Talk:Great Western Railway (train operating company)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Great Western Railway (train operating company) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2

Great Western Railway (train operating company) was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 6, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed

Trains: in UK B‑class High‑importance

	Trains Portal
Sel	week 38, 2014

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 and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Mid-importance).

Devon B‑class Mid‑importance

	Devon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Devon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Devon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DevonWikipedia:WikiProject DevonTemplate:WikiProject DevonDevon articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge suggestion

As the upcoming rebranding of the franchise is just that and not a separate or franchise, suggest the GWR (First Group) article be merged into this article with the article moved to the new name when the change occurs. In a similar manner to the way the One (railway) article was moved when the franchise was rebranded as National Express East Anglia, likewise when Greater Anglia became Abellio Greater Anglia. D47817 (talk) 08:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'd already commented to that effect regarding the new article (which also seems to include material copied without attribution). --David Biddulph (talk) 09:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement. Considering that the GWR brand is part of a new franchise form September 2014, I do not see a problem with this. Naturally most of the information from FGW will be the same.(Devonexpressbus (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Support Clearly the same organisation with a new name. Move the article when the trading name officially changes, and not before. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support what Redrose64 said -mattbuck (Talk) 17:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support what Redrose64 said Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article name post September 2015

Discussion

With First Great Western to be renamed ~~GWR~~ Great Western Railway in September 2015, and a consensus reached to rename the existing article, to allow the article to be moved hopefully only once when (and not before) the new name is introduced, a consensus should be arrived at on the article name post the rebranding. Suggestions are, please free to add more:

1) Great Western Railway (First Group)
2) Great Western Railway by First
3) ~~Great Western Railway (Great Western Railway)~~ based on information that the full rather than abbreviated name will be adopted in full, think we can strike this one
4) Great Western Railway (train operating company)
5) Great Western Railway (TOC) D47817 (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

Option 4 inline with similar articles Southeastern (train operating company) & Southern (train operating company), D47817 (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4 if it is indeed called GWR, but the latest material I've seen from them suggests they're going with Great Western Railway (in which case Great Western Railway (train operating company) would be appropriate). JaJaWa |talk 15:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4 or a variant thereof. Apparently the company is rebranding to Great Western Railway, so Great Western Railway (TOC) might be a better title. Mjroots (talk) 12:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently using TOC as the disambiguator isn't the way we do things, so sticking with Option 4 as proposed. Mjroots (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4, however we should wait until the name is definitive. A few days of being at FGW won't matter. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4 with redirects from 1 and 5. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4 & much better to write "train operating company" in full rather than using an acronym. Robevans123 (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4 with JaJaWa's reasoning. ^My^name ^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 08:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all changes – First of all, the First website still uses the old branding. Let's not jump the gun. Second of all, the proposed Great Western Railway (train operating company) is ambiguous, as the old one (Great Western Railway) could equally be described in that manner. All of the proposed titles are very long, and unnatural. I propose sticking with First Great Western, regardless of branding, which is unambiguous, and which was what was done with First Scotrail when that was rebranded as simply Scotrail. It also isn't exorbitantly long, per WP:CONCISE and WP:NATURAL. RGloucester — ☎ 01:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The old Great Western Railway could not equally be described in that manner, since it did so much more than operate trains. It owned them too (FGW's trains are mostly leased from Angel or Porterbrook); and it also owned the tracks, stations, signalling etc. - it was a true railway company. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The website has changed it's branding in the past 9 hours, and it's now located at gwr.com. 143.167.113.212 (talk) 09:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The old railway operated trains, so it was a train operating company. That's very simple. This change must be reverted. There has been no RM, and no consensus. I will take strong action here. RGloucester — ☎ 16:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 September 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Result: Closing as clearly disruptive nonsense. oknazevad (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great Western Railway (train operating company) → First Great Western – A move was made without an RM. I reverted the move. Then an administrator moved the article back, and protected the article. He is involved, and should not've done this. The article needs to be moved back to the stable title to allow for an RM, so that consensus can be attained. RGloucester — ☎ 16:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC) – RGloucester — ☎ 16:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RGloucester: The company has been rebranded/renamed as of today. Therefore, your revert in good faith was incorrect. The issue is being discussed at WT:UKT#FGW to GWR. The move protection is to stop the article being constantly shunted back and forth between two titles. Discussion re categorization is the more pressing issue at the moment. Mjroots (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the company was rebranded or not has no relevance to the title of the Wikipedia article. No RM has been held, no demonstration has been made that the common name has changed. You moved an articled you were involved in and then protected it. That's a sanctionable behaviour. Revert the move, and start an RM, as the usual process dictates. RGloucester — ☎ 16:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Great Western Railway vs GWR

