Talk:Wrexham & Shropshire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wrexham & Shropshire has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

	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.

Contents 1 Route 2 Requested move 2.1 Survey 2.2 Discussion 3 Lead image 4 Trains 5 Map 6 Latest submission 7 Cleanup of article 8 Wolverhampton 9 Ownership 10 "Waiting time in the Midlands"

[edit] Route

Okay... how is it possible to go from Wolverhampton station to Snow Hill/Moor Street stations then?? It's impossible (without having to do a few shunting manoeuvres, which they're not going to do on a "high speed rail service")!!

Anyway, surely they will try and miss out Birmingham if they can? Go from Wolverhampton to London direct and without stopping. If you look at what Hull Trains do, they go straight from the East Riding of Yorkshire area to London. David 16:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It's been confirmed it's missing stops at Birmingham altogether, and is rather stopping at Banbury after Wolverhampton. Born Acorn 23:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff. Will be great if all this happens! David 11:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Are people sure about the order of the stations called? Tame Bridge Parkway is south east of Wolverhampton, whilst Cosford is to the north west of the city. It seems extremely unlikely to me that any train would pass through Wolverhampton High Level, then reverse back to the station. Fingerpuppet 16:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead image

I have changed the picture to a 67 for the following reasons:

• They have announced using these would be a possibility
• You can see Midland Mainline in the old picture and you can't see any brand here.
• It was this exact formation which performed the test run.
• It has nect to it a 165 which will probably be the case at Marylebone, even though this is Paddington

Fine by me. David 17:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've taken it out again:

• Image is of the EWS Company Train, which clearly will not be operating the actual service.
• Image is taken at Paddington, service will operate (supposedly) out of Marylebone.

As a result, the image is somewhat misleading. The image in the TOC summary box should be representative of the operator. The above reasons do not make a strong enough case for the image, and seem like a convenience measure more than anything, which is contrary to the Wikipedia:image use policy. Chris cheese whine 15:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there needs to be an image of some sort there, and the 67 was pretty good. Okay, it's in EWS livery but what else could it be in, otherwise how about putting three images on the page (67, 156, 170) to show the different options. Roger.

I've got no objection to there being some image there to illustrate the article, my objection is purely with potentially misleading images in the infobox. In general, though, I'm not convinced that there's a case to be made for putting those images in. Images should be relevant to the article, and if we included a picture of a 170 in every article that contains a passing mention of them, things would start to become cluttered. That said, a map of the proposed routes might be useful. Chris cheese whine 22:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that an image of a 67 in EWS isn't entirely inappropriate as some of the locomotives WSMR are using are in EWS livery. 7severn7 (talk) 10:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trains

Having read the site, they claim that the trains they use will be 100mph - I'm guessing this would mean Turbostars rather than the 67, yes? The 67 does 125, IIRC. This is reading into things a little too much probably, just a thought Worley-d 01:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I know it's an old topic but as far as I'm aware the only direct way to get to Snow Hill from Wolverhampton is if they were to relay the track that now forms some of the Midland Metro route. I can't remember what it's called - probably Snow Hill-Wolverhampton or something simple. Anyway... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worley-d (talk • contribs)

Its no longer going through Snow Hill be will be rerouted through Coventry, I think. Simply south 12:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Class 170s are expected, but they've announced their intentions for a Buffet, which I don't think would fit on a 170. Their Class 67 test trains and announcement that they could "cater for 67s" in the timetable have only confused things. Born Acorn 00:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The thing I can't wait to see now is if any 67 they do bring in is reliveried. Similarly with 170s. Wouldn't that be fun! Can't wait... Worley-d 23:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, so, their options are:

• Class 170 Turbostar
• Class 158
• Class 67 locomotive and Mk2 or Mk3 coaching stock

Apparently, 170s are hard to come by, and the 158 is currently only cleared as far as Aynho Junction. The 67 is all cleared for the entire route apart from an MK2 DVT they may use. Born Acorn 02:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

All of the 170s are currently in use with various TOCs, and they can't build any new DMUs or Diesel Locos at present thanks to a new European Directive on engine emissions coming into force. So that basically leaves 158s (which should be okay by virtue of them being narrower than 165s, but that would limit catering provision to a trolley) or 67s + Mk 3s (though DVTs aren't cleared between Marylebone and South Ruislip yet). Barry Salter 12:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

How about 168s or 175s? Simply south 15:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map

I've tried designing a map of the WSMR route as seen here:

However, i am not totally sure it is geographically perfect. Simply south 11:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a good map, except Cosford and Wellington aren't "possible" stations but "occasional" stations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worley-d (talk • contribs)

Yes, however, i think the souces for these are actually local media and not the train website itself. It is still possible however that they may be served.

