Talk:High Speed 2

Link Camden

http://www.camden.gov.uk/ccm/content/environment/planning-and-built-environment/two/major-developments/high-speed-two.en;jsessionid=C011DB9228D40511D6F82D419A6DE02A.

I don't know to what this link is referring but the page does not exist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iesvoagel (talk • contribs) 21:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I have replaced it with this [1]. Biscuittin (talk) 09:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Updating of compensation section

I have recently added relevant content to the Compensation section, including the addition (sub-)sub-categories. I was looking for authority to remove the Update template banner within the section. However, if it's deemed necessary to add improvements I'm more than happy to listen to everyones opinion. Døddmeïßter47™ (talk) 12:58, January 2013 (UTC)

No mention of Crewe Hub

The head of HS2 Ltd has proposed a hub at Crewe for phase 1 of HS2. High-speed track to enter Crewe from the south and all the classic compatible tracks can have HS2 train run on them. This makes sense. Why no mention? 188.220.97.106 (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I have added it to the "Crewe" section. Please feel free to add more information if you have it. Biscuittin (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The Politics of HS2

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.
HS2 is unusual in that there such disparity and anger over it.

• 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 and Birmingham.
  
• 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 it, as deeply environmentally damaging, as more expensive than flying, and so on.
  

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.

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 leading to large numbers of deaths. And also that HS2 is massively almost overwhelmingly vulnerable to terrorism for the above reasons. (applies to all high speed trains)
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.
Lucien86 (talk) 10:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Addendum : 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 Wikipedia. Lucien86 (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change of measurement systems

On 30 August 2015, User:The seeker123 unilaterally changed all metric or metric-first measurements to imperial or imperial-first. Wikipedia 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 seeker123 is new and couldn't be expected to know this, I am opening the topic on his/her behalf. Comments please? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

According to MOS:UNIT, articles on British engineering subjects should use the units of measurement that were used in the subject's design. Therefore, metric is appropriate. RGloucester — ☎ 00:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, I want to apologise for the edit, I have been reading editing policies now so I've learned something. According to MOS:UNIT 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,[12] except that: the primary units for distance/​length, speed and fuel consumption are miles, miles per hour and miles per imperial gallon". It also states that in "UK engineering-related articles, including those on bridges and tunnels, generally 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 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.--The seeker123 (talk) 11:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

This very subject was debated at length 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.

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 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. Wikipedia forms its own consensus about what styles are most appropriate in different contexts: a consensus which is detailed by our Manual of Style.

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 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 General Sanctions 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. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

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 give it straight in miles like the Brits do. B, TWaMoE (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The guidelines say to use kilometres for things designed in kilometres, and this railway is designed that way. RGloucester — ☎ 20:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is more a transport article than an engineering 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 typical and evident in the secondary sources that are covering this transport project, as noted by The seeker123 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 discussed almost exclusively in imperial measures. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 06:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The seeker123, Speccy4Eyes, please both read to the extensive prior discussion. If you see something in that discussion or the UKU discussion that was missed, by all means raise it. However, I expect it extremely 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 is more likely to occur is gentle, and then progressively strong hints about WP:LAWYERING and being unnecessarily disruptive. —Sladen (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Sladen, 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 the units fist used. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 06:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

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 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 Wikipedia in changing it. Archon 2488 (talk) 11:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The new contributors may have a different view on whether the spirit of the guidelines are being breached by taking it to insist that any transport project article that has even the briefest mention of the dimensions of the proposed development is automatically an "engineering-related" article.

For those who believe that because this article does have some cover of engineering aspects, it is 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 Jamestown/Usshertown, Accra, 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 isn't the Usshertown article considered an article relating to the UK? Speccy4Eyes (talk) 08:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

In relation to your point about Accra, the principle of WP:STRONGNAT 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 British place or person, or something that happened in the UK, it is unlikely to be considered to have strong national ties to the UK. Even something like the Battle of Waterloo, which was important in British history, but didn't happen on British soil and did not primarily 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 article about a British colony. Any article dealing with stuff that happened on American soil is going to be considered US-related.

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 WP:NPOV. And in this case, an article is engineering-related when local consensus (such as was reached last year) says it is. Archon 2488 (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I also agree with the reasons given by Speccy4Eyes for why this article should use imperial measures and especially miles not kilometres. B, TWaMoE (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

TWaMoE, then please take "the reasons given by Speccy4Eyes" and apply to get the relevant policy altered. —Sladen (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

TWaMoE, no policy change is required to restore imperial unit precedence in this article as per MOSNUM. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 06:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

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 support the status quo. Michael Glass (talk) 02:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I wish also to record my support for the status quo, in accordance with the wp MOS and real world engineering practice. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I too have read the article and I noted too that this is not a purely engineering-related article. For that reason, I support 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 The seeker123. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 06:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I support 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, TWaMoE (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I support User:The seeker123'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! Timpace (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Practical considerations

The general sanctions on UK articles states:

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 Wikipedia processes pertaining to units in UK-related articles, who engages in forum-shopping, or who otherwise disruptively edits may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator.

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.

But let's say that it was decided to change. MOSNUM says:

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)

To conform with MOSNUM, all the tunnels should be given in metric measures.

• I counted 12 references to the length of tunnels in the article, interspersed in three of the sections.
• 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.

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. Michael Glass (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

We should comply with MOSNUM, but accepting that this is a transport-related article, and not fool ourselves that it is an engineering one. Timpace (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)