Talk:Caledonian Sleeper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

[edit] Free cross-london journey

Yeah, all travellers starting at either Glasgow or london are allowed a free cross-city journey with their ticket. Added this to the article, since it's a nice perk. Not sure, though, if it extends to the tube/SRT undeground, or just surface journeys. Anyone know for sure? Graldensblud 22:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of destinations

I'm thinking of re-adding the destinations table, which seems to have been lost when the infobox was placed. Many of the links may be of interest to readers of this article. Who agrees, and if so, where do you recommend? M0RHI 00:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Be careful about re-adding the table, as it would mess up the way the page is laid out. What you could do is to divide up the route section into individual sections, for example one for the Aberdeen section, one for the Inverness section etc, and then list all of the destinations that way. Hammersfan 11.00 BST, 30/03/06

Worth merging the London Euston, Watford Junction, Crewe, Preston and Edinburgh Waverley, between the Aberdeen, Inverness and Fort William routes, to prevent repetition? M0RHI 22:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haulage

It would be nice to have a "traction" section covering the locomotives used to haul the Caledonian Sleeper, both past and present. Emoscopes ^Talk 21:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That Booking Section..

I think that booking section is highly irrelevant. It is not the job of Wikipedia to inform whether tickets are readily available or not. Furthermore, since the changes that were made over Christmas (I think), it's made it easier to book tickets via online retailers. I always book mine at mainline train stations and have never had a single problem.

Furthermore, they don't appear expensive, they appear at the right price for this service. It's not the job of Wikipedia to define what's expensive, although I agree with the Bargain Berths being referred to in some context.

Please reply within 3 days or I will adapt this to a more factual and NPOV.

[edit] Lowland locos

Can anyone add the locomotives used for the LOWLAND sleeper? I can not find that on the page.

I think it specifies Class 90s, but it's not too clear, I'll try to clarify it. M0RHI 22:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

thanks 82.40.75.55 17:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Showers

Travelled on the sleeper last month, no showers available at Euston to standard class passengers (whether paying a surplus or not). Ammended accordingly Graldensblud 12:14, 05 August 2006 (GMT+1)

[edit] Route diagram

Iv'e removed Watford Junction as a highland sleeper stop. If there are any other alterations, please direct them to me as I can alter the original vector file rather than the *.png. Emoscopes ^Talk 16:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Would it be worth pointing out (as a resident of this town) that the Highland Sleeper stops in Dunblane going southbound at night but, for some still unknown reason after years and years, it does not stop at Dunblane on the way north!

This is the same story with the Highland Chieftain GNER service on a Sunday, which serves Dunblane only in the southbound direction! Very frustrating for those who like to travel on the few remaining "real" trains in this country!

[edit] Timetables

An unregistered user keeps adding huge aouts of material related to curret and future timetables. Please don't. And don't include associated trivial items (e.g. mentioning that engineering works may change train tims).

Such enrtries are not encyclopaedic and are not really what Wikipedia is about.

see WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY DrFrench 12:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to step back from this edit war. I've tried to make my positiion clear on the anon users talk page User talk:81.109.234.187 as he's done the same thing to the Highland Chieftain page, and blanked talk pages to remove my concerns.

I don't believe this sort of information belongs in Wikipedia - a link to the Fisrt website is enough to obtain timetable information

DrFrench 13:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It certainly does not belong on Wikipedia, and the user is going about his business in entirely the wrong way. Emoscopes ^Talk 14:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, per Emoscopes above. We have a routemap and a link to the First Scotrail website. This is sufficient, and the edits break WP:NOT. M0RHI | Talk to me 15:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Diasagree useful information --Prof Jolly 16:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, per Emoscopes above. Fraslet 16:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Also agree that this information isn't suitable and that the links provide this info. Adambro 16:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The question is not whether it is useful, it is whether it should be included as per WP:NOT. Adambro 16:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be argumentative but in which category would it fit into? Because I can't seem to see on that fits --Prof Jolly 17:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say that it easily fits into WP:NOT#IINFO, also, I have never seen an encyclopedia giving timetable information, this is why the links on the page point at the First ScotRail website so that a reader can access that information if they so desire. It is not the function of an encyclopedia to give timetable information. Fraslet 17:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

