Talk:High Speed 2

I reverted an IP edit that inferred far too much from the limited information we have to date. The Guardian merely says

{{blockquote|High-speed rail (Crewe to Manchester) bill: An acknowledgement in law that Labour will not resurrect the Birmingham to Manchester leg of HS2, instead focusing on east to west links. |source=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/17/what-bills-are-included-in-the-kings-speech-and-what-will-they-do}}

That's it. Nothing more. We have to wait for the first reading. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

:Modern Railways says this:

:Also in the King’s Speech was a commitment to repurpose the previous Conservative Government’s High Speed Rail (Crewe to Manchester) Bill to improve connectivity in the north of England. The Bill includes powers for infrastructure in Manchester and the surrounding area, including at Manchester Piccadilly and Airport stations, and the Government says carrying it over ‘demonstrates commitment to making progress on rail connectivity whilst we work with local leaders on improved overall strategy.’

:It does not mention HS2, so phase 2 of HS2 remains canncelled. The WCML, ECML, MML are all high speed lines, falling into the definition. The bill says 'High Sped Rail', also mentions infrastructure relating to rail. Infrastructure can be 125mph High Speed Rail, or anything above, but not the HS2 project. Very obvious. 143.58.172.236 (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

::It does not say that the northern phase has been reactivated. This is WP:SYNTHESIS. Please wait until something clearer emerges. Cnbrb (talk) 11:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

:::Fully agree, thank you. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

:::Exactly! It does not say the northern phase of HS2 has been reactivated whatsoever. 143.58.246.185 (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

::::The principle is very simple. If the source says X, then we write X. We do not write X+Y+Z and cite that source as the basis for it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

:::::That is what happened. 2A01:4B00:BB18:A600:E738:4C0D:38F4:6829 (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

::::::...so source it! 10mmsocket (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

In fact even the Grauniad seems to have embroidered the facts. [https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-kings-speech-2024 The speech] says nothing whatsoever about HS2. So we have no idea what definite plans HMG has. WP: NOTNEWS, wait and see. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

:That seems prudent. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

:+1 Cambial — foliar❧ 17:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a small edit war over which verb to use in the lead. My 2p worth is that, on this article more than most, it is definitely appropriate to say "is to" or "is planned to" rather than "will". See WP:CRYSTAL. There have been far too many scope changes in this project to say "will" with any reasonable degree of confidence. The form 'is to' is NPOV between 'will' and 'may' (I would equally oppose the latter).

"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future"{{snd}}Yogi Berra or maybe it was Yogi Bear. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm opening a discussion on whether 'wil be' or 'is to be' should be used in the lead, for example 'London and Birmingham will be served' or 'London and Birmingham are to be served'.

In my opinion there 'will' is sufficient; 'is to be' is quite a formal usage and not really necessary. There is no danger that readers will think we are predicting the future, as it is clear that the line is under construction and so some details may change (as they already have).

Separately, I would appreciate it if @JMF or the IP user who reverted my edits would re-instate the portions which do not relate to this dispute and which are therefore, I assume, not contentious (i.e. everything except the four changes to 'will' in the first paragraph of the lead). I would do it myself, but I don't want to give the appearance of an edit war. Thanks, A.D.Hope (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

: I will take this as a reply to the discussion I had already opened above. The article English modal auxiliary verbs gives the long explanation of the purpose of the "is to be" construction, but in essence it is used for firmly intended plans but that some degree of caution is required. Take a less contentious topic as a 'for example': East West Rail. Right now, the track between Oxford and Bletchley is ready for use, Chiltern Railways have been awarded the franchise, so it is reasonable to say that the Oxford{{ndash}}Milton Keynes Central service 'will' commence this year. The Bletchley-Bedford section exists and is operational but a fairly extensive renewal is needed and is in engineering planning{{snd}} but is mostly routine and uncontroversial, so again 'will' is a reasonable word to use. The route between Bedford and Cambridge is almost all new build, but it has unambiguous support from the last and the current governments, so it 'will' go ahead short of a prolonged worldwide Trump slump causing serious damage to the national coffers: we don't have to take into account unknown unknowns. But the precise route has not yet been determined, so 'is to' is the appropriate phrase. That it will happen is not seriously in doubt, so 'may' would not be appropriate.

: Coming back to HS2, despite the strong political commitment to it, the costs are so substantial that it has to be considered "at risk", at least to some extent. Past cancellations and scope reductions suggest strongly that it is not immune from further cuts. Yes, it probably will happen but what precise form it will take cannot be stated with reasonable certainty, so we have to say "is planned" or "is to be". --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::I totally missed that you'd already opened a discussion, sorry! A mistake on my part rather than a deliberate attempt to ignore you.

::My intent isn't to fight particularly hard for 'will' as it's a fairly minor issue. However, given the difference in meaning between 'will' and 'is to' is fairly slight and we're as certain as we can be that phase one will be completed because it is under construction as we speak, I think 'will' is appropriate. I did check what [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crossrail&oldid=1090416881 Crossrail] used before it was completed, given it had its own share of issues, and it seems to have used 'will' rather than 'is to'. Without wanting to appear flippant, I think most writers would use 'will' in this instance without giving it much of a second thought, and so should we.

::I'm not going to drag out style guides or go delving into the MOS to make a case; if the consensus goes against me that's absolutely fine. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::No, I'm a great believer in the cock-up theory of history. I assumed it was an oversight.

:::Yes, 'will' is appropriate for OOC to Handsacre (though what services will run over it remains to be seen). If I missed that one, please reinstate. (It is not an open and shut case though. Work on the multiple extra platforms at Euston was well under way before being chopped.)

:::OOC to Euston is 'planned' but not (AFIK) not funded, so 'will' is not reasonable. Let's at least wait for a contract even at the risk that it gets decimated halfway through. Increased capacity Handacre to Crewe is really needed but whether it needs to be 'very high speed' standard is a different question. WP:CRYSTAL again. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Based on the latest 'indefinite delay' to 'any trains actually running on HS2' I think 'hoped' would be more accurate, but 'will' is definitely WP:Crystal now. JeffUK 14:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

If possible, could an admin be able to add Semi-Protection to ensure there is no vandalism since HS2 has had loads of changes on the line and budget (some people annoyed) Wikiediter2029 (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:You can put in a formal request yourself, see WP:RPP. You will need to show some evidence of vandalism or disruption, which don't seem that blatant at the moment? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:: The article is already semi-protected until April 2026, this was due to multiple sockpuppets of a blocked editor. Black Kite (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

In Wales HS2 is a major issue and I believe it at least deserves a mention because Wales has to pay for England's projects because they are called 'England and Wales' even though not a bit of it is in Wales. AdmiralStuff (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:For clarity I mean that it should be in the opposition part of the article and not funding because it would go under there better. AdmiralStuff (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::Presumably this comment comes in response to [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czxyr75gk1vo recent headlines about East-West Rail] being funded by UK central government under "England and Wales" budgets. This is common for rail projects in both Wales and England, probably because they are much more interlinked and interdependent than other parts of the UK. HS2 of course does not enter Wales, but if you wanted to introduce a Welsh perspective to this article, you would of course need to cite a reliable source. [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgmymnw2yxko This report from February 2025] might be helpful. Please bear in mind also WP:NPOV for any article additions. Cnbrb (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Heads up: this story has been dropped in the media about yet another delay

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0wr7nw7wxo

doktorb _words^deeds 23:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)