Talk:High-speed rail in the United Kingdom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2019 update[edit]

This page has really been neglected despite being a fairly current issue; a lot has changed and the info is out of date or given undue prominence. I've already rewritten the intro, which was a mess. I propose:

  • Massively trimming down the section on proposals for a new high speed line, since HS2 has now been settled on for some time and is now in fact under construction. A more limited version of the other proposals can go in the history section
  • adding/updating a section on HS2
  • Removing a lot of random information about promoters
  • Tidying up stuff listing trains... maybe a bit much?
  • Most of this talk page is completely out of date by the way

I might have a go myself if I have time if no one else gets to it first

--2A02:A03F:3E5E:9400:15FF:AF24:EEFF:762A (talk) 08:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To Do[edit]

  • Funding
  • Political process
  • Environmental benefits
  • Effects on demand for domestic air travel
  • Social and regeneration benefits
  • Safety
  • More detail on pros and cons of wheel-on-rail and maglev
  • HSR vs improved local services
  • HSR vs new slower lines
  • Tidy up references and citations
  • Update Intercity Express Programme section, Winner Hitachi

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.138.141 (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Developments[edit]

From what I have read and heard second hand, there is a lively debate going on in Scottish politics and the press - and to a lesser extent in the North East of England - about more localised HSR or Maglev which may form the first stage of a national line. To an extent, this seemed to become an election issue. This is obviously important in a UK context, so does anyone with a better view of the situation want to contribute? 33 15:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article name - propose "High-speed rail in the United Kingdom"[edit]

In my opinion, the article name "UK High Speed Rail" should be changed at the very least because of Wikipedia:Naming conventions#General_conventions whereby the second and subsequent words should not be capitalised (unless a proper noun). Also, to be more grammatically correct, there should be a hyphen between "high" and "speed". Normally, I would just go ahead and do the necessary renaming myself. However, I think an even better name would be "High-speed rail in the United Kingdom" for two reasons:

  1. I have a feeling (but can't prove it) that there might be a policy or convention that "United Kingdom" (and similar) should not be abbreviated to UK in article titles — see Category:United Kingdom.
  2. "High-speed rail in the United Kingdom" would then be consistent with High-speed rail in the United States. (See also Category:High-speed rail.)

If nobody objects in the next few days, I'll go ahead and do the page move. --A bit iffy 21:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problems with the name change, but the capital letters in Speed and Rail are surely recognised "title case"?33 15:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an excellent article. Arce 20:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It needs a bit of a revamp in light of developments in the last 8 or 9 months. I will do this soon, work allowing.33 19:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few problems with this article[edit]

"of PPPs promoted elsewhere." -> unclear what PPP means - the link certainly doesn't help (point-to-point protocol? something about penises?!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.224.0.158 (talk • contribs)

:-) it actualtl stands for Public-private partnership. I'll make it a wikilink. Tompw 20:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Although Virgin teamed up with experienced civil engineering contractors such as Bechtel, their tender was rejected for the reasons outlined above. " -> I can't find any arguments above! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.224.0.158 (talk • contribs)

The reason is "[Virgin's bid was] not welcomed by the government, who in the wake of the Hatfield rail crash, were focussed on - as they saw it - getting the rail network back to reliable operations", which is given above the bit you quoted. I've amended it to sayign "the previous section", for extra clarity. Tompw 20:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The box refers to no British domestic service being able to travel faster than 125mph. That is not true. The Class 91 trains do up to 140mph on sections of the ECML. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.171.111 (talk • contribs)

