Talk:Gatwick Express

Trains: in UK / Passenger trains Low‑importance

	Trains Portal
Sel	week 44, 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

Low

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

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Passenger trains task force.

London Transport Low‑importance

	London transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transport in London 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.London TransportWikipedia:WikiProject London TransportTemplate:WikiProject London TransportLondon Transport
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Gatwick Express.

Ticketing

London-Gatwick is the only journey on the UK National Rail network for which passengers are required to choose between different operators when buying tickets — on all other flows shared by different National Rail operators the tickets are inter-available, although some restrictions may apply (such as "NOT THAMESLINK" or "WAGN ONLY"). Through tickets for which the London-Gatwick line is part of a permitted route are valid on the Gatwick Express, provided they are not endorsed "NOT GATWICK EXPRESS". Tickets from London to stations south of Gatwick generally bear this restriction.

I moved this down the article from the introduction. But its a load of mumbo jumbo really and needs to be edited or deleted. MRSC 20:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the statement "London-Gatwick is the only journey on the UK National Rail network for which passengers are required to choose between different operators when buying tickets" is wrong. There are many other routes where chosing an operator is required. Some examples:

*Operator Choices*
Route	Fast & Expensive	Cheaper	Cheapest
Peterborough - London	GNER	First Capital Connect
London - South West	First Great Western	South West Trains
London - Birmingham	Virgin	Chiltern	Silverlink
London - Hull	GNER	Hull Trains
London - Manchester	Virgin	Midland Mainline
London - Edinburgh	GNER	Virgin
Leeds - Carlisle	Various	Northern Rail
London - Glasgow	Virgin	GNER
Edinburgh - Glasgow	First Scotrail	GNER

--82.39.43.61 11:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But usually the expensive fare is inter-available, although the services of the company that sets the fare are usually the ones you're likely to use because they're the most convenient or there are more of them. For example, the "Virgin Trains" fare from Birmingham to London is actually inter-available. It can be used on the Chiltern, Silverlink and Central services as well as the Virgin ones. It's just that you're very unlikely to want to do so because the Virgin services are faster.

Also when I wrote that I was considering walk-on fares, rather than bookahead. For London to Scotland, the walk-on fares are inter-available except for cheap tickets valid only on the ScotRail sleeper services. However, Virgin and GNER compete for customers who book ahead: the cheap tickets booked weeks in advance are specific to one operator or the other.

The London-Gatwick ticketing is an anomaly because the more expensive fare is actually only valid on the more expensive train (i.e. Gatwick Express). I feel it's important to point this out because otherwise one would get the impression that rail passengers in the UK normally have to worry about which operator to travel with when they buy tickets for travel straight away --- when for the great majority of journeys they need neither know nor care. Flagboy 10:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the S-Bahn logo

I cannot see the advantage of using the s-bahn logo on the route map. Surely using just the standard KBF symbol is better than usi8ng a confusing one that will have no meaning whatsoever for the average English language Wikipedean??? There's just no logic to it! DrFrench 12:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH it's standardised and has an appropriate (en) alias in "subway" (an Americanism, but still). If there is a demonstrable risk of confusion (which has not been supported so far) we can add it to the Wikipedia:Railway line template/Legend page and/or supply an (en) description on the image page. –EdC 22:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've created a UK specific (ie blue rather than yellow) motorway icon, so IMHO a tube icon should be "doable" but I'm sticking with s-bhan until someone who understands this svg cobblers can do one! Pickle 20:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Gatwick express logo.gif

Image:Gatwick express logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slow 0030 service from Victoria

Any idea why the last southbound Gatwick Express departure of the day, at 0030, takes 54 minutes? The normal journey time is 30 minutes, and it doesn't make any stops en route. In fact this train is slower than any of the overnight stopping trains operated by Southern, which make four intermediate stops. Mtford 04:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My guess would be that it allows for every conceivable line closure. That would imply running from Victoria all the way to Purley along the slow lines (maybe even via Crystal Palace), getting stuck