. To get to the station the trains have to move off

4832:

It is obvious you have a HS2 agenda, probably with a Manchester bias - why else would someone attempt top make out a station is something it is not. The linked documents and article map are references. You have an agenda. It has been explained to you assertively, that if you cannot see the obvious

4551:

The London direct to Mcr, Leeds and Birmingham classic line times would then only be slightly less than HS2. Leeds is 169 miles from London, while an uprated ECML with new 160mph trains (160mph is possible on some stretches) the time from London to Leeds averaging 150mph are similar to HS2 times.

3714:

If you would like to refresh your browser window (you may have to clear your browser cache) you will see a revised version of the map. As requested, I have removed all other lines. I still don't agree, as it now seems devoid of context, but there you go. I have updated other graphics to clarify the

2192:

An editor is attempting to insert into the article that the Manchester Airport station will not have a direct rail interchange with other services. This is on the basis of the map given as a source. I reverted this, but the editor reinstated the edit, saying that the map was a good enough source. I

2047:

But even after your latest revision, we still have text that says that the DoT commissioned a report (from Byng?) that estimates £104bn. But the DoT says no we never. So the only conclusion is that the Murdoch paper made it up shock horror outrage. Pending clarification, I will now comment out that

842:

One of the things drilled into students when they get to GCSE level and beyond is not to create false precision when multiplying and rounding. Take, for example, the design top speed of HS1: 300km/h. If we convert that to Imperial and round down, we get 186mph. Converted back we get 299km/h. HS2 is

824:

As RGloucester says, this proposal has been made and rejected several times in various guises; I think I once proposed something of the kind myself. It might seem at first like an easy way to solve the problem, but it's a Trojan horse. For one thing, the point of having a Manual of Style is that WP

347:

The mere fact that the editors are somewhat different this year than last is not an adequate reason for the existing consensus to change, if the underlying arguments are no different than they were in early 2014. A stable consensus was reached last year, so I think you are mistaken to imply that we

256:

article, and covering the politics, environmental concerns, economics, legal issues, planning concerns and community impact of a transport scheme - you only need to look at the section titles to realise that. For that reason it needs to honestly reflect the British use of imperial measures that are

151:

use the system of units that the topic was drawn-up in". It states generally use the system of units that the topic was drawn up in, not solely use that system of units. I would argue that because the tendency in the UK is to lean towards miles, and the use of kilometres is extremely rare, it would

7499:

If NPR are responsible, (crystal ball gazing) their prime remit is the Liverpool-Hull line and northern connections off that. Secondary is the connections to the Midlands and the south. We may see the WCML, MML & ECML uprated rather than new HS2 track to Birmingham from Manchester & Leeds.

7276:

run trains. Some of those trains may use HS2 infrastructure for some of their journeys. Some trains may continue on HS3/NPR for some of their journeys. Some trains may continue via WCML/ECML for some of their journeys. Or divert via the MML, and re-join HS2. These are the difference between a

6920:

6697:

5268:

I have already split off the content into a separate article, if that does suffer from edit wars or soapboxing then I'm happy to put it back in. In this article I've only summarised the positions of the main political parties, so feel free to add a summary of the other groups if you think it would

5166:

and I am sure this will become even worse if an article is dedicated to the topic of support/opposition (can you imagine the edit wars?!?). A while ago I suggested a major trim on this section and I tried to make a start but lost the will to live. Just for clarity I'll paste my original suggestion

5082:

This sub-section is gobbledygook and misplaced under Phase one. Crewe isn't in phase one, regardless of what the local press or stopHS2 might have reported in the past. The reference to BBC article doesnt mention hub. Where Crewe should be mentioned is in Phase 2a and it ought to be on the map as

4587:

As a director of 20MM I would like to clarify this statement. 20MM is not and never has been opposed to HS2. Our position is that we support HS2 in as much as it provides a direct link to the city of Liverpool. We have no objection to Phase One or Phase 2a which we consider to be beneficial to our

3691:

Given that "a picture is worth a thousand words", we should not expect visitors to read the whole article very carefully on the off-chance that they might happen upon some words that contradict what is staring them in the face. Yes, the article ought to contain somewhere in the body an overview of

2553:

An official reference map was linked to. The map conveys information just the same as words. One was on here babbling on about having only references with words or from newspapers or other such nonsense. You stated `you need to gather stronger evidence`, dismissing an official map. You have flawed

2415:

As Cnbrb has explained, it may be the case that there will be no interchange, but until you get a secondary source which says so then you are reaching a conclusion that the source does not explicitly state. The previous version did not imply that there would be interchange, and even notes that the

1444:

The cost section was merged with funding and put right at the top. The funding of the project is highly topical. There was two hybrid bill sections. One was removed and merged. Funding is critical. It has already reduced the size of HS2 and may be reduce it even more with a funding review going on

947:

If that was the intention of the clause, the clause was badly written because it doesn't say any such thing. Just because the editors at that article accepted atypical (in British terms) metric-first measurements, don't assume the editors here are obliged to too. Even if we assume (we have seen no

713:

on UK metrication – and it is therefore difficult to see why a project designed and constructed entirely in the metric system should not be described primarily in those same units. This is the underlying reason why the Edinburgh Trams article was changed, why the MOS rule was changed, and why this

146:

that RGloucester cited, "In non-scientific articles relating to the United Kingdom, the primary units for most quantities are metric or other internationally used units, except that: the primary units for distance/length, speed and fuel consumption are miles, miles per hour and miles per imperial

3496:

Carlisle, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Liverpool, Newcastle, Preston, Sheffield and York will be linked to the network by HS2 trains running off the HS2 network onto existing slower tracks. The HS2 project is being developed by High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd, a company limited by guarantee established by the UK

2212:

I am not attempting, I am. Two maps were given, one is in the section of article, one in a link. I assume you can't read maps the way you are acting. The Manchester airport station IS a stand alone station. That is all too obvious. It is not connected with the existing station whatsoever. That is

1770:

Just a drive-by suggestion that editors of this article with an interest in the environmental impact and protection element of this story might wish to refer to research and report on HS2 Ltd's stated approach of No Net Loss of Biodiversity, and how that metric would be operated and implemented.

1220:

could you add some links to polls for your point about it being loathed and derided? I have seen ones that have a majority against, but certainly not enough to say it is completely against, especially on such a technical subject, and you would also have to include polls to say that it was a large

212:

I agree with seeker123, in England miles are used for such lengths. All road signs and car speedometers are in miles and people think in miles. Kilometres are alien to most of the English. Even the webpages used for links here give miles. There is no need to convert everything to kilometres, just

5902:

tag to the lede because I think the statement in question contains two figures that are incomparable. Examining the citations given, I note that the original cost was at 2011 prices without the rolling stock, whereas the current cost is at later prices with the rolling stock. I think that it may

5673:

There's a lot of overlap of route description in the stations section, slightly contradicting but definitely making this necessarily long (including unneeded history too). I propose removing the stations section completely as they are listed elsewhere in the article and have their own articles.

