Talk:National Express East Coast

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 WikiProject Transport in Scotland.
Mid Importance: mid within Transport in Scotland WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of the Passenger trains task force.
This article needs a map. Please work with the Maps task force to create and add a map to this article. Once the requested map is added, remove the Mapneeded parameter from the {{TrainsWikiProject}} template call on this page to remove this map request.

Contents

[edit] Merge

Can we mege the info at InterCity East Coast franchise with this article and then delete InterCity East Coast franchise like we've done with the South Western, Cross Country, West Midland and East Midland franchies. Pickle 17:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I propose that the introductory text at InterCity East Coast franchise is moved to the "Bidding process" section to here and then delete InterCity East Coast franchise. Marcgr 20:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Pref redirect after merge. Simply south 21:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Likewise - redirect, for the moment (NX might go bust before 9th Dec - wishful thinking!?) Zir 18:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Merged and redirected --Jorvik 19:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name of TOC

I notice this has been edited to say that National Express East Coast is the working name of NXEC Trains Ltd rather than this is the brand of NXEC Trains Ltd.

The anonymous edit claims their web site as the source, but I can't find such a claim on the web site. I can however find the claim on their site The new franchise, and the organisation that will deliver it, will be called National Express East Coast at [1] so I am reverting (in a reworded form).

Original editor (or anyone else): feel free to re-instate but please post a link to the source here.

I should note that the inclusion of the name "National Express" in the name might well cause us to think that this is a working title, since they have never branded a rail franchise as National Express in the past. But in fact such branding is entirely consistent with their stated intention of launching a multi-modal loyalty scheme, so it is entirely possible that far from reserverving the National Express brand for their coach services, they will not only use it for NXEC Trains, but also rebrand 'one' and c2c.

In the absence of a documented source to the contrary, I think it's reasonable to accept at face value the claim on NXEC's 'Your East Coast' site that 'National Express East Coast' will be the name. Roy Badami 22:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

On page http://www.youreastcoast.co.uk/?page_id=4 it cleary states the name of the franchise, "The new franchise, and the organisation that will deliver it, will be called National Express East Coast" Marcgr 07:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
On the same page, they also state, "We will be using a completely new brand for National Express East Coast which will be launched over the coming months." So maybe the company will be NXEC Ltd but use a different brand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcgr (talk • contribs) 07:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The brand isn't just the name used, its the colour scheme, logo, train livery etc. Where it says 'completely new', it could just mean a completely different branding style from what there is now with GNER, or they will not be keeping any part of the GNER branding. --Jorvik 09:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
...is the intended trading name...
What on earth possessed me to phrase it like that? :-) I've reworded again. Roy Badami 22:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
There's a link on the "one" page to this newsletter which on page nine has a load about a planned rebrand of all National Express operations, including the new East Coast franchise- there's a computer generated mockup of a mrk4 on there. This of help? Cambridge al (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
All sources indicate that National Express East Coast will be the franchise's brand name, just as one is to become National Express East Anglia. Since there is no other name competing for attention, there is no reason why the Wikipedia article should question this stated intention. David Arthur (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New website address

The new website will be at www.nationalexpresseastcoast.com The current www.youreastcoast.co.uk one will no longer work from 9th December 2007 Marcgr 18:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map

I’ve created a map showing National Express’s East Coast network, along with major connecting services, but it seems a bit redundant with the route diagram that’s already here. Which do people think is the more useful of the two? (Also, the diagram lists stops at Brough, Shipley, and Horsforth, which seem to be absent from the official maps and timetables I’ve seen — can anyone explain this?) David Arthur (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Since no one has commented, I’ve added the map to the article. If there are any errors or omissions, please let me know. David Arthur (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Horsforth - there is one direct service from Horsforth to London King's Cross on Monday to Friday mornings. At all other times, travellers to London must change at Leeds.
Brough - there is one direct service from Horsforth to London King's Cross every day of the week (times vary). At all other times, travellers to London must change at Doncaster.
Shipley - there is one direct service from Shipley to London King's Cross on Monday to Saturday mornings. At all other times, travellers to London must change at Leeds.

[edit] Clean Up

This article needs cleaning up / reformatting so that the maps are in line with the relevant sections of the article. At the moment it all looks a bit messy because you cannot tell which maps relate to which section! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katsp8 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we delete both maps. Virgin Trains does not have a map. We already have good list of route descriptions. Marcgr (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reaction and Reception Section

I recently added a section in the page:

People were not keen on National Express taking over to begin with. They had gained a relatively poor reputation from Central Trains/Central Citylink (despite having earned a good one from Midland Mainline). Furthermore, GNERs trademark Coat of Arms and orange strip was removed and replaced by "national express" branding- a decision some did not like as they thought it could get dirty easily. [1]

However, the new website has had a good reception [2] - with superior and simpler ticket purchasing (for example, NXEC enable passengers to choose their preferred seat with more options like "Quite Zone," "proximity to toilet" etc. which rival InterCity operators like First Great Western do not have). This is reflected by an 80% growth in the use of the website [3]

NXEC's decision to move free WiFi to second class (as well as First) has also been popular. [4] [5] However, should they axe the restaurant cars or the buffet cars, people won't be pleased.

