Template talk:Current UK TOCs

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.
See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
Template This page is a template and does not require a rating on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale within the Trains WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Railways.
This article is within the scope of the Passenger trains task force.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1
Archive 2


Contents

[edit] Ireland (again)

An anon user has just added Iarnród Éireann to this template. I removed it, on the grounds that their passenger operations in the UK are restricted to the Belfast-Dublin Enterprise service, which is already listed. --RFBailey 17:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Virgin Trains

Another anon user is adding Virgin CrossCountry and Virgin West Coast to the "sub-brands" line. I have reverted this change, as they are not brands as such: they are subsidiaries which operate different franchises but under the same brand. This is the opposite of, say, one and Stansted Express, which are two separate brands used by the same company operating a single franchise. --RFBailey 14:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite right. Virgin West Coast and Virgin CrossCountry are highly notable for the very fact that they are not brands, Virgin having chosen (uniquely, I believe) to combine two franchise into one train operating company, with no division between the two visible to passengers. David Arthur 15:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No need to worry, in a few days one of Virgin's "sub-brands" will be gone! Dewarw 16:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

How should Virgin West Coast (and what would have been the other one) be added on here? Simply south 00:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Technically, Virgin West Coast should be in National, and Virgin Trains in the sub brand section. However this could be potentially confusing, as people would usually see it as being the other way round. The other two solutions are: 1) Display them in National as "Virgin Trains (Virgin West Coast)", 2) Don't display it at all, as the Virgin West Coast article could probably be merged into Virgin Trains. --Jorvik 00:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see what's wrong with it--Virgin Trains is still the brand used. There are no sub-brands anywhere, so putting anything related to "Virgin Trains" in the sub-brand section is a mad idea. I'm currently in the process of updating the Virgin Trains article to reflect their new status. The Virgin West Coast article should be merged into that--it contains little of worth that the other one doesn't. The change to {{Defunct UK TOCs}} seems reasonable to me. --RFBailey 01:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Central

An abstract question I grant you, but how long do you think it will be before we move Grand Central to the {{Defunct UK TOCs}} template? And do you think they will get any trains running before we do? Hammersfan 21/11/07, 10.42 GMT

10 years. Yes, they already have. Simply south (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Ever the optimist :-P Hammersfan, 21/11/07, 12.05 GMT

Why don't we put Grand Central and W&S on the future template. It will be ages before they start, just see! Dewarw (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The ‘future’ template is for prospective companies — that is, unapproved proposals. Grand Central and Wrexham & Shropshire both have full approval to begin service; the repeated delays to Grand Central’s opening are caused by practical considerations. David Arthur (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
We could change that situation, so that the "current" template is just for operators that are actually operating trains, and re-jig the "future" template so that it has "confirmed" and "prospective" sections. Grand Central and Wrexham & Shropshire would be in the "confirmed" section, while the others would be in "prospective". --RFBailey (talk) 03:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
To me this would seem to give unnecessary prominence to the prospective operators, by listing them in the same place as companies with an actual legal entitlement to run trains. David Arthur (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I agree with RFBailey, because Grand Central and W&S are on the "Current" template- yet they are not running at the moment (and won't be for a while, knowing this country!). They should therefore be on the future template. Grand Central launching soon? I'll believe it when I see it! Dewarw (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the wording of the Prospective template should give pause - both Grand Central and Wrexham & Shropshire are not "prospective" operators. They have slots already allocated in the current timetable, which means they could (if they had the rolling stock) start tomorrow. Naming the "Prospective" template as perhaps "Future UK TOCs" might be better if you do feel it necessary to remove these two from this template. However, if that is to be done, it needs to be made crystal clear that the prospective operators (Grand Union etc) have no official approval/sanction as yet and are merely proposals, unlike GC and W&S. Hammersfan, 13/12/07, 17.36 GMT
I can see where your coming from with this. Do you think that they should be spilt. It just seems wrong, for me, to have prospective TOCs in a Current TOCs template. Dewarw (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have gone with your suggestion. I have made it clear on the "Future" template, which TOCs are approved and which are not. Dewarw (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do i have a sense of deja vu with the above discussion? Simply south (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't possibly imagine :-P Hammersfan, 14/12/07, 12.17 GMT

As Grand Central have announced their start date is to be the 18th December, I have added it back to this template Hammersfan, 16/12/07, 21.51 GMT

Granted, Grand Central have made numerous previous announcements but this time it seems very likely that this will be accurate because GC have been running training runs with the rolling stock which they've been waiting so long for. Adambro (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

I have made quite some changes to the templates (one edit leads to another etc!). Are they ok? Dewarw (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Is a footnote saying that Eurostar operates in France and Belgium really necessary? The note for Ireland is needed to account for the fact that there are two incompatible and unconnected railway networks in the United Kingdom, but the fact that Eurostar is in the ‘International’ category seems quite enough to explain it. David Arthur (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree - the only reason a note for the Irish network is included is because it is completely seperate from the British network, even to the extent of operating at a different gauge. The note (as I recall) was the agreed means of including NIR and Enterprise on the UK template (does anyone remember the broohaha over that? Happy days LOL). It isn't necessary to include a similar note for France and Belgium Hammersfan 14/12/07, 12.14 GMT

[edit] Wrexham & Shropshire

Now that WSMR has a start date, when do people think it should be moved onto this template? Hammersfan, 03/04/08, 11.45 BST

When it starts. Until it does, it is still a "Future" UK TOC. Btline (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Future UK TOCs template

From Monday, the only "confirmed" TOC will start. That will leave the Future TOCs template with three pipe-dreams. Obviously, they should remain on it, but perhaps the template should be altered in some way.

Any ideas/comments? Btline (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Changed to prospective. Y Done Btline (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. --RFBailey (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)