1463:

Funding is critical. It looks like the scheme may be cut back in parts because of FUNDING. A Telegraph report states it may only go from London to Crewe via Birmingham and the rest dropped as the funds are not available. Costs are spiralling to the very first announcement. Funding is also from a

900:

this article were primarily engineering-related, then most of the sources would surely be technical publications and journals which would contain primarily metric units. As it is, this is clearly more of a generalist transport article, drawing on generalist UK secondary sources - as evidenced by

446:

is pretty clear on this. "Strong national ties to the UK" (which is what "UK-related" refers to on MOSNUM, for example) is quite a strict criterion. Obviously there will be a lot of articles which have some tangential or historical relevance to the UK, but unless the article is primarily about a

7291:

HS2 as is their plan, is 20 stations served running on a mixture of new and existing high speed track. Speculation does not count. Who owns and run lines does not count. Only the official planned & proposed HS2 network counts. The ECML, WCML & MML are all high speed lines conforming the

6712:

2730:

A map conveys information the same way as words. That is what it is for. The map is clear that the stand alone HS2 station is not connected to the existing station, so there is NO rail interchange. Running street running tollycars to the HS2 station is not a rail interchange. Far too many (HS2

189:

I suggest that in this context, the term "generally" means "in general", i.e. that this is a general rule. Please do not try to use the letter of the MoS in a manner inconsistent with its spirit. The term "general" is not intended to be a weasel-word or "get-out clause"; if you think an article

4771:

If I had an "agenda" I would simply delete your statement, but you will see that I have not. However I have tagged it with the standard "citation needed" tag. This is not a personal insult, but a note to encourage you to find a newspaper source or a written document that clearly says that the

3489:

I work for the Department for Transport and we would like to update this page, to reflect some minor inaccuracies and update some of the content about legislation, eg where bills have now received Royal Assent. The Knowledge guidance says that I shouldn't edit the content directly as this is a

459:

involve British soldiers, would not satisfy that criterion. Saying that the topic relates more to the UK than the USA would also not be relevant, for example. Likewise you could not argue that an article about pre-revolutionary America would have ties to the UK on the basis that it would be an

1001:

Any editor who systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without clear consensus, who edit-wars over such a change, who disrupts talk page discussions or normal Knowledge processes pertaining to units in UK-related articles, who engages in forum-shopping, or who

919:

Please don't act like a fool. I'm telling you, as the DRAFTER of that very clause, that the intent of the clause was cover all transport-related articles, as such articles are civil engineering-related. That is to say, they revolve around plans drawn-up in metric. The dispute that led to the

103:

unilaterally changed all metric or metric-first measurements to imperial or imperial-first. Knowledge convention is that if an article already uses a particular system of measurements (e.g., metric/imperial, CE/AD), it should not be changed without prior discussion and consensus. As User:The

4143:

If possible I would like to see Paris times included & referenced - historically it would be interesting to read what was projected in the early days (before it was decided to abandon the HS2-HS1 link and make everyone take the Circle line instead!). I'm sure it was estimated somewhere.

2356:

which suggests that interchange facilities may indeed be created. It's mostly vague, but mentions that the Metrolink line could be extended. So you see the problem? The current HS2 plans are still only half-baked, and if you start to add things that may be true, it's potentially inaccurate.

4623:

Regarding this article being a "mouthpiece for HS2": a few weeks ago we had an anonymous IP editor who was repeatedly trying to insert unsupported assertions about the lack of a rail interchange at Manchester Airport. That editor ignored all advice, refused to listen to reason, conducted

1006:

Clearly, this change cannot be made without a clear consensus to change the units in the way that is proposed. I see no sign of such a consensus emerging. More people have spoken in favour of the status quo than have called for change, and I don't see that this is likely to change.

564:

I have read the article and noted the mixture of technical and non-technical information that it provides. I believe that the article is better served by putting the metric measures first rather than having a mish-mash of units, or putting the imperial equivalents first. I therefore

403:

therefore automatically engineering-related enough to be caught by that clause of the guidelines, I would ask: what amount of British related cover do you think would bring an article within the guideline clause for "articles relating to the United Kingdom"? Would an article such as

4588:

city. However, our support for Phase 2b is conditional on a direct link to Liverpool being incorporated or aligned in such a way to permit a future direct link (i.e. provided under Northern Powerhouse Rail) being constructed as soon as possible after the completion of this phase.

6384:

HS2 is still not nailed down, as NPR may change the upper part of phase 2b. Yes, in the early stages it was much more fluid. The WCML, ECML & MML are high speed track, meeting the minimum for high speed. The only part of HS2 not on high speed track is the WCML Liverpool spur.

972:

Just because the editors of another article agree that it is engineering related does not mean that all transport articles are to be treated the same. This one should obey the sources which prove what units are used in the UK to write about this subject. Put imperial first. B,

194:

in place relating to the topic of UK units. This means that it is especially important not to make changes at a whim to unit presentation style on UK-related articles, as the threshold for what is likely to be considered disruptive behaviour is lower than for non-UK articles.

4874:

or work collaboratively is unfortunate, but it means there is simply no point in discussing matters further with you. I will not be responding to any further messages on here that appear to come from you on whatever IP address you may be using. Happy editing, and remember to

2147:

The only source that Google can find for "The estimate was commissioned by the Department for Transport and produced by Michael Byng" is stophs2.org (copied at coleshill news). More relevantly, using the search function at telegraph.co.uk produces "no results". Fake news.

1029:

Those proposing the switch to miles should ponder the fact that they don't have the numbers, and even if they did, their proposal would introduce unnecessary inconsistencies into the article. Any further discussion of this proposal is therefore a waste of everyone's time.

5427:

I temporarily set it to 5 while restructuring the article. There is lots of old out of date stuff that is superseded, that needs rewriting, put in the right spot or deleting. I will set the TOC to 5 and then back to 3 when done. It takes time. I do have a life elsewhere.

3535:

environmental statements. The Environmental Statement for Phase 2a was published at deposit of the Phase 2a Bill in July 2017 and a consultation on it closed on 30 Sept 2017. The working draft environmental statement for Phase 2b is planned for publication in 2018.

