Talk:Transpennine Route Upgrade

Start of Article

I think this is an article that is needed. Maybe as a whole series of articles. Creating the page. GRALISTAIR (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Overly detailed tag

I see an editor has said the article has too much detail.

Well I thought that was what an encyclopedic article was suppose to have. But Houston, we have a problem. I also believe Wikipedia policy is CONSISTENCY. The problem is if we think this article is too detailed then what about this article. 21st-century modernisation of the Great Western main line -now that has the mother of all detail in it!!! It is an almost identical subject - but rather than being the Transpennine Route Upgrade it is the Great Western Main Line. I prefer consistency. So if this article is to be dumbed down , then so should the GWML modernisation article. GRALISTAIR (talk) 14:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work in creating this page - it is much appreciated. However, I agree with the tag - the article is hard to read in places. I think part of the problem is that technical details are mixed in with the narrative which makes it difficult for someone to get a sense of what is going on while skipping the technical stuff. I've made a few edits to generally make it easier to read, and I'll now try and separate out the technical aspects. Bellowhead678 (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree that this article is unduly detailed, which impedes comprehension of the overall picture. Futhermore, now that the Integrated Rail Plan for the North and Midlands had been issued, it could be argued that this article should be entirely historical and its wording and level of detail should reflect that. What do others think? --TedColes (talk) 10:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

IRP is a plan and a plan only that has attracted a lot of controversy. IRP has its own article. HS2 is part of IRP and also has its own article. This article here is about a project that is in progress and thus is regularly updated. How on gods green earth can we as you suggest make it entirely historical when it is currently in progress? It makes absolutely zero sense. MML upgrade is likewise - an upgrade in progress with its own article. If we made everything part of IRP and historical (which we would have to do for consistency imho) it would be an absolute unwieldy mess. West Coast Main Line and WCRM Upgrade are also impacted quite heavily by IRP - would we change all that too - (for consistency).

Anyway I will go along with the majority if we reach consensus but as things are I would leave alone. On the detail argument that point was made in May 2021. If you look at the history you will see considerable work has already been done in simplifying and putting intricate detail in separate sections. Again, I would mention consistency. If you look at similar articles on UK Railway upgrades, you will see they have even more detail. So all would need to change. As I have said and will say again, for the moment we should leave be and update as more progress is made. I am planning a big trip by the way by taking photos of various projects and uploading. If you think that article is already detailed, adding photos would make it worse, yet I regularly see strong requests on Wikipedia for more photos. I VOTE NO. GRALISTAIR (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I take your point about not regarding Transpennine north railway upgrade as not being totall subsumed into IRP, but please don't shout. --TedColes (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry GRALISTAIR (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with TedColes that there is too much detail - I've removed a few sentences that don't add much. Bellowhead678 (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

thankyou GRALISTAIR (talk) 11:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that if the section 'Technical aspects' and its subsections were removedfrom the current version of the article, it would no longer contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience and it would be appropriate to remove the template. What do others think?--TedColes (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Well I love it but that is me. I love detail. If I go to an encyclopedia I go because I want detail. But I also don’t want to be belligerent or start an edit war so I will certainly support the consensus GRALISTAIR (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Most articles I have read on Wikipedia contain huge amounts of detail that may only be of interest to certain audiences. If this intricate detail has its own subsection I really do not see the harm. GRALISTAIR (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I have also copied the entire section to my Sandbox so I have all the detail -so again, I will go along with consensus. BUT BUT BUT - we need consistency so all other railway upgrade articles with this level of detail or greater should also be dumbed down too imho GRALISTAIR (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, surely as the Technical detail aspects have their own separate heading, there really is no need to remove the material. If people choose not to read it they can do so. Those that want to read can also do likewise. GRALISTAIR (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is not an absolute excess of technical detail, but a relative excess in relation to a description of the overall picture – i.e. it is difficult for the reader to see the wood/forest for the trees. Should the article make it easier for a reader to get an overview and maybe give more attention to such questions as

• Why is the 50 mile line between Leeds and Manchester so important?

• And why is it so difficult to improve?

• What is the quality of the service provided?

• Does the English North/South divide contribute to the problem?

--TedColes (talk) 11:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Well I don’t mind having a go at your suggested improvements. I will do a draft in my sandbox and go from there. GRALISTAIR (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Suggestions

I have put @TedColes suggestions in - major edit. End goal is still to get rid of that excessive intricate detail tag. I may have worsened it though! GRALISTAIR (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @GRALISTAIR for a great piece of work. Inevitably I, and others, will further edit this. In particular I plan to remove references to Liverpool as the route is between Manchester and York and does not include Liverpool.--TedColes (talk) 10:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Although Liverpool is of course part of the Transpennine service and route but is not part of the upgrade as Liverpool-Manchester was electrified in 2014 timeframe and later GRALISTAIR (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Map

Map has now been added. Fantastic. A picture paints a thousand words. Thanks to User:Rcsprinter123 GRALISTAIR (talk) 13:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I added a Calder Valley line map for comparison GRALISTAIR (talk) 02:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Move

Someone moved this page but this is official —-

TPUupgrade

Also this from the NAO

References

SEPTEMBER 11 2024 EDITS

The following has been added. I don't want to just revert, and I know there are references. But this seems to be stretching the truth to call it Britain's 6th High Speed Line - what do people think?

Following completion of the upgrade, it will be the United Kingdom's 6th high speed rail line, with trains able to run at top speeds of 125 mph (200 km/h).

GRALISTAIR (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC) GRALISTAIR (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

You should have reverted it. I have! (diff) Or at least I removed the claim to be the sixth high speed line as that is not mentioned in the sources. Obviously the sources themselves and the running at 125mph bits are correct. 10mmsocket (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Very few bits will run at 125 though! GRALISTAIR (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The downhill bits perhaps? 10mmsocket (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

References