It was removed because "most of it is loaded with opinions and most isn't based upon reliable sources."

looking at it, this appears to be true. However:

  • most other TOCs have sections like this.
  • it is balanced. Removal of some POV could help.
  • it had an image which I believe is good.
  • the sources are reliable- some especially so.

Could others help me get the section into shape- I believe it could work.

Thanks, Btline (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

For the ease of discussing this, this revision shows the section in place with the refs linked from the references section. Looking through the section and the relevant refs, only the point about the website being well recieved is backed up by an appropriate reference. All the rest relies on blogs or comments on a BBC news article which I wouldn't consider to be reliable sources. Also, I'd note that it is inaccurate to say that the website being well received "is reflected by an 80% growth in the use of the website", the source for this actually says that "In the last year, usage of the website has grown by over 80%". This isn't since the new website came online. Adambro (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
There is some useful information in there, but ‘people were not keen’ is vague and unsourceable, and criticism of the livery isn’t really notable; are there any companies whose liveries have never been criticised? David Arthur (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I do think the WiFI point should be included in the section. It is notable as it is first for a UK TOC, and was received well. Btline (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
PS- BBC News not reliable??????? Btline (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)?
The BBC news stories are a reliable source (up to a point: I often spot mistakes in them); however, the "Have Your Say" section afterwards [2] is not. Furthermore, for us to read through that discussion and draw conclusions from it would be original research. Also, the NXEC sources aren't much use as a source of commentary: they're obviously going to be biased to show themselves in a good light. --RFBailey (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

But I do think a section is needed. Surely the stuff about WiFi is relevant? Btline (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it’s worth mentioning, but only that they have it, rather than vague speculation about its effect on the company’s popularity. David Arthur (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
There's already a brief note about the wifi [3]. Adambro (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hardley in the right section! Btline (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Logo

I'm not sure the logo is correct. Yes, it is the new National Express brand, but I think it should include "East Coast."

This would make the encyclopaedia clearer for everyone, as people can easily identify which service the page is on via a picture (as well as the heading and text).