699:

The wording of the MOS rule makes it clear that it is intended to apply to infrastructure including bridges and tunnels, so railways are hardly too great an extrapolation from that. The rule was originally created in 2013 in response to a discussion surrounding the

4628:

to push their agenda, and accused other editors of being secret agents for HS2. IP 90.203.210.124 has just re-inserted the claim again and has failed to provide a supporting reference, so I think we're back on familiar ground. Can we please not start all this

2572:

who have an agenda. You clearly want to get across the point that Manchester Airport HS2 station will not have a direct connection with other trains and Metrolink. It has been repeatedly explained to you that, while this very minor point may be entirely valid,

4897:

I am very civil having to put up with repetitive illogical nonsense from you. If a map and a map in an official HS2 document is not enough in your eyes then take out all the maps in the article, as in your mind they do not convey information and worthless.

2361:

is spend some time on Google looking for something better - maybe someone in a newspaper article has criticised the HS2 plans for the airport because the new station is far away from the existing station? It's a line of enquiry that would be interesting.

1508: 1241:

My own personal gripe against HS2 is mainly that if the money were invested elsewhere such as in the UK space industry (eg Skylon) or on a UK manned Mars mission it would have a far bigger positive effect on the economy.. Hope a little of that helps.. :)

6348:, whether on existing high speed track or new high speed track. That is fixed. NPR may entail changes to parts of HS2, but locations are still the same. Other destinations not in the existing plan are mere speculation not needing to be in the article. 5201:

list all the organisations that support/oppose HS2, then it's got to appear in a readable way. At the moment, we have many organisations listed along with a description of their constitution and a rationale of their opposition/support. There's also the

4430:

4402:

Now that the history has been hived off (thank you again), we should continue give attention to the article size. There have been thousands of contributions over the years, and the article is bloated with lots of unnecessary detail which falls foul of

7427:

Thx. If that number, then it is that number. But best wait until the results of the review are announced as matters will be clearer then. It may be canned, or parts lopped off like phase 2b, which is rumoured to be lopped off. NPR may influence, etc.

6848:

676:

Reading through the article, it is clear that although there is some engineering content in it, it is by no means a mainly engineering article. This view is reinforced by the fact that the article is sponsored, not by an engineering project, but by

2715:

Thank you - that's a good way of looking at it. Yes, I also think that this is what can be inferred from the map, but as you rightly point out, inference is not evidence. I hold many views about many things that I know do not belong in Knowledge.

1202:

I am trying to get this safety question asked in New Scientist, to try to get some kind of scientific opinion on whether or how much truth there is to a safety issue. It might also lead to a more formal answer that could be added to Knowledge.

2232: 348:

might need to revert to the status quo which existed before that time. The current style works perfectly well, it is representative of the practices of modern UK construction and engineering, and I see no benefit to Knowledge in changing it.

6209:

This station has not yet been given the go ahead, as it relies on private funding. The article gives the impression this station is certain to be built, when that is not the case. It must be made clear the situation regarding this station.

2698:

Nothing stand to your reasoning. Fact: there are no plans for underground travelators between stations. The HS2 station will not connect with other rail services. The map is clear on that. The `Interchange` is rail to air, not rail to rail.

1850: 2076:

Can you provide the Telegraph reference? . Because if it is as you say then we should definitely include it, alongside the DoT denial. Crazy! But after the Great Western electrification debacle, nothing surprises me about this Government's

5738:

Euston needs re-doing, even if HS2 is cancelled. The concourse is way too small. A large train shed has been demolished. Also buildings around Euston have been demolished. There are lots of men around Euston with HS2 on their clothing.

4809:

It is not overtly obvious for a station that has not been built and will not be built for at least 10 years. As has been politely explained to you multiple times, you need to provide a reference. I am sorry my logical insistence that you

3178: 4547:

4. Uprate signalling to allow up to 155mph on mainlines (over 160mph on some stretches of track is achievable). New faster trains that can run on existing lines has made much of HS2 (and much of new and proposed high-speed rail lines)

4243: 7525: 2666:

interchange. It is not shown on the map of course because it doesn't go down to that level of detail / it is out of scope for the project / it's an airport responsibility / whatever. I'm just as convinced that I am right since it is

4961:

I know that it's nice to have photos to break text up, but do photos of existing trains on other lines which will certainly not be running here really add to this article? There are already links to articles on high speed trains in

3699:

To compound the error, the route diagram shows a prospective interlink to HS1 when it should actually show an interchange via the Victoria or Northern Lines , or via bus. User:FDent is right - these images need to be replaced asap.

3497:

government and has a projected cost of £56 billion, up from the initial cost of £32.7 billion in 2010. Peak hour capacity arriving/leaving Euston will more than triple once HS2 is running, increasing from 11,300 to 34,900 each way.

1237:

of the posts in discussions showed that again and again the vast majority were always against. (not a very reliable source) I am sure there must be detailed research out there and a thorough Google search should hopefully find it.

6946: 6311:

which clearly illustrates the potential lines on page 5 - not speculation, a reflection of published official documentation. No sign of Chesterfield I'm afraid. If there's an updated version of this document, please let me know.

5788:

The delaying of the line construction is political. Some leading politicians still want HS2 cancelled. The works at Euston need doing irrespective of HS2. If HS2 is delayed, or cancelled, the works at Euston will still go ahead.

3584:. I can find links to environmental statements etc on GOV.UK but I won't have time to do so until the week after next. To note I've added some further proposed changes to paras one and two - I missed these from my original edit. 7237:(mostly) run across multiple individual railway lines to reach their destinations, but above we can see a statement from yourself that "HS2 is all the network that HS2 trains will run on and serve."; this seems to confuse train 6658:(mostly) run across multiple individual railway lines to reach their destinations, but above we can see a statement from yourself that "HS2 is all the network that HS2 trains will run on and serve."; this seems to confuse train 3526:

The High Speed Rail (West Midlands – Crewe) Bill was introduced to the House of Commons on 17 July 2017. The aim is to achieve Royal Assent by 2019. The Bill for Phase 2b is planned to be introduced in the current Parliament.

2437:

IP 2.126.60.251, nobody has an agenda. The issue has been explained to you but you are not prepared to consider other points of view. I have reverted your removal of citation request tags. Kindly stop your disruptive editing.

1183:

I believe that the only way to make HS2 safe is to reduce the speeds to 120 - 100 mph, but this completely removes the whole reason for building a special line in the first place, and removes the whole purpose of the project.

843:

as much a civil engineering project as it is a railway project, but both of those will be designed in metric and will give measurements in metric. For reasons of accuracy, we should be giving those measurements in metric too.

1153:

This article barely seems to mention the politics of HS2. Now I am part of the anti-campaign so I would not touch the article directly in case of partiality, but I feel it needs more balance on the opposition to the scheme.