140mph on the ECML was an experiment that was discontinued. IIRC it used some funky extra colour on the signalling to allow it. But HMRI eventually got upset and have capped conventional lines to 125 mph because of signalling (the CTRL uses moving bloc). Pickle 23:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The CTRL (HS1) uses TVM-430 cab signalling, which isn't moving block. I don't think any HSL anywhere in Europe uses moving block yet, that is for a future iteration of ERTMS. The ECML used a flashing green aspect to indicated 140mph clearance, but as Pickle says, this was discontinued fairly quickly and HMRI mandated cab signals for all running over 125mph. Interestingly, Virgin are trying to challenge this on the WCML, where they argue that 135mph would be safe on the upgraded track through the Trent Valley with just regular signals. It is expected that cab signalling will be something Network Rail implement on various routes medium term, but I don't hold out much hope of that leading to immediately faster speeds, particularly as the government has only asked for 125mph as the baseline in the tender for the Intercity Express Project (the replacement for the ageing HST/IC125s) and the recent HLOS doesn't mention it. 33 19:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the experiment was discontinued does not mean that services are not capable of running faster than 140mph. That should be clarified (i.e. "sections of the ECML and WCML are capable of running at speeds up to 140mph, but for signalling reasons this is not done") or something similar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.192.111 (talk • contribs)

Another problem with this article was the lead. It was rather unclear (especially the second paragraph about Southeastern High Speed services) so I've tidied it a little. The paragraphs didn't seem to be very logically arranged, especially with the article subject relegated to the final paragraph. It's probably not ideal but I think it looks much better, and avoids some near- and actual-repetition. --Peeky44 What's on your mind? 16:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WCML through the Trent Valley is now consistently 135-140mph, or the GPS on my phone lies... 94.4.170.83 (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even more recent developments[edit]

On Wed 20th June, The Times released an article about new proposals for a high speed line from St Pancras & Heathrow to Birmingham International & Birmingham (new central station).

It would mean:

  • London to Birmingham = 45 minutes
  • Birmingham to Paris = 3 hours
  • London to Manchester (via WCML after B'ham) = 1 hour 30 minutes
  • Manchester to Paris = 3 hours 45 minutes

This should be added to the article, but where should it go?

Please view website and advise about/add the content. Dewarw 18:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See High Speed Two Pickle 23:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged the information in this section back into the paragraph about Greengauge 21's proposals for HS2. I didn't see the point in having a section called "Recent Developments" and then another called "Even More Recent Developments" (or words to that effect!) following it. The nebulous information that was around on the Eddington Report at the time when I first wrote this page has now become clear and therefore needs to form an integral part of the article. Likewise discussion on HS2 in the context of the government's recent white paper and the HLOS. Also - with all due respect to the page author - I'm not sure that the HS2 proposals deserve their own page on this site. It is effectively just a press release from one of a number of organisations campaigning in this arena and does not form a concrete proposal for a new line (as IMHO the page implies). I'd propose that page is merged with the very similar content here. What do others think?

From the point of view of HSR, the most recent (and to me worrying) development is the direction of the IEP/HST2 tender, in that I cannot see DfT making an investment of £2-3bn over ten years in new stock, particularly for the ECML, if a high-speed line is anywhere near the top of the agenda.33 15:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definiton[edit]

The BBC have throw up a good article which sites a broad EU defintion of "high speed rail" - see this BBC news article - its right at the end.

There is no single globally agreed definition of what constitutes a high speed rail line, but the European Union defines them broadly as:

  • Recently-built lines designed specifically for high speed travel, where speeds of at least 250 km/h [150 mph] are attained
  • Upgraded but generally older lines where speeds of at least 200 km/h [124 mph] are possible

Might be useful somehwere Pickle 02:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Pickle 02:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intercity Express Programme[edit]

April 2008, Modern Railways, 'Informed Sources' reports that the Department for Transport has asked bidders to price a 250km/h (155mph) option for the electric version of IEP 172.212.50.75 (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HS2 WCMLish route[edit]

[1] - posted 26th August. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC) [dead link][reply]

Splitting of article High Speed 2[edit]

High Speed 2 article has been moved to High Speed 2, some help will be needed to summarize the section on this page. For any discussion about this, please list it here or preferably the High speed 2 discussion page. Jayflux (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reduced the 'High Speed 2' section in this article to a stub and removed the section-split tag. PeterEastern (talk) 12:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Direct vs maximum intermediate population coverage[edit]

Hello. Complete Wiki newbie here, so I hope starting a new topic was the right thing to do.