There has been a bit of conjecture as to whether the full or abreviated name should be used. The operator is using the full name on its station and on-board announcements. Even if it were using the abreviation, the precedent at Great North Eastern Railway seems to be to use the full name, even though it referred to itself in the abbrevaited form. Geeuuare (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This talkpage should not be speedily deleted because... should be renamed Great Western Railway (train operating company) to align with article. Geeuuare (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it for CSD because it can't be moved back at this point in time, a redirect exists on the talk page where it should be that needs to be deleted. ^My^name ^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 18:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, it seems that with all the recent renamings of the article, it hasn't been picked up. Geeuuare (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem guys, I sorted it. Mjroots (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FGW Diagram Drawings

Is it still necessary to keep the FGW diagram drawings as show in the fleet table, since they are no longer relevant I think it would be more appropriate to remove them.

Thoughts please!

Devonexpressbus (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight .... You go around calling everyone morons and idiots and telling everyone to F Off ... and now you want our thoughts? ..... Well unfortunately my thoughts are only on you and they're not very pleasant!. –Davey2010^Talk 22:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd prefer it if they could be updated rather than removed. I can't edit svg files but if anyone can, feel free! Cloudbound (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cloudbound: SVG files may be edited using any plain text editor (don't use Microsoft Word, it'll b*lls it up). The SVG code looks very much like HTML, and there is documentation at Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) 1.1 (Second Edition). --Redrose64 (talk) 09:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: Thanks, I'll try that out. Cloudbound (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To Dave2010, well you wanted me to do it this way, so I've listened. Its not my fault that you are moron who can't listen to other peoples opinion and think your right on everything. User Cloudbound, I to would like to see them updated but until they are I think the best thing would be for them to be removed. Devonexpressbus (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Devonexpressbus - You do realize the whole talkpage thing is the norm around here . .... ?, If you wanna make big controversial changes you visit the talkpage first like everyone else on the project, I listen to everyones opinions and "You think your right on everything" is a complete baseless lie - I know for a fact I'm not right on everything and I've made a few mistakes in my time (like we all do) so I've never gone with that idea .... Instead of making enemies and making it easy for yourself to be indeffed here it may be a wiser choice to start making a few friends and well doing things differently as like it or not we're a collaborative project ..... –Davey2010^Talk 00:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted Devonexpressbus's removal of those images, partly because it was done without waiting for discussion here to conclude, and partly because it broke the table layout. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64 well its not like the talk is actually getting anywhere is it, we have Davey2010 decided to launch an attack at me because I had a go at him, you seem to think your above everyone else so its pretty damn pointless. Devonexpressbus (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the only problem is the colour, it should stay. We're making do with the fleet photos in the old livery until the fleet is updated, so there's really no rush with the route map. Cloudbound (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure quite when the intercity route map was removed, but I've produced a version of it using the GWR (TOC) colour:

Is this a useful alternative view of the information in the service table? If so, I'll do some more work on improving the graphic. My initial thoughts are that some of the station names are a bit squashed up, the train frequency figures could be removed, the layout could be improved (using 45° routes), and changes of direction would be better using curves.