2662:" if it doesn't actually interchange? It won't be a rail interchange - no-one expects Metro trains to run on HS2 track. So "stands to reason" that there will be a pedestrian tunnel with travellators between the station for 2510:

Please read the discussion above for clarification as to why your edits are being rejected. Glad you've got around to setting up a user account, hopefully not with the sole purpose of continuing this rather silly edit war.

3510:

2017, the government introduced the Bill for Phase 2a, West Midlands to Crewe, to Parliament. The sections either side of the Pennines may link with east-west links currently under development as Northern Powerhouse Rail.

1083:

And I changed it back again. You can't just go amending guidelines like that with no consensus. Just accept the will here is to restore the natural UK habit of using imperial first, especially for mile-scale measurements.

3580:. I wasn't sure if you'd prefer me to link to (cite?) external sites or wikipedia pages, eg for the London - West Mids Act. I linked to a Knowledge page with the idea that that would link to the actual legislation page - 2032:. I have no idea who is in the right here, but I do not think that this unofficial figure should be listed in the lead, especially with more emphasis than the official figure, when the government has rejected the figure. 4977:

I'm happy with the couple of photos of HS trains so that the reader has an understanding of the type of vehicles that get used on similar lines; however, I think it is important to include "not specified for HS2" in the

4927:

You are saying that information conveyed by maps should not be taken seriously. If that is the case no map should be in the article at all as the information they convey is false. Why are you not deleting all the maps?

7689: 7500:

One rumour was that Leeds would use NPR west across the Pennines, then head south between Liverpool & Manchester on HS2, so 250mph track all the way, with the eastern leg of phase 2B scrapped. Anyhow, we will see.

6921:

1513:

It appears that there won't be a station at Meadowhall after all, and HS2 will go through the City Centre station. Fair bit of this and related Phase 2 articles need updating, along with some of the railway graphics.

7685: 7471:

only updating the existing track. Maybe no new track above Crewe, maybe no Manchester airport HS2 station, etc, etc. What will be on HS2? What will not be on HS2? Interesting in December when the review is announced.

7433: 7110: 7106: 6892:

6854: 6083: 6055: 6025: 5979: 5964: 5929: 3554:, much appreciated. Interesting to get some "inside" perspective on this. In terms of editing the articles, perhaps you could suggest external links to documents, reports etc? This would also help, as editors have to 4817:

upsets you so much. It's obvious to me you have an anti-HS2 agenda, in spite of which I have tried to help you. Read the policy, and you will be able to contribute to Knowledge constructively, not confrontationally.

2796: 2764: 2601: 2559: 2530: 2501: 2167: 2138: 6176: 6114: 5383: 4247: 4127:

HS1 links needs cleaning up throughout. A part of this is the Paris times, which although not stated in the source ( an FOI request) will have included that link which was a part of the scheme at the time (2012).

2736: 2704: 2067: 1783:(This was on the basis that, by definitoin, an irreplacable habitat cannot be replaced with like for like tree-planting to ensure No Net Loss. That recommended change was subsequently rejected by the government. 1560:

I do not want to start another debate, but I would like to direct anybody involved in the discussion over metric and imperial last year on this page to have a look at my proposed policy change on the village pump

1014:

UK engineering-related articles, including those on bridges and tunnels, generally use the system of units that the topic was drawn-up in (but road distances are given in imperial units, with a metric conversion)

6528:

Sorry 21 destinations HS2 serves, Old Oak Common, Oxenholme and Penrith are all on HS2. Penrith even has a Birmingham train. Here are the three Cumbrian stations with a full HS2 map link at the top - from HS2.

7230: 7171: 6651: 6592: 5618:

I agree the naming is inconsistent between the phases, since phase two was split into 2a and 2b, but Knowledge should use naming consistent the official names, not fix to what editors think is more logical.

5517:

1851:

https://web.archive.org/web/20100323004206/http://www.birminghampost.net/news/west-midlands-news/2010/03/16/birmingham-city-university-wants-30m-refund-after-high-speed-rail-hits-campus-plan-65233-26044757/

6229:

A full map of of the network is needed. That is, the towns and cities served by the classic compatible HS2 services. This should be inserted below the map of the dedicated track at the top of the article.

4537:

1. To build local & regional rail lines (and reopen old lines), to take traffic off mainlines and serve the greatest need which local & regional, and to leave mainlines for primarily fast express

2621:. It's not complicated. Just read the information you have been given above instead of trying to force through a change that everyone else disagrees with and stop making such a storm in a teacup about it. 3179:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110911095029/http://www.buckinghamshireexaminer.co.uk/south-bucks-news/highspeedrail/2010/12/08/we-don-t-want-it-here-we-don-t-want-high-speed-rail-anywhere-114018-27797131/

3084: 3044: 5442:

Yes, indeed, there is much that needs to be updated, but it is of course a collaborative effort. Perhaps just work on one section at a time or use your sandbox. There's no pressure to do everything and

6542: 6394: 6375: 6302: 5983: 3490:

conflict of interest. It says I need to put a request to edit in this page, so that's what I'm doing. This is the first time I've done this so please excuse any mistakes in how I'm doing this. Thanks.

3054: 1464:

number of sources. Funding is a part of the basic overview. When looking at something, a scheme or product, one of the first points looked at is always costings and funding. It has to be at the top.

1269:

saying that there would be an intermediate stop at Watford. There were no sources provided and I can't find any by googling either. I will undo these revisions if no one else has any sources for this

3663:

It would still be better for the map not to suggest that HS2 will be linked with HS1 and hence to the chunnel and the French network. That was conclusively dropped from the plans several years ago.--

2613:

You have repeatedly been told this. I don't know how many times you have to have this explained to you. Everybody knows that you want the article to state that there will be no interchange. Yes, you

2605: 1870: 654:'s changes as it is clear that this article is more a transport-related article than an engineering one. In fact it's hard to find much engineering content at all amongst the politics and economics! 7655: 3506:

Proposed revised paragraph 4 - fixes some inaccuracies - clarifies that it's Phases 2a and 2b that have not been formalised, changes Birmingham to West Midlands and HS3 to Northern Powerhouse Rail.

1854: 7076: 5590:

Hmm yes. Phase 1 is more consistent with the other phases which are named numerically, so I tend to prefer that, but the official documentation seems to prefer "One" over "1". What should one do?

5489:

Hmm yes. Phase 1 is more consistent with the other phases which are named numerically, so I tend to prefer that, but the official documentation seems to prefer "One" over "1". What should one do?