I am going to upload a new logo. Btline (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Btline (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
We can't just go making composite images of various parts of the NXEC branding. The logo used, as per the timetable, is simply the National Express logo whereas East Coast is simply another element of the branding. I'd note that with the new franchise, National Express are moving towards brining their other franchise one into a single identity under the National Express name. Adambro (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Noone has made a new logo. The logo is on their website (on the right hand side) [4]. It is a useful way to differentiate between the brands (ie when East Anglia comes on. On the timetable, the "East Coast" is obious at the top- the same logo as the one on this page. With my new logo, the new "National Express" branding still remains clear, at the top. Remember, the company "National Express" on its own is the coaches (see website as well). The rail franchise do have similar branding (as part of their rebrand), but have the separate logo also. Btline (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It certainly looks to me like a new logo has been created as I see this image no where on the company website. This is a composite image made up of two elements of the company branding. "National Express" is not just a coach company despite whatever most members of the public probably think, it is a group of companies. The group is now moving to promote their services under a single "National Express" brand as reflected by the website. National Rail uses just the National Express logo. Adambro (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to be rude, but can't you see the logo? It is on the right hand side of the page!! It is used to separate out the different rail divisions. As an encyclopaedia, we should reflect their choice of branding. Yes, National Rail will just use "National Express" - that's because that is the name of the company, who have chosen to adopt one brand for all, the east coast is the franchise.The point about the coaches was that they are branded with just "National Express" not NX Coches etc. We should make a distinction on Wikipedia. Btline (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I can't see it. Please provide me a link to the source of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:East_coast_slice.gif. Adambro (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
NXEC's home page There is also the timetable where it is shown. Both of these are in different positions, but the logo is there! It is also on the new train livery (have a look online). When NX East Anglia start up, their logo will be the same "national express" on the left with "East Anglia" at the side (exception will be the Stansted Express which will be branded as "stansted express"). One assumes that c2c will follow soon with "national express" on the left with "Thameside" on the right- although a rebrand of c2c has yet to be confirmed. I think that Wiki should reflect this, and help people to distinguish the rail franchises by use of an image, as well as the heading/text. Having NX's "national express" on each service they operate will not help users. Btline (talk) 11:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The image you have uploaded is most certainly not on the NXEC home page. The components which it appears you've merged into one image are though. I'm familar with the train livery, I don't need to have a look online. I've seen it in person and am responsible for a couple of the photos which are used to illustrate this article which show it. Wikipedia is not supposed to try to distinguish between different companies of the National Express group, that is up to NX to do and the whole idea of the rebranding exercise is to try to create a single identity for the company, part of which is the sharing of a logo. I'd suggest that it is misleading to readers to create a composite images combining the NX logo and the East Coast branding. Companies have strict guidelines as to how they use their images within their organisation and so we shouldn't just make up a new format that isn't something that they use. See Wikimedia visual identity guidelines for an idea of this. Adambro (talk) 12:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I moved the "East Coast" under the "national express" in order to reduce the width of the infobox. But this is irrelevant because National Express have many versions of the arrangement of the "national express" and the "East Coast" (the train livery, the website and the timetables). In some ways, they are two separate logos. Apart from my effort to make the infobox a better shape, it is as on their homepage. Yes, I understand that National Express have created a brand new brand for all of their transport (c2c pending), but they still distinguish between their rail franchises, and while they do, Wikipedia should (making Wiki easier to use at the same time). That is why my image should stay. Btline (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You're doing this here as well? As stated on National Express Coaches, it is not your place to 'make wiki easier to use' by chopping up logos, although this is less clear cut here as East Coast is a part of the identity in this case, i.e, used on the trains. MickMacNee (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Although I don't want to war, I am reverting your removal of the logo. Your reasons are invalid! The logo is official- it is used on the website, livery, timetable.... need I go on? The logo is not made up. It has been slightly formatted to fit the infobox. Do represent the brand as "national express" in the logo is wrong, as NX do not. This is very different to the "NX Coaches" brand where the liveries to not have "coaches." Btline (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
(you arent warring with me here btw) What you need to do in this articles case (and hence all other non coach nx brands) is scan an NXEC timetable or train pic or whatever with the whole logo on it, and not chop it up and decide for yourself how the company wishes its copyrighted images to be used. I am still of the opinion that you have created a derivative work, I have held off raising this at the copyvio board as I have been doing other stuff. MickMacNee (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the timetable as an example, I see one logo only, that of National Express. I think Btline is getting confused between branding and a logo. MickMacNee raises the important issue of derivative works also. I did have some photos on my phone of National Express posters up at Peterborough station and these made no distinction between NXEC and NXEA which both serve the station. This is part of their whole reason for adopting a single logo and brand image, the ability to present the two franchises as a single company, perhaps similar to what Virgin did with Cross Country/West Coast. Adambro (talk) 23:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
And connex southeast/southcentral, I don't recall there being separate logos for those either, despite technically being separate legal entities. MickMacNee (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure about Connex, but Virgin only had one web site ad brand (i.e. the timetables were divided up into routes without splitting the Cross Country and West Coast. National Express have. That is why the logo shold be used.

After a bit of thought, I am willing to appease, and say that the "coach" logo should go, as I have not found any more evidence with it in use. Therefore, I will not revert if you switch the Coach logo to "national express" only.

However, I still strongly believe that the East Coast Logo should be used, as there is clear distinguishes between the brands. The timetable are different, the websites are different. You should also look at the Stansted Express logo (part of East Anglia), and this shows even more individuality between the brands. Btline (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Will do then, but as for East Coast, you should find the logo in a complete form, such as a scan or photo, rather than manipulating it yourself. MickMacNee (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Will try to! Thanks for coming to an agreement! Btline (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

How about we use the images here. They are official so don't require us to start creating derivative works, illustrate the different sub-brands fine, and will fit into the infobox no problem. Regards. Adambro (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Bingo. Never saw those. MickMacNee (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I never thought of using them. Thanks for realising to use them! The problem is now sorted, as I have agreed that the coaches logo is not appropriate at the moment. Btline (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh! I thought that it was just a user made logo. I've only just followed the link to find them. Britishrailclass43 (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC).


[edit] New Livery

Hi,

If we could, please try to find a date for the newly relivering of the class 91 train: 91102: Durham Cathedral. Could we also please upload any pictures of the Interim livery. As a member of the Passenger trains taskforce plus the article maintenance taskforce and the images taskforce, I would like to see more information as it comes. Thanks Britishrailclass43 (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC). This user has moved to Britishrailclass91 (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAO Hammersfan re. rolling stock section headings

The reason given that no other TOC article has these sub divisions is not in my view an adequate reason to continually revert what I believe is a better version for this article [5], giving more readability and understanding to the reader, both in the content and in the table of contents. I do not accept your view that someone has to simultaneously make the same change to all TOC articles before you will not revert. If you don't give any other reason here for your reverts to your preferred version[6] other than it doesn't meet your idea of what an article should look like, i.e. per WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, then I will request further commment on this issue, because your justification is weak imo. MickMacNee (talk) 13:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, unsigned commenter, you should be the one to have to justify why you think the change should be made, given that you're the one who changed it in the first place. Nobody considered sectionalising the rolling stock list before, so why do YOU think it is necessary? Hammersfan, 01/05/08, 14.09 BST
I never noticed I didn't sign, but it was obvious it was me anyway from the timing and history. As far as giving a reason for the change I've already done it above, and as you haven't commented on that bar another odd reason amounting to 'wikipedia never changes', I'm reverting again. MickMacNee (talk) 13:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting third opinion

