Talk:Integrated Rail Plan for the North and Midlands

Separate article

I do agree a separate article is needed for this topic as it is high profile and attracted significant interest and controversy GRALISTAIR (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Although the plan published has the maps in which can of course be referenced in this article, I think it would be worthwhile to include a map or even two in this article. What do others think? GRALISTAIR (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The main page is still calling this a Stub. I really do not think it is now and definitely will not be shortly. It has already been rated as start class GRALISTAIR (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I have now destubbed the article. At close to 600 words and growing and multiple links to/from it clearly is no longer a stub. GRALISTAIR (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Please read the Integrated Rail Plan

For those too eager to revert and cut, I advise you to read in full the IRP. Also distinguish between opinion and analysis. Wisdom-inc (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I think there is a lot of hard work by editors gone into this article. That said we must abide by Wikipedia rules. It does not matter how many times people have read a > 100 page document we need to keep the tone encyclopedic, balanced and neutral. It should also be well referenced and not contain original research . Some sections have no references. We can cite the document repeatedly but what would be helpful is if page numbers were cited in the references which would help a great deal. Above all let us not let this article drag into an edit war GRALISTAIR (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Editor Kitchen Knife, was deleting not knowing what was in the IRP - the spat regarding Runcorn being removed shows that. Wisdom-inc (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

See --Kitchen Knife (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you - exactly GRALISTAIR (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

We know what original research is thank you. Wisdom-inc (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

You seem not to understand what Wikipedia means by the term or what it entails as a lot of what you have written comes under the term synthesis.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I know exactly what original research means. Thank you! Wisdom-inc (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Integrated Rail Plan.

1. HS2 is a London-Wigan line (WCML relief line);
2. HS2 and WCML branch into each other at *four* points;
3. Branches off HS2 spine to: Manchester, Warrington, Birmingham, Litchfield, Crewe (two) and East Midlands Parkway;
4. HS2 serves direct on high speed rail to: Wigan, Warrington, Birmingham, Manchester, Crewe and London;
5. Two airports served: Birmingham and subject to local funding, Manchester;
6. Leeds and Newcastle use upgraded ECML to London;
7. All eastern cities use Birmingham-East Mids HS2 branch to access Birmingham;
8. MML upgrade is a few years away;
9. Sheff, Nottm and Derby to London on MML will equal HS2 journey times;
10. In a few years, Sheff, Nottm and Derby will be equalling HS2 journey times to London on MML;
11. No HS2 branches to southern English destinations;
12. HS2 trains will use NPR high speed track from Millington junction, between Manchester and Warrington, to Warrington;
13. Warrington to have a new station;
14. Energy used on HS2 track approx' double as classic rail track;
15. Runcorn removed from HS2 services;
16. High speed NPR/HS2 track from Warrington to Marsden in Yorks;

The above are facts. Now observations:

1. When HS2 reaches East Mids Parkway in approx 10-15 years time, Sheff, Notts and Derby trains will have been on HS2 journey times to London on the MML for about a decade.
2. The prospect of Sheff/Notts/Derby to London services being transferred to HS2 track to use twice the energy for no gain, is very low.
3. The slots released on HS2 will go to NW cities like Stoke, Chester, Liverpool, etc? Wisdom-inc (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Your Observations are not reliable for inclusion on Wikipedia.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I never stated they were. It was for general understanding. Wisdom-inc (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Those 16 + 3 points read like personal analysis of the plan and for now I am siding with removing them from the article. I also agree that the article needs more references. Given the complexity of the topic, the one document can be referenced but this needs to be done with more granularity. Rather, references should be given to individual numbered paragraphs/pages e.g. paragraph 3.52 page 94. Writing a number of bullet points without referencing each one to a specific numbered paragraph/page is no better than original research. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I did not state putting observations in. Facts are facts - taken from the IRP. There is only one reference, the IRP. Wisdom-inc (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The RP is not the only reference. It is one reference for sure, and where it is referenced it should be to a specific numbered paragraph/page. There are many other references though as you can see on the page - press articles, ministerial announcements, parliamentary debates, responses from directly affected parties and other stakeholders. Many of these are already used in the article. My point to your list is that each item on the list should directly reference a paragraph in the article. Why don't you re-write the list with those individual references and then post is back here for discussion with @Kitchen Knife and others? 10mmsocket (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

For now I see that both editors have ceased editing the article. That is a good thing - don't go back to it for at least a day as (whatever the rights or wrongs in your opinion) you have both busted 3RR. However, rather than go running to WP:AN/3RR I think it would be better to discuss things further here. Edit the article as before though and I will immediately seek external help. Be nice, discuss, reach consensus. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

It is clear you have come here to back this guy up. Wisdom-inc (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

That's a really negative attitude with which to start discussion. Please assume good faith on my part (WP:AGF) and as previously pointed out to you, do not make personal attacks. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Editor Kitchen Knife

Seems like you are developing an attitude. Best cut it out. Wisdom-inc (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

If you carry on like this you will be reported.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

That goes both ways. You started it by deleting text saying it was not in the IRP (mainly Runcorn), when it was. Then you to cover yourself ask for a ref. The whole article is about one document which is referenced. The only ref should be if it is not in the IRP. You are rarely constructive. You have a history of attitude. Wisdom-inc (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

It seems you also need to read Wikipedia:No personal attacks.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

DO NOT keep representing Wiki help pages to me to hide your behaviour. I gave no personal attack. Just an observation on your attitude and disruption. It would be better if you were constructive working with people. Wisdom-inc (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I've pointed out that several of your editors do not conform to the standards set out for Wikipedia, they still don't. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

See my comment in the previous section. Let's be civil, discuss and reach consensus. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Quality

This is really starting to look like a great encyclopedic article now. Well done to @TedColes for all his hard work GRALISTAIR (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Maps

I added some maps - a picture paints a thousand words. GRALISTAIR (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I tweaked it to use the {{Gallery}} template. At the very least the result is a bit prettier, but it's also flexible - take a look at some of the options. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I love it thanks GRALISTAIR (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Quality

This article is still too opinionated to be worthy of Wikipedia. In spite of recent edits, it continues to read like an unbalanced polemic.

1) Few of the contributors seem to have read the IRP document (which can readily be found online). No mention is made of the fact that the document was an independently commissioned report which used a well-established methodology (comparable to that used for HS2). Instead, it is presented as if it was a purely political decision and without any objective basis.

2) Too much is made of the IRP's opponents. No mention is made of the fact that the bodies in question were largely composed of political appointees who were hoping to benefit (in some cases personally) from multi-billion pound handouts to which none of them would be contributing anything. Instead, they are presented as objective experts.

3) No mention is made of the fact that the IRP proposes one of the biggest increases in railway expenditure in the UK's history.

4) No mention is made of the fact that the various "rail options" were assessed on the basis of their cost/benefit ratio, and that the rejected options stood almost no chance of justifying their expenditure.

5) No mention is made of the fact that the IRP document provides detailed explanations for why particular options were chosen, and that in many cases these were for reasons of connectivity and access.

6) No mention is made of the fact that the IRP is the now the official, settled policy for ongoing rail expenditure, and that it will remain so unless a future government chooses to revisit the issue. Given the state of the UK's public finances, it seems unlikely that the project will be significantly expanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.108.92.22 (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Be bold- get editing then GRALISTAIR (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to all 6 points raised - but if you can find sources that back up any of these points, then that might be a start, because otherwise this post is irrelevant, if there are no sources to say anything. A lack of sources may be the best reason why none of this is covered. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 04:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)