3598:

Just to keep this moving along, I am going to say what I am sure that Cnbrb would - the citations have be of external sources (gov.uk is fine) and absolutely not wikipedia itself. Best wishes. --

3182: 5254:

the organisations, councils and political parties be listed in simple lists or a table. Inline references should be retained so that the reader can research the issues in more depth if desired.

4460:

the organisations, councils and political parties be listed in simple lists or a table. Inline references should be retained so that the reader can research the issues in more depth if desired.

3307: 1860: 1562: 1485:

As you say, funding is critical. It is one of the first points looked at. It does not however mean that it should be the first point on the list, and indeed looking at similar pages such as

6511:

Just the 18 destinations on HS2 as listed. Bristol, Cardiff are just speculation. HS2 will not run up the ECML past Newcastle. The WCML takes HS2 trains up to the two Scots cities. cheers.

4552:

Wolmar's views could be in concise form. Yes, there is great reasoned opposition to this railway with this not really put over in the article that well and the reasons why (NIMBY's apart).

3261: 669:

For me the crux here is whether this article can be rightly categorised as essentially an engineering article. Because I am sure that the intent of the sloppy term "engineering-related" in

481:

So by that criterion, the country that any article relating to Ghana would be considered to relate to, primarily, would be Ghana. Any other position on that subject would be a violation of

5633:

I assume this is linked with Writing style guides for English which usually state that numbers 1 to 9 in text should be expressed in words, while larger numbers are written numerically.--

5532:

I assume this is linked with Writing style guides for English which usually state that numbers 1 to 9 in text should be expressed in words, while larger numbers are written numerically.--

4544:

3. Electrify the Chiltern line putting the Birmingham Wolves and other trains on this line releasing capacity on other mainlines, also by default improving commuter services on this line.

3948: 3413: 2928: 1914: 1694: 1370: 4051:

map, but I'd like a bit of direction as to the route. What has changed, and can someone point me to an official, up-to-date route map that I can use as a template? I'm guessing that the

3134: 1616: 5084: 4073:

is the official map for both phases based on googlemaps, with links to detailed drawings. Phase 2 map on this article is also out-of-date, but is a better style showing the stations. --

7544: 3844: 1530: 3094: 2904: 2171: 2157: 2142: 6965: 6481:

OK, just so I can be clear, do any other editors want to input on this? I'm happy to try and get this right but I'd prefer everyone to be agreed before I make any more changes.....

3064: 2708: 2090: 2071: 1287: 190:

should deviate from the rule, you need to have a strong topic-specific reason. Saying "generally does not mean always" is not enough. I would also warn you that there are currently

3924: 2416:

existing station is 1.5miles away from the proposed one. If readers want to draw their own conclusions from that information, that's fine, but we as editors shouldn't be doing so.

901:

their propensity to use primarily imperial units. As several contributors have said, this article is clearly not engineering-related enough to be covered by that MOSNUM exception.

758:

As the drafter of the "engineering" clause, I can assure you that this article is "engineering-related", as the intent was to include civil engineering. The clause originated with

4696:

We've been through this a hundred times. You are welcome to add it to the article but you have to add a reference from a reliable source to back up the statement, as explained in

3884: 3966: 3962: 3874: 3431: 3427: 3198: 2946: 2942: 1932: 1928: 1712: 1708: 1388: 1384: 170:

last year, and I see no reason to depart from the consensus that was reached at that time to follow the metric-first style in accordance with the MoS for UK engineering articles.

7710: 4620:, I think Wolmar's perspective was requested a couple of years ago, and his comments would be a useful addition. It would be good to include some rational opposition viewpoints. 3287: 740:

over the meaning of the word "engineering" on an article covering a civil engineering mega-project, then the solution may well be to refine the wording in the policy to make it

635:

using miles first not kilometres in this article because it is a UK transport project article which includes a bit of engineering detail and not an engineering only article. B,

7590:

Feel free to merge it; usually committees for bills would be included in a bill page or section, however I could not find one of these in this page or in the Knowledge. Thanks

7011:

Feel free to merge it; usually committees for bills would be included in a bill page or section, however I could not find one of these in this page or in the Knowledge. Thanks

6308: 4998:

The Crossrail 2 sub-section doesn't make much sense and its only source is a 6 year old newspaper article. I propose deleting it unless anyone suggests meaningful revisions. --

3104: 1025:

Bridges are also supposed to be in the units that they were drawn up in. Presumably, that covers viaducts. That means two more more inconsistencies if we switch to miles first.

684:

My conclusion therefore is that the article does not fall into the narrow "engineering-realated" classification, so should have the imperial-first presentation style restored.

7527: 7131: 6948: 6525:

Could you point to a reliable source please? Preferably an official map - just so I've got something to go on in case the map is disputed. Thanks. 17:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

4172:

Fair enough. You've done a lot of good work whittling it down. I moved some more content over to history which can be integrated with the Parish travel info, so the article's

3820: 2836:

The reason given was "his is not to promote jobs or companies given contracts". I think that this content is notable, given it is supported by the reference given as well as

7681: 7605: 7501: 7472: 7429: 7293: 7260: 7217: 7154: 7102: 7026: 6922: 6893: 6850: 6714: 6681: 6638: 6575: 6534: 6512: 6468: 6435: 6386: 6367: 6349: 6294: 6280: 6231: 6211: 6079: 6051: 6021: 5975: 5960: 5925: 4566:

The 20MM (Twenty Miles More) Liverpool campaign group is against HS2, but if it comes about wants Liverpool to have a direct HS2 link to the city. That should be mentioned.

709:

In any case, the broad thrust of the MOS section on UK units is to allow WP usage to follow the muddle of units used in the UK at present – neither leading nor lagging, per

3729:

Thank you - a distinct improvement IMO. But I agree that a context map would be useful, just so long as it is not in the infobox. Can you find a suitable place in the body?

6239: 2792: 2760: 2597: 2555: 2526: 2497: 2344:, which is taking parts of a source "to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." You're also running into the old problem of proving a negative - 2163: 2134: 1894: 292:

unlikely that either policy will be re-written or an exception will be made for HS2, nor an exception made for any other project built post-1980 drawn up in metric. What

7301: 7286: 7268: 7254: 7225: 7211: 3188: 2554:

logic if you think a map does not convey information. I can only conclude you and others have an agenda. Please consider ever editing any Knowledge articles from now on.

7509: 7494: 7480: 7458: 7437: 6172: 6110: 5939:

Has it? I can fix the map, but not immediately. If I haven't got around to it soon, feel free to ping/message me to remind me. Happy to sort it out if it needs changed.

