Talk:Northern Powerhouse Rail

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on High Speed 3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140808050912/http://video.uk.msn.com/watch/video/osborne-pledge-on-northern-cities/2i7opcz6 to http://video.uk.msn.com/watch/video/osborne-pledge-on-northern-cities/2i7opcz6

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Template

User:Sceptre recently added the template of the route - could we make clear that this a possible route for HS3 and by no means the only possible one. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It is the preferred route by the government, consistently through the TfN and NIC reports: a core between Manchester and HS2 near to Wakefield, that will connect to improved classic services from Manchester and Leeds. Sceptre (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I agree that this is the current favoured route, but it is extremely early in the planning stage, could we change "High Speed 3" to "Proposed route for High Speed 3" or similar? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on High Speed 3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141225062808/http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/News-Releases/Bridge-works-mark-the-start-of-Manchester-Stalybridge-electrification-1e3f.aspx to http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/News-Releases/Bridge-works-mark-the-start-of-Manchester-Stalybridge-electrification-1e3f.aspx

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Splitting of Background section

The Background section really needs to be split up into subsections, any suggestions for how to do this? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on High Speed 3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141023011612/http://www.networkrail.co.uk/6485_ManchesterHubRailStudy.pdf to http://www.networkrail.co.uk/6485_ManchesterHubRailStudy.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 12 March 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

---

High Speed 3 → Northern Powerhouse Rail – The new name of the proposal is Northern Powerhouse rail as referred to by the Government therefore I propose that the article should be renamed Northern Powerhouse Rail as a result which is its official project name and not High Speed 3 https://transportforthenorth.com/northern-powerhouse-rail/ MainLine45 (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC) Its also worth pointing out that it was never said to be a 'high speed' line and was more of a fast link as originally proposed it was just nicknamed HS3 and is now officially called Northern Powerhouse Rail.MainLine45 (talk) 11:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support It is clear that using this name was a publicity gimmick and Northern Powerhouse Rail is much more appropriate. --TedColes (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• If Northern Powerhouse Rail is the official name then that should be the title of the article. Rillington (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• Weak support per WP:COMMONNAME. But "Northern Powerhouse" is another publicity gimmick name. If it ever actually gets built, the name HS3 is the one that will persist. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC) (Response updated to remove "weak" in the absence of any credible evidence that it will be a HST track. I doubt that "Northern Powerhouse" will stand the test of time either but will have to do for now. Just so long as they don't call it East West Rail Link! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC) )

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Duplication in Current Development section

The last two paragraphs of this section contain quite a lot of duplication. Merging and perhaps the use of bullet points could improve things. --TedColes (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems fair enough. Go for it! Cnbrb (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Re-naming mistake?

It seems to me that there has been a mistake in renaming this article from 'Northern Powerhouse Rail' to 'High Speed North'. The National Infrastructure Commission's 2016 report entitled 'High Speed North' [1] clearly says that High Speed North includes both rail and road provision. It is in four parts: Part 1: The North in perspective; Part 2: Opportunities and the role of transport; Part 3: A high speed rail network for the North and Part 4: Enhancing the road network in the North. The National Infrastructure Commission's Annual Monitoring Report 2020 [2] It includes the following.

This month the government has committed to delivering Northern Powerhouse Rail as quickly and cost-effectively as possible, and will look at how best to accelerate delivery of the scheme, including by working closely with northern leaders and exploring options for creating a new joint delivery body for Northern Powerhouse Rail.

So, either this article should be re-named back to 'Northern Powerhouse Rail' or it should be substantially amended to include road provision. For now I will only make a minor change in the latter direction. 12:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)--TedColes (talk)

If 'High Speed North' is not actually a name but only the headline from an article designed to grab the attention, then it is not its name, and the article needs to be moved back. Hogweard (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

It appears that Ejosm (talk · contribs) moved the article on 27 February 2020, not only without discussing it first, but also against the consensus at #Requested move 12 March 2018 above. Since the name Northern Powerhouse Rail was reached after discussion, any subsequent rename cannot be unilateral but must also be discussed. I shall revert the move, and if the page is moved against consensus again, I shall impose a move protection. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

November 2021 updates

Clearly following the government's announcements on 18 November 2021, the article is going to need some re-work. However I have removed the word "was" from the lead as NPR is not dead, just very different. I suggest everyone reads page 94 onwards of the published report then let's discuss how best to change the article to reflect the current situation. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

October 2023 situation

The map at the top, and any associated content on the page, needs to be amended to reflect the axation of the northern and eastern legs of HS2. Also as there is more than one route between Leeds and York as well as between Sheffield and Hull it needs to be made clear which of these are being referred to.