Pre-empting another revert, I am requesting a third opinion. Hammersfan (talk · contribs) is in dispute with myself over the preferred layout of a table and some headings. He prefers this layout [7], while I believe this one [8] is better

My reasons for the edit are:

  1. This layout is easier to read
  2. This layout better reflects the way the stock is used

On both points, I made the edit after it became clear after various edits by Britishrailclass91 (talk · contribs) to the Routes operated column that the current layout of merging all units was causing unnecessary over complication trying to clarify the use of each type of vehicle, when in actual fact the entire table referred to just two distinct train formations used on two distinct routes.

Also, in the future stock section, the quite important detail about the future HST was merely tagged onto the end of a much larger but much less important section of text about some temporary loan stock.

My edit produced a layout that now shows at a glance that the stock comprises two distinct types of formation, 125 and 225, used on their own routes. It further clarifies the future stock plans. This makes it more clear to the reader, both in the table of contents and the main body text.

His objections are:

  1. No other TOC article has this layout [9]
  2. No one has ever made this change [10]
  3. It is un-needed

His first two objections are not appropriate defences of a revert. If I were to edit the only 2 or 3 articles that I know of that could be sub-sectioned this way, to justify this edit, I would be violating WP:POINT. Namely, only a limited number of articles use such fixed formations and plan to use the new high speed train, so referring to a de facto standard across all train operating company articles is not a good defence, and actually prevents improvement. His second objection is merely a rehash of the first, if this were a valid reason to prevent edits, no article would ever be improved. This leaves his final objection, which I believe amounts to WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, and is not a robust reason for stopping an attempt to improve an article. This view may also stem from the fact that he seems to only edit rail related articles, and therefore might not appreciate that his layout is more confusing to the casual reader than mine, who might not be as aware of how TOC's use rolling stock. MickMacNee (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I would support the change that MickMacNee has made here as it offers a number of advantages to our readers as he notes, in particular the ability to more easily understand the differences between the 125 and the 225 formations. I would also agree that I don't think we've really seen any solid reasoning to oppose this change. Adambro (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Third Opinion responses

• Opinion — I agree with MickMacNee's preference for three tables (one for Intercity 125, one for Intercity 225, and one for proposed future fleet). This layout conveys the specifications with equal or greater clarity and provides utilisation information not present in Hammersfan's unitised table. I further agree that there's been no sound basis presented for opposition to the three-table layout, nor for reverting to the unitised table. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Opinion — Hi. Thanks for asking for a third opinion; I'll do my best. I agree you have a thorny problem here. There are enough dimensions to the data here that I don't think there is a single correct representation. The choice depends on expected use.

Generally, we use tables like this to make certain information easier to compare or refer to. They are usually supplementary to text, not a replacement for it. The right table design depends on the kind of use you expect. Putting all the items together suggests that the primary use is for people who are interested in comparing all the rolling stock together. Separating them implies the elements are so different that comparing them is unlikely, or that putting them all together is misleading.

I think the main problem is that you are trying to convey too much. There is the basic information in the tables. You also want to suggest that the various entries go together in train formations. One of those is not in service yet, and so is notionally distinct. You could convey this in additional columns or through visual means, like color. However, the table is relatively wide already, and HTML doesn't give us the same kind of control as print. A secondary problem is that this article is meant for different audiences. You are all clearly very interested in the topic, and so distinctions that you see as important are less so to the casual reader, a large part of our audience.

Given the choices on offer, I would go with a single table at the top of the section, followed by a textual explanation at the bottom of the facts you consider significant. The table would then serve as a quick reference for casual users to find and recognize particular rolling stock. They can then choose to read for more detail. If you are concerned that some important dimension is not recognized in the normal format, consider using color, asterisks, or, if forced, an additional column. To make room, you could also consider moving some information to a separate table. E.g., One with the train formations (InterCity125/225/future) along the vertical.

Although I agree that IDONTLIKEIT is not a sufficient reason for opposing a change, I think consistency with related articles certainly is. We use a great deal of common formatting to make reference easier, and a common layout or table style among closely related articles is certainly a legitimate goal.

Hoping that helps, William Pietri (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Pic (s)

Hi, could someone please upload the picture(s) below into Category:National Express East Coast:

Y Done although you can do this yourself easily enough. Go onto Commons and find the image then click edit and add [[Category:National Express East Coast]] at the very bottom of the image page. Regards. Adambro (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)