5379: 3864: 2914: 2732: 2700: 2496:

An official reference map was linked to. The map conveys information just the same as words. The user 2.126.60.251 is correct. Dismissing an official map is ridiculous.

2063: 6722: 6707: 6689: 6675: 6646: 6632: 3085:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110706112254/http://nds.coi.gov.uk/clientmicrosite/Content/Detail.aspx?ClientId=202&NewsAreaId=2&ReleaseID=415781&SubjectId=36

3045:

https://web.archive.org/web/20101224170410/http://nds.coi.gov.uk/clientmicrosite/Content/Detail.aspx?ClientId=202&NewsAreaId=2&ReleaseID=417186&SubjectId=36

2334:

Hello anonymous IP user. What Absolutelypuremilk is trying to explain to you is that you may well be factually correct in saying that there will be no interchange, but

6930: 6915: 6901: 6879: 6858: 6520: 6506: 6476: 6461: 6443: 6357: 6321: 6288: 6273: 6104: 6087: 6073: 6059: 6045: 5997: 5968: 5948: 5724:

Site clearance has started, but the construction of bridges, tunnels, embankments and viaducts (originally due to start in November) has been delayed until June 2019.

3810: 3317: 6198: 2800: 2786: 2768: 2630: 2563: 2548: 2534: 2520: 2505: 896:

A search through the article code reveals that 40 of the 60 measurements are sourced in imperial units and flipped. Of the 20 given in metric, several are unsourced.

6118: 5794: 5744: 5652: 5551: 3229: 3055:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140222030052/http://www.bdb-law.co.uk/our-insights/blogs/planning-act-2008-blog/2013/03/433-nine-out-of-ten-what-the-hs2-judgment-means

2754: 2740: 1107: 2062:

The Daily Telegraph reported the same as the Times. Two qualities. The Telegraph went as far as the methodology being adopted by Network Rail and the DfT using it.

1871:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110316215516/http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/transport/s/1410661_manchester_airport_may_be_highspeed_rail_network_hub

2459:

The map you refer to is also provided in the article, so readers can see for themselves rather than us making conclusions not explicitly stated in the references.

1990: 1855:

http://www.birminghampost.net/news/west-midlands-news/2010/03/16/birmingham-city-university-wants-30m-refund-after-high-speed-rail-hits-campus-plan-65233-26044757/

1475: 5130:

I propose splitting off this section into a separate article or severely trimming - it is currently clogging up the main article with fairly useless information.

3379: 2124: 2057: 1064: 612:

restoring the imperial unit precedence per MOSNUM, in spirit and in letter, per the proposal that is the subject of this section and was inspired by the edits of

7674: 4933: 4903: 4838: 4800: 3399: 1546: 5770:

Thanks for the updates, great to hear that it's progressing! Can I suggest you post the updates on a forum site though rather than here, such as the discussion

3183:

http://www.buckinghamshireexaminer.co.uk/south-bucks-news/highspeedrail/2010/12/08/we-don-t-want-it-here-we-don-t-want-high-speed-rail-anywhere-114018-27797131/

3088: 3048: 681:, a project that concentrates on the full breadth of railway transport matters. Also, none of the categories given to the article are of an engineering nature. 7162: 7095: 4330: 2873: 6448:

2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F581:7D0F:ADCE:E437, you asked me to remove the "potential" lines as they were just speculation!! HS2 is to Manchester and Leeds, as per

3624: 3308:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110725134558/http://www.warwickshire-wildlife-trust.org.uk/media/57738/hs2%20twt%20position%20statement%20oct%202010%20final.pdf

1861:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130518065740/http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/trafford-council-chiefs-lobby-ministers-1230363

7698: 7662: 7643: 7119: 7083: 7064: 6583: 5827: 4122: 3058: 1606: 1262: 597: 378:

transport project article that has even the briefest mention of the dimensions of the proposed development is automatically an "engineering-related" article.

161: 113: 1874: 6219: 4746:

I am right! It does not need a reference (see what I wrote above). If you cannot figure the obvious you should not be editing. Or you may have an agenda.

3589: 3540: 3355: 2841: 1348: 1247: 1208: 1190: 651: 613: 277: 258: 153: 135: 100: 7599: 5798: 3262:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/HS2-Rail-Link-Between-London-And-Birmingham-A-White-Elephant-Says-Taxpayers-Alliance/Article/201102115922708?f=vg

2857: 992: 5733: 4795:. The map in the article and linked documents is enough. Commons sense has to prevail. Your illogical insistence leads me to believe you have an agenda. 3208: 2329: 2222: 1498: 1479: 125:, articles on British engineering subjects should use the units of measurement that were used in the subject's design. Therefore, metric is appropriate. 7465: 7020: 6886: 6180: 5387: 3838: 3607: 1172:

HS2 seems to be one of several policies that is increasing support for UKIP and decreasing support for the Conservatives and the other main UK parties.

6029: 4595: 4575: 3854: 3135:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110131125022/http%3A//www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/proposedroute/depot/pdf/maintenancedepot.pdf

3114: 3034: 1617:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110612015906/http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_187876.pdf

1085: 949: 902: 693: 617: 548: 413: 326: 281: 263: 5881: 5372:

Just to double check, I notice some trains are labelled as calling at Carstairs (Phase 2 frequency chart). Is that true or should this say Carlisle?

4158:

Based on the excessive length of this article, most of the history of how the plans meandered along the way belongs in the separate history article.--

3311: 2837: 1864: 7609: 7505: 7476: 7297: 7264: 7221: 7158: 7030: 6926: 6897: 6718: 6685: 6642: 6579: 6538: 6516: 6472: 6439: 6390: 6371: 6353: 6298: 6284: 6235: 6215: 5812: 5357:

I agree, I have done that now. I didn't move the journey times section as I think that fits better as its own section, although others may disagree.

4277: 3724: 3709: 3629:

There's no longer a link planned between HS2 and HS1 and the Scottish links on the map are only very tentative proposals which are not part of HS2.--

3520: 2725: 1888: 1784: 1780: 1251: 723: 578: 7585: 4714:

It is FACT! Look at the maps. It does not need some newspaper article explaining the obvious. When I see this sort of attitude I see astroturfing.

4137: 3845:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110427072428/http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/corporate/newsstor.nsf/PublicByCategories/4205CBF6C662A7EC802577F9005C201C

4700:. Typing the word "fact" in caps lock does not make anything true. I realise you find this frustrating, but I am actually trying to help you here. 3095:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100409213214/http%3A//www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2ltd/routeengineering/pdf/chapter9.pdf

2905:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090901204843/http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/About%20us/New%20Lines%20Programme/5886_NewLineStudy_synopsis.pdf

2246: 2017: 1830: 625: 271: 204: 7006: 6533:

The maps shows phase 1, phase 2a and the WCML different shades of blue. Phase 2b is orange. Zooming in the different colours can be seen. cheers.