just looked and i cannot see which it falls into

1.8 Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

  1. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. - not an faq
  2. Travel guides. - not a travel guide but i could see where this could get close
  3. Memorials. - not a memorial
  4. Instruction manuals. - not an instruction manual
  5. Internet guides. - not a guide
  6. Textbooks and annotated texts. - not a text book
  7. Plot summaries.  - not a plot summary
  8. Lyrics databases. - not a lyric

its got other information than whats on the firsts website --Prof Jolly 17:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment The article has more than is at the First ScotRail website, however I cannot see any information that is not related to the timetable that is not produced at the First website, or is ephemeral. See the previous clashes, and above / history to see. This has been quite a stable article, those that try to disturb this by going against concensus are simply disturbing what could be a good article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by M0RHI (talk • contribs) 00:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] North British relevance

I'm not really sure what the relevance of linking to North Briton is; the "North Britain" fad was largely an 18th and 19th century trend amongst the Scottish elite to identify themselves as British unionists. It really has little, if anything, to do with the Caledonian Sleeper, which is named after a far more ancient term for Scotland - Caledonia! Also, the Caledonian Sleeper to Aberdeen may run over some ex-NBR metals for a small portion of its journey, but equally so it runs over Caledonian Railway and Highland Railway territory in Scotland (and LNER and LMS if you look at a different era), that is not justification of the relevance of the link. We might as well list every single rail company that the CS runs over, it isn't an entirely Scottish affair. Emoscopes ^Talk 11:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about a portion of a sentence and a couple of internal links. I honestly don't see any harm in helping the reader find a bit of background information where it happens to come up in the course of the text. – Kieran T ^(talk) 11:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and you've reverted again. Didn't feel like waiting for the discussion you started? That's one way to try to close the point. – Kieran T ^(talk) 11:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I was merely reverting the article back to how it was, and pointing out what I see are more than reasonable grounds for doing so. Articles can very rapidly snowball into an entirely diffuse collection of random information. I really do not understand what the "useful background aspect" of the link is. This article explains the relevance of Caledonia and Caledonian, which is entirely reasonable seeing as that is the name of the service. Were it the North British Sleeper then explaining what North Britain is all about would to be useful. The fact is, North Britain and northern Britain are different; one is a political and social movement, the other a geographical descriptor. The latter is relevant, the former is not. Emoscopes ^Talk 11:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right about the snowball effect. However, what I particularly objected to was that despite now agreeing that one of the links is relevant, you reverted rather than constructively editing. To the point about relevance; the section refers to the name of the service. We don't know what was in the minds of the people who chose the name, so by the logic above we would perhaps also be required to remove the link to Latin too? Hardly relevant to the train service by strict criteria. – Kieran T ^(talk) 12:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the article because, as explained - and I believe justified - in depth above, I did not see the relevance of linking to either North Briton or North British Railway, how else this could have been constructively edited in the context of the name "Caledonian" I could not see. Considering that Caledonia is a Latin term, I think that is fully justified in being included. I would suggest that if you wish to link to the NBR, a more appropriate way to do so would be to describe the Aberdeen portion of the Highland Sleeper as running across the old-NBR mainline from Edinburgh to Aberdeen. Emoscopes ^Talk 12:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

Does anyone have enough of a knowledge of the Caledonian Sleeper over the years to write a brief history section? The Guardian quotes the Sleeper first ran in 1873, but I can't find any more sources for the history of the Sleeper. I'd be interested to learn though, if anyone has any sources. M0RHI | Talk to me 21:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It was formed from the Intercity West Coast sector, which ran the 5 sleepers to Scotland. I believe, from googling, it was incorporated into the ScotRail franchise to protect it within the domain of the Scottish Office (later, Scottish Executive), as British Rail threatened to withdraw the highland sleepers in 1994. There's a couple of things you can find from Hansard and *.gov.uk websites using google. Emoscopes ^Talk 21:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/l/Talk%7ECaledonian_Sleeper_9406.html"

Categories: B-Class rail transport articles | Unknown-importance rail transport articles | Passenger trains task force articles | Unassessed-Class Scotland Transport articles | No-importance Scotland Transport articles | WikiProject Transport in Scotland articles

	This article is within the scope of the Transport in Scotland WikiProject, a relatively new collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of transport in Scotland. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This page has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
???	This page has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.