This section champions the 'Reverse S' without any mention of its limitations. My own conclusion, arrived at some time ago, is that the attractions of the 'Reverse S' are largely superficial, and don't stand up to close scrutiny. In a nutshell, here's why:-

1. The 15 minute time penalty calculated for journeys between London and Leeds and beyond assumes an unrealistically high line speed between Manchester and Leeds, through a densely populated area and difficult terrain.

2. A route through the centres of Manchester and Leeds looks like it would be very difficult to achieve without a lot of tunnelling and/or wholesale destruction of buildings.

3. Those two considerations combined would push costs up so much that the advantage of minimum route mileage for maximum population served is negated. Other options do involve greater route mileages but that does not automatically translate into higher cost.

4. While a good HSR network should (in my view) include a trans-Pennine link, a lower-speed one would be far more affordable, and it would therefore be best if it were not part of the main north-south line.

Lastly it isn't clear where the '66km core' of the Reverse S, compared to 210km of extra track that would be needed by alternatives, comes from, or what real meaning it has.

The 'Reverse S' looks at present to be of largely historical interest, because it seems it is unlikely ever to be built. Perhaps this should also be stated?

Alanheathrobinson (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By all means add those things to the article, as long as you can provide reliable sources. But I wonder why you think the article "champions" that particular scheme. No Wikipedia article should ever be seen as championing anything. If that it how it comes across, it needs rewriting. -- Alarics (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

I removed the following section as the external links would be best incorporated as references. I'm not sure which to keep or which to integrate so I've moved them to this talk page for people more familiar with the topic to sort through. If others disagree with this removal, feel free to re-add the links to a designated External links section but please consider the advice at Wikipedia:External links. Otherwise, re-add the {{External links}} tag but with an updated date parameter. ClaretAsh 00:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Institution of Civil Engineers

The Institution of Civil Engineers performed a study of British high-speed rail and organised a conference on the subject. Information on their work can be found at the following links:

Map error[edit]

The map should have Northern Ireland as the same colour as the rest of the UK, as it is a map of highspeed rail in the UK. Either that or change the page to 'High speed rail in Great Britain' to exclude northern Ireland. Iainturnerisgod (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The railways in Great Britain are 1,435 millimetres wide. The railways in the island of Ireland are 1,600 millimetres apart. However, yes, it's possible that this article should be renamed High-speed rail in Great Britain; or perhaps you can suggest a more appropriate title? —Sladen (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Something needs changed. As it is currently it is factually incorrect. Personally I would suggest keeping it as the 'High speed rail in the UK' and including Northern Ireland in the map. It is possible that NI may incorporate a separate high speed rail system in the future while still remaining part of the UK. Iainturnerisgod (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WCML_ECML_Midlands.png other wikipedia articles about railways in the UK include NI as part of the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iainturnerisgod (talk • contribs) 23:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We normally deal with the GB rail system separately due to the different gauge and separation of the two systems, although there are exceptions. I agree the simplest solution is to move this. Edgepedia (talk) 07:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected the caption; I note that the lead talks about Britain. Are there plans for any Irish high=speed lines? Edgepedia (talk) 07:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HSUK[edit]

This organisation is not mentioned. It is an alternative to the HS2 plan. In Dec 2014, HSUK were summonsed to a House of Lords Select Committee. Their plan is still alive. 94.192.110.166 (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

High Speed 2[edit]

There seems to be an awful lot of information on the process that led to HS2 being decided on, now that it has been confirmed, can we clear a lot of this out and replace it with more information on HS2? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with High speed trains of the United Kingdom[edit]

Content can be used to expand existing article. Nordic Dragon 18:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents[edit]

Is there any particular reason why the Southall rail crash is the only incident mentioned? The nearby (and sadly more lethal) Ladbroke Grove rail crash also involved a high speed train, as did the Great Heck rail crash and the Hatfield rail crash over on the ECML. Then there's also the Grayrigg derailment on the WCML... Inclined to add, but where would the cut off for the section then be? - Cheers, Burwellian (Talk) 17:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HS2 update[edit]

I have made a start on updating HS2 with regards to the IRP GRALISTAIR (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:High-speed_rail_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1202708781"