Talk:London Midland

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
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
Low This article has been rated as low-importance within the Trains WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Railways.
Mid Importance: mid within UK Railways WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of the Passenger trains task force.

Contents

[edit] Questions

  • Should Bedford-Bletchley be listed under express or city please?
  • Does anyone know whether class 321 and class 323 EMUs can work in multiple with each other?
  • 172.212.115.140 17:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Its rural ... (don't know)
No (i don't know)
Pickle 22:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

express. city is only for the West Midland routes Mattdickinson 11:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LM sub-brands

Pages have been created for the LM Sub-brands (express and City). Please help and get these pages up to scratch. Thanks, Dewarw 17:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

These articles now redirect to this one. --RFBailey 13:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unreliability

Didn't think I'd ever be defending Silverlink but Govia/London Midland have had a load of delays/cancellations etc. since they took over a few weeks ago. If there are any online groups who are covering this please follow up below for me. Richard W.M. Jones (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think that I'd ever defend Central Trains, but since LM took over, the service on the "Snow Hill Lines" has been relatively poor. The trains had just started (within the last year or two) to be very punctual- with the help of a better timetable; now they are prone to delays, even in the morning, when my train is making its first service of the day!
However, it is likely to take time for them to settle down. Govia have a good reputation (e.g. Southern, Southeastern), and I am sure that the blip in the service is just the transformation of a couple of very different companies into one integrated one.

 :PS This section is a bit off topic- we should really keep to other forums for such discussions! Dewarw (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PPM

The PPM in the images is, I believe, the PPM 50. London Midland have placed an order with Parry People Movers for two PPM 60s. Not sure what the difference is but I'm assuming it is slightly bigger?

Worley-d (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photos of future fleet

Is it necessary to have the photo column for future fleet? As Worley-d points out above, the PPM is not the one that will run the Stourbridge service. Also there is no freely available photo of the clas 172s, and the picture of the 350 is actually a 350/1, which appears above and also at the top. I suggest removing this column. Any thoughts? – Tivedshambo (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Leave them in, they can be slightly inaccurate- no-one should care (if they want accuracy, then they won't come to Wikipedia!). THe new image of the 172 is actually a 172/1 not /2 or /3, this again does not matter.
Once more images become available, they can be uploaded! Btline 17:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't think that "who cares about accuracy" is a good argument here. The photographs are wrong, and until the stock beomes "current fleet", it will be difficult to get hold of free photographs anyway. As there seems to be a lack of reasonable objections, I'll remove the column.  Tivedshambo (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Tivedshambo: if the objects in question don't yet exist, we can't take photographs of them. Also, we should remember that photographs, while useful if available, are not mandatory. Finally, regarding the artist's impression if the Class 172 taken from the Bombardier website, I can see there's a valid fair use rationale for the British Rail Class 172 article, but not for this one. --RFBailey (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
THe pics are back again! I'm not going to edit war and remove then yet. Btline (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I've removed them again, and added a warning message and a note on the user's talk page. (Looking up the IP addresses suggests that it is the same anonymous editor who keeps posting them- this was first suggested by User:Btline, on my talk page.) --RFBailey (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, update, I have removed the pics, and added more "stop" messages. I gave the user a unofficial warning. They deleted it, so they are the anon IP!!! Good, this nonsense should stop. Next time, it will be an official one (prob level 4!). Thanks for your help, Btline (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
PS: RFBailey, thanks for your explanation about the image! Btline (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)