If people think the graphic is useful, I'll improved it, and any comments on accuracy are welcome. Robevans123 (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Thanks for making it! -- Alarics (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great buddy, Can't wait to see it. thanksbutnothanks 20:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devonexpressbus (talk • contribs)

It makes better sense to keep diagrams out of fleet tables, even though in my personal opinion there not needed in the first place, tis just a very nice piece of art. I have moved them down to where the links are, but will move them back if support is great enough. If needed a third opinion can be requested.Devonexpressbus 21:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fleet diagrams are still relevant, as the fleet operate nearly every service in that livery at present. There's no need nor haste to remove them yet. We have more pressing things to contend with like unsourced statements. Cloudbound (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per [1] I do not appreciate the suggestion of vandalism. I explain all my edits, which are in the best interests of the article. Cloudbound (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cornish Seafood Trail with Intercity Railfreight

Is it worth having a section in the page about a trail to transport Cornish seafood from Penzance on the 17:37 to London Paddington which began on December 1st 2015. Devonexpressbus (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carrying seafood by train is not a new concept, nor is carrying seafood by passenger train. Some DMUs based at Norwich were equipped with a galvanised steel tray in the guard's van, in order to catch the spillage from crates of whelks which would otherwise damage the floor. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did I say it was a new concept, I said it was trial being undertaken by GWR/Intercity Railfreight as part of its Building a Greater West concept. Devonexpressbus (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the latest RAIL magazine this is only a three-month experiment. I don't think it justifies inclusion in the article. -- Alarics (talk) 10:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) I thought it was longer than that, so actually it doesn't make sense to put anything about it yet. thanksbutnothanks 17:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devonexpressbus (talk • contribs) [reply]

My Actions/ Fresh Start

I would like to apologize for my actions recently, and if possible would like to start fresh.

I hope you can accept this.thanksbutnothanks 17:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devonexpressbus (talk • contribs)

West Of England Services

There seems to be an ongoing conflict on the fleet table, for the 150/9, where it currently states "Former Wessex Trains Services" and the rest of the table says "West Of England Services or Thames Valley" I have tried to change this multiple times to match what GWR have in the Christmas 2015 leaflet about the local services. However it keeps being reverted. It has now got to the point where some people say im vandalizing this page so therefore I want a discussion.

Since Wessex Trains has now been gone for almost 10 years isn't it about time that we kept this page relevant and to the point? I am more than happy to upload a photo to prove that GWR call the branch line fleet outside of London the "West Of England" fleet.User:Devonexpressbus 16:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason I assumed "West of England Services" was wrong but the rest do say WOES so it seems odd to just have one that says "Former Wessex Trains services" whilst the rest say "West of England Services" After I was reverted by an IP I then left it assuming DXB & the IP were correct ... but someone then reverted the IP. –Davey2010^Talk 17:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Davey2010 I agree, lets see what others think. 17:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devonexpressbus (talk • contribs) [reply]

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested. The question appears to be why the 150/9 is called "Former Wessex Trains services" while the rest say "West of England Services". I don't see any argument in favor of the Former Wessex Train Services anomaly, so my opinion is to change it to "West of England Services". If someone can give me a reason for the difference, rather than just edit-warring, state the reason, but that is the third opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon Considering I've been saying that for over a week its nice to see I was right all along. Thank you very much for that much needed third opinion, I just wish i'd requested it earlier. God Bless Devonexpressbus 23:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Wessex Trains has been gone for so long that we really don't need the mention in the table. Cloudbound (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While technically correct, I think west of england is the more accessible term. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with this wiki page.

It seems that there is a lot of problems with this wiki page, with users adding content and then other users decided they don't like it and reverting it. Therefore I would like to request if you don't like something a user has added or are unsure of what they are doing/if it is correct. Please us their talk page or this talk page to discuss the issues before reverting. This will stop the about of spam being created in the history of the page section and will stop unnecessary arguments.

Thanks Devonexpressbus 15:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]