5933: 5867: 5783: 5422: 5366: 5292: 5278: 5154: 5036: 4772:

Airport station will be designed in the way you claim. So go and find out where you got this information from. If it fits into the description of

4487: 4316: 4259: 4237: 3074: 3065:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110131112815/http%3A//www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/lordmawhinneyreport/pdf/appendix3_4.pdf

2491: 2447: 1303: 800: 409: 5748: 5709:

There are works in progress outside Euston at present, with signs on the hoarding that say HS2. Has the construction phase officially started? --

5139: 3925:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120417213149/http://highspeedrail.dft.gov.uk/sites/highspeedrail.dft.gov.uk/files/hs2-aos-non-technical-summary.pdf

3585: 3551: 3536: 2688: 2338:. According to Knowledge rules, this evidence needs to be more than just looking at a map and reaching a conclusion by yourself — this is called 2270: 1243: 1217: 1204: 1186: 1136: 957: 934: 494: 421: 357: 4561: 4527: 3885:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131215044235/http://www.nottinghampost.com/Toton-best-choice-high-speed-rail-line/story-19494242-detail/story.html

2353: 2029: 7624: 6014:

The project is in three phases, phase 1, phase 2a and phase 2b. Phase 2a is Birmingham to Crewe. This should be in another colour on the map.

5656: 3875:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131215002817/http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/County-council-veto-HS2-alternative/story-19499822-detail/story.html

3199:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110913171722/http://www.northamptonshire.gov.uk/en/councilservices/environ/bigidea/pages/northamptonshirearc.aspx

3158: 3024: 2818: 1654: 1620: 1054: 849: 94: 5456: 5437: 5118: 5057:

template banner within the section. However, if it's deemed necessary to add improvements I'm more than happy to listen to everyones opinion.

4741: 4723: 4709: 4691: 4677: 4386: 3288:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110830175441/http://thamesandchilterns.county-homesearch.co.uk/2011/02/01/secret-rival-to-high-speed-rail-route/

2468: 2425: 2306: 2206: 834: 819: 644: 517: 222: 7277:

high-speed railway line, and high-speed services running on that network. At the moment these two separate appear to be getting mixed up. —

7045: 6698:

high-speed railway line, and high-speed services running on that network. At the moment these two separate appear to be getting mixed up. —

5765: 5555: 4728:

Using caps lock does not make you right. If it is fact, you should be confident that you can prove it with a reference. This is explained in

4014: 3479: 3105:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100409200653/http%3A//www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2ltd/hs2report/pdf/chapter3d.pdf

2994: 2281: 2264: 2109: 2041: 1980: 1760: 974: 910: 636: 540: 523: 509: 508:

I also agree with the reasons given by Speccy4Eyes for why this article should use imperial measures and especially miles not kilometres. B,

214: 4785: 4755: 3848: 3821:

https://web.archive.org/web/20111125060749/http://highspeedrail.dft.gov.uk/sites/highspeedrail.dft.gov.uk/files/hsr-consultation-summary.pdf

2405: 2371: 1093: 1045:

We should comply with MOSNUM, but accepting that this is a transport-related article, and not fool ourselves that it is an engineering one.

982: 887: 772: 753: 556: 334: 309: 240: 6331: 6128: 5757: 5683: 5675: 5668: 5634: 5620: 5576: 5533: 5519: 5475: 5343: 5230: 5226: 5181:. Furthermore, every time HS2 gets mentioned in the media, there is a tendency to add every trivial quote by a commentator to the article ( 5162:, it is a total mess and I support severe trimming. However, I don't support a separate article. The section is already a honeypot for POV 5146: 5088: 4999: 4963: 4937: 4922: 4907: 4842: 4827: 4804: 4642: 4447: 4407:. Furthermore, every time HS2 gets mentioned in the media, there is a tendency to add every trivial quote by a commentator to the article ( 4251: 4206: 4159: 4129: 4074: 3733: 3664: 3630: 2908: 2008:

policy. Some minor politician flew a kite for a silly idea and some editor dutifully recorded it. Does anyone disagree with removing it? --

6428: 3928: 2581:

to support this statement, and that you have to find a better source. This is not a personal attack on you, this is how Knowledge works.

5642: 5628: 5613: 3888: 3593: 3567: 1895:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120326024125/http://www.51m.co.uk/news/leicestershire-another-local-authority-confirms-its-challenging-hs2

1078: 868: 663: 6224: 5753: 5599: 3878: 3202: 3189:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110724052811/http://www.coventryobserver.co.uk/story-City-council-unites-in-opposition-to-HS2--31172.html

1994: 1230: 1039: 535: 5572:

Naming has recently been changed in the article from Phase one to 1. It should use the official name Phase One as per all the docs in

5541: 5527: 5512: 5471:

Naming has recently been changed in the article from Phase one to 1. It should use the official name Phase One as per all the docs in

4091:

based on the information provided by HS2. Happy to make adjustments, but please bear in mind it is approximate and only illustrative.

3865:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131215002835/http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/HS2-Derby-route-considered/story-19534585-detail/story.html

3291: 2915:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130513020407/http://www.ikon-gallery.co.uk/Repository/pages/197/0485f379-66d0-48f3-b585-88cce714e9b1.pdf

1800: 374:

The new contributors may have a different view on whether the spirit of the guidelines are being breached by taking it to insist that

7567: 6339: 6150: 6136: 5698: 5647:

Using numbers not letters makes sense, as some have noted it falls in line with 2a and 2b. Having Phase Two and Phase 2b looks odd.

5546:

Using numbers not letters makes sense, as some have noted it falls in line with 2a and 2b. Having Phase Two and Phase 2b looks odd.

5498: 5022: 4987: 4298: 4185: 4167: 4153: 4114: 4100: 4082: 3894: 3755: 3741: 3686: 3672: 3654: 3218: 2791:

Not an insult. An astute observation. I smell astroturfing. BTW, your `sheer incomprehension` was an insult. I smell astroturfing!!

1103: 4105:

Well, I'm glad that everybody is happy (or perhaps not unhappy) with the replacement. I've also added it to the new history article.

3944:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

3904: 3824: 3811:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110812222911/http://highspeedrail.dft.gov.uk/sites/highspeedrail.dft.gov.uk/files/hsr-consultation.pdf

3409:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

3318:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131206154233/http://www.nottinghampost.com/Parkway-backed-HS2-station/story-20251972-detail/story.html

2924:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

2393:. But we go via the official plan and that is that there is only a stand alone station not connected to another other rail services. 1910:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

1690:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

1434: 6988: 3233: 1458: 785:

Where a reference is in km, use that first. Where a reference is in miles, use that first. In all instances, use both km and miles.

