Talk:Virgin Trains

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
B This article has been rated as B-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 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] Trent Valley upgrade means quicker running to Birmingham?

Er... Just a point about this, isn't the Trent Valley on the more direct route (Rugby-Lichfield-Stafford)?

Why would this make a difference to EUS-BNS/WOL services? Worley-d 16:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced Material

There is a lot of un-sourced material on this page. I recently removed a huge chunk, but I have noticed that there is a lot more. I will not remove this for now. Instead, I will let someone source it and tag the page. Dewarw 21:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arriva takes over XC route

i read on the bbc news that arriva is taking over the XC route can this be mentioned? 82.24.175.199 09:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stoke in the Midlands, not the north

"West Midlands services are" section should include Stoke-on-Trent, which is in the West Midlands, and is not in the north.

[edit] Birmingham to Glasgow/ Edinburgh to be operated by Voyagers?

Is this correct? The line is totally electrified, so surely Virgin West Coast will use Pendolinos, or at least Desiros! Dewarw 17:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Its raised my eyeborws, but i image they lack the the spare Pendolinos, and there aren't any trainpaths for low speed stock (all emu's like desiros) so voyagers it is (OK so you could get old class 86, 87, etc locos or even class 67s) - unless they are running through manchester which isn't electrifed north of picadilly (that would make senss). Pickle 22:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Typical! I suppose. I read somewhere that it is actually cheaper to operate diesel trains at the moment (cheaper fuel than the electricity from the wires). That would explain why so many lines which need electrification are not being electrified (cross country, Manchester-Bolton-Preston etc). In my opinion it is a waste of fuel which could be put to better use! And what happens when we start running out of fuel- fuel price rises- most of the network diesel- I sense future "fare hyper-inflation!!" Dewarw 23:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge?

I think Virgin Trains and Virgin West Coast should be merged becuase as of next month, when the cross country franchise moves to arriva, thre will only be virgin west coast e.g two articles stating the same thing. Mark999Mark999 17:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Virgin trains is the company and Virgin west coast is the franchise they hold. Virgin trains are still bidding for other franchises and the article includes some company information including past franchises and future possibilities and so I think it is better to keep them separate. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 19:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Support The Virgin West Coast article is hardly encyclopaedic. Canterberry 20:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree - for now at least. VWC is still very usefull all the time VXC is still about. even then VXC will still exist as an article about the defunt TOC (liek connex south cnetral, thames trians, etc). Thus "Virgin trains" article provides the overarching view for Brandson's train ambitons (eg the two ECML bids), while VWC will be his only active frnachice, and VXC the defunt one. Thats not to say the 3 articles are prefect and could do with work, pruning and co-ordination. Pickle 20:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree - VXC is an important part of the Virgin Trains and the British TOC scene. The only logical way forward would be merge the article with VWC and VXC which could produce a very unwieldly article. Remember an encycolpedia includes historical information and well as current information. --Stewart (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poor Quality

The article reads like an anoraked anti-privatisation, anti-Virgin trainspotter has sat behind his computer and written a long derogatory piece whilst waiting for his photos to upload to Fotopic. I'm sorry but such comments as "Given Richard Branson’s personal popularity with much of the British public and the high-profile success of some of his other business ventures such as the Virgin Atlantic airline, the relative failure of Virgin Trains may appear unusual (but might perhaps be considered alongside Virgin Cola and Virgin Vodka, both brands launched in a blaze of publicity, but have now largely disappeared)." are hugely exaggerated. Virgin Trains a failure? Before making such wild statments, it would be necessary to start looking at what Virgin did to improve things - and there are plenty of things. Would platform 4 at Wolverhampton, for example, ever have been built under British Rail?

Ridiculous Worley-d 20:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC) what have virgin trains got to do with plat 4 at wolves it was paid for by railtrack as a turn back platform for pendolinos but as per usual that did not work the platform and buildings are shabby and not well built look at the ceiling the auto doors do not work and the lift when it worksdoes not hold many people but the over bridge is truly a remarkable landmark asit can be seen over 4 miles away at thetop of the cannock road the platform is so useful that for half of the day its empty and the pendolinos turn back off plat 2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.135.193 (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Cross Country Information

I do not think that that removal of the Cross Country information is appropriate. Yes - VXC no longer operate any trains (as of today), however the historical information is still encyclopedic. I suggest that a section is created cover the Cross Country era. --Stewart (talk) 09:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's still encyclopaedic, but only up to a point. A lot of that sort of information stops being as notable when it's out of date. I think it would be better to have all the historical information in the Virgin Cross Country, which can now be written from a more historical perspective, leaving this article as primarily about the current operator. --RFBailey 00:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed - I think this is a good way forward as the historical information is not getting lost. --Stewart (talk) 06:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I've begun a temporary Virgin Cross Country article in my userspace at User:RFBailey/VXC. It's nowhere near ready yet, but any thoughts would be appreciated. --RFBailey 16:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I implemented the new article yesterday. It still needs some work though (and plenty of references!). --RFBailey (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I have 3 problems with the "2008" section

  1. It is totally unsourced- it all be tosh!
  2. How will Virgin have enough rolling stock to do this timetable. It seems like frequencies have been vastly increased.
  3. I wish that they would get electric units for the New Street to Glasgow route- a bit of a waste of the electric power lines to me (time and money spent in the 60s)!

Thanks, Dewarw (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to your three points: (1) try this, for instance, or this; (2) not clear, but presumably reduced journey times will help increase frequencies; (3) true, but that's not a problem with the article, is it? --RFBailey (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok: In response- (1) Thanks for finding the sources. I will now include them in the article!!!! (2) In the pdf. source you provided me, it seems that some of the services to/from Lancaster/Birmingham will be operated by Voyagers instead of Pendalinos. As well as this, there will be no "Thunderbird" hauled train on the North Wales Coast- all will be by Voyagers. Services to North Wales will be double Voyagers as far as Crewe, where they'll split, one unit going up the WCML. Therefore, Virgin will overcome stock problems by using Voyagers on electrified routes! (3) True it is not a problem, but I thought that someone might have a source showing that Virgin were thinking of ordering more EMUs- obviously they are not.

Thanks again for finding the sources, Dewarw (talk) 12:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] virgin trains

with the advent of vhf or very high frequency every piece of rolling stock will need to be used and if you take into account failure rates of pendolino's and engine failures of 221's and the constant failures of the infrastructure this is operation princess all over again use the hose pipe principle you can only get a measured amount of water through a given diameter of pipe after that something has to give —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.135.193 (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

How true. But please note that this is for the discussion of improvements to the article, not a general discussion of the article's subject. --RFBailey (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)