Simply south 22:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point... I'll just, er... Stop interfering :P Worley-d 23:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Found some sources - both BBC.

• Townspeople hopin for London rail link

• BBC Shropshire Travel - New rail between Shropshire and London

Simply south 23:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It has now much later been confirmed that the above stops are going to be normal stops with most services calling there. I am going to further update the image and then maybe readd it. Simply south (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latest submission

Shropshire Star 12 March

David 13:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup of article

I've made some substantial changes to the article, giving it a comprehensive rewrite. Some comments:

• I felt that a link was needed to explain the term "open access", but couldn't really find a sensible place to go. I opted for Train operating company; if my proposal in this discussion is carried forward, then hopefully the expanded article will have a section on open-access operators which can be linked to.

• I removed information about things that were clearly never going to happen (e.g. serving Birmingham Moor Street), as well as information about Saturday and Sunday timetables (this can be added once they've been finalised).

• Some of the more recent edits were rather informal in style.

• Overall, the was lots of repetition and out-of-date in the article. Hopefully it's more organised now!--RFBailey 04:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not create an Open Access Operator article and then create a link? 7severn7 (talk) 11:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

IMO it would just be better to create open-access operator as a subsection of TOC. Simply south (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That's an even better idea. Congrats 7severn7 (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wolverhampton

Does anyone know if it will it be possible to board a Wrexham & Shropshire train at Wolverhampton if NOT travelling as far as London?7severn7 (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

For trains travelling towards London you will not be able to board at wolves, as you will not be allowed to leave the train when travelling towards Wrexham. This is because of VWC Moderation of Competition. --Fuelboy (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we know about VWC's moderation of competition. The question is, does this apply just to London-Wolverhampton passengers? What about (hypothetical) Wolverhampton-Tame Bridge Parkway or Wolverhampton-Banbury passengers? --RFBailey (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Never though about that sorry. Unsure. Would be very diffcult to sort one set of passengers from another. --Fuelboy (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hence the "NOT travelling as far as London" in my original question. I cannot see such new direct journey opportunities conflicting with "moderation of competition" rules. Although certain present trains may make Wolverhampton-Banbury possible; what alternate route must you use from Wolverhampton-Tame Bridge Parkway?7severn7 (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Change at Walsall. --RFBailey (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Would a direct Wolverhampton-Tame Bridge Parkway journey contravine any "moderation of competition" rule instead of the via Walsall route?7severn7 (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if the other franchise holders (London Midland, CrossCountry) have such clauses built into their franchise agreements--I don't think so. However, if passengers were to be allowed to board at Wolverhampton to travel to Tame Bridge or Banbury, it would be difficult to separate them from those wishing to travel to London, so maybe there will be no boarding permitted at Wolverhampton at all. Who knows....? --RFBailey (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps interesting http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/ returns direct Cosford to Tame Bridge timings and fares but no Wolves to Tame Bridge without a change. So Virgin's MOC messes things up for the travelling punter yet again. Maybe board at Wolves with a Cosford to Tame Bridge ticket. 7severn7 (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ownership

Laing Rail ceased to exist on 2008-04-01, with its purchase by DB Regio. The company has been renamed DB Regio UK Ltd, and is registered in England and Wales with Company Number 03076782. Barry Salter (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Waiting time in the Midlands"

Such doesn't exist... I studied the WSMR timetable and a Live Departure Board system in detail and came to the conclusion that a WSMR service from Coventry to Wolverhampton North Junction/Bushbury Junction takes only 11 minutes longer than a Pendolino does at the weekend - that time includes the stop at Tame Bridge and the slower traversal between Bescot and Wolverhampton (via Portobello Junction and stop at Wolves station, instead of Bescot-Bushbury, which - IIRC - has a fairly constant linespeed of over 50 mph).

The results of said study can be found here http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=37365&p=686578#p686578

I think it is pretty compelling evidence that the WSMR services aren't hurt by travelling through the Midlands as much as this article makes out, and that said article should be changed. Worley-d (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)