460:

article about a British colony. Any article dealing with stuff that happened on American soil is going to be considered US-related.

3230:

https://archive.is/20130905034635/http://www.ukip.org/component/content/article/49-policy/2010-policy-documents/538-transport-2010

5924:

Sheffield is on the main map in the article. Sheffield has been removed from HS2's dedicated destinations, at their own request.

5185:). This is going to go on until 2032 and beyond, so I think we need to look at trimming insignificant quotes. In particular, the 2231: 4357: 3267: 3247: 1898: 1576: 1515: 7639: 7060: 5953:

Yes Meadowhall in Sheffield has been removed from HS2. Sheffield's centre is accessed via the MML from south of Chesterfield.

4971: 4773: 3544: 3389: 3380:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110728101550/http://www.thepep.org/ClearingHouse/docfiles/Eddington.Transport.Study%20-%20Rod.pdf

3192: 3138: 1266: 1098:

Which will? How is that measured? ... no pun intended; I really mean has there been a formal vote or !vote or whatever? Cheers

5974:

Crewe is now on HS2. Crewe should be added and Sheffield omitted. Crewe has WCML junctions from HS2 north and south of Crewe.

5718: 3868: 3400:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130615234334/http://www.hs2.org.uk/press/property-and-compensation-event-programme-continue-2013

2918: 284:, please both read to the extensive prior discussion. If you see something in that discussion or the UKU discussion that was 7421: 5584: 5407: 5125: 4225: 4202: 3089:

http://nds.coi.gov.uk/clientmicrosite/Content/Detail.aspx?ClientId=202&NewsAreaId=2&ReleaseID=415781&SubjectId=36

3049:

http://nds.coi.gov.uk/clientmicrosite/Content/Detail.aspx?ClientId=202&NewsAreaId=2&ReleaseID=417186&SubjectId=36

1212: 1194: 142:

Firstly, I want to apologise for the edit, I have been reading editing policies now so I've learned something. According to

4507: 3814: 3321: 1550: 6842: 5483: 5429: 5110: 5096: 4732:. You are welcome to make constructive contributions, but making accusations at other editors will do nothing to help you. 4715: 4683: 4669: 4567: 4553: 4499: 4349: 3625:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/629380/high-speed-two-from-concept-to-reality.pdf

3098: 1999: 1278: 1099: 704:

article, so I would dispute that public transportation infrastructure does not count as "engineering-related" in MOS terms.

4064: 3124: 3068: 3059:

http://www.bdb-law.co.uk/our-insights/blogs/planning-act-2008-blog/2013/03/433-nine-out-of-ten-what-the-hs2-judgment-means

2827: 2731:

paid?) astroturfers on this article. HS2 admitted spending a considerable sum on Internet astroturfing. They can gang up.

1607:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130522015033/http://www.hs2.org.uk/press/hs2-ltd-recommends-tunnel-under-ealing-and-northolt

7485:😯 Like everything else in politics, I just can't keep up. Thanks for the info, will be interesting to see what happens. 6906:😯 Like everything else in politics, I just can't keep up. Thanks for the info, will be interesting to see what happens. 5790: 5740: 5648: 5547: 4607: 3638: 3349: 3335: 1875:

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/transport/s/1410661_manchester_airport_may_be_highspeed_rail_network_hub

1765: 6484: 5351: 3356:

https://web.archive.org/web/20100401044448/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2ltd/route/westmidmap04.pdf

2654:

Perhaps a better way to explain this is to look at the map another way. It is just as "obvious" from the map that there

1349:

https://web.archive.org/20110928040528/http://www.51m.co.uk:80/news/buckinghamshirecounty-council-consutation-submission

5398:

I think the TOC limit should be 3, especially with the large numbers of stations with their own subsections. Thoughts?

4747: 4472: 4214: 3383: 2397: 2321: 2273: 2238: 2214: 2187: 1986: 1471: 485:. And in this case, an article is engineering-related when local consensus (such as was reached last year) says it is. 6124: 3403: 3209:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120326024050/http://www.lichfieldagainsthighspeedtrains.org.uk/SCC%20media%20release.pdf

7466:

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/hs2-review-could-hand-phase-2b-budget-to-northern-powerhouse-rail-06-09-2019/

6887:

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/hs2-review-could-hand-phase-2b-budget-to-northern-powerhouse-rail-06-09-2019/

4946:. The BEST you can say is this: "As of December 2017, there are no known plans for a rail link between the stations". 4929: 4899: 4834: 4796: 4603: 3934: 3839:

http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/roundup/New-parkway-station-built-East-Midlands/article-1569744-detail/article.html

3771: 3108: 2999: 2879: 2022: 1844: 1805: 1581: 1542: 104:

seeker123 is new and couldn't be expected to know this, I am opening the topic on his/her behalf. Comments please? --

5914: 3914: 3855:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110920085513/http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/campaigns/trains/high-speed-white+paper

3788: 3115:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110707125904/http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/assets.dft.gov.uk/hs2-hs1connection.pdf

3035:

https://web.archive.org/web/20101223112529/http://www.dft.gov.uk/press/speechesstatements/statements/hammond20101220

3016: 2896: 1822: 1598: 1449:

I'm not sure why you think cost is more important than the other sections such as history and the services offered?

6171:

Two junctions are to be built at High Legh for the Liverpool trains to access via NPR. Info added with refs given.

4956: 4891: 3312:

http://www.warwickshire-wildlife-trust.org.uk/media/57738/hs2%20twt%20position%20statement%20oct%202010%20final.pdf

2588:

stop your disruptive editing and your unnecessarily combative comments on this talk page.17:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

1865:

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/trafford-council-chiefs-lobby-ministers-1230363

5007: 3297: 1889:

http://www.pteg.net/NR/rdonlyres/DC090336-3B9F-4B63-8E54-EA649644EF58/0/ptegHighSpeedRailResponse20110728Final.pdf

1610: 1541:

References of times from provincial cities to Paris should be deleted. The link from HS1 to HS2 has been dropped.

5714: 4273: 3705: 3603: 3531:

Proposals to avoid, reduce or remedy significant adverse impacts through mitigation measures are also required.

3168: 2684: 2153: 2120: 2086: 2053: 2013: 1684: 1352: 1311: 593: 109: 7245:. When we apply the same statement to other known situations, we end up with results that do not make sense. — 6666:. When we apply the same statement to other known situations, we end up with results that do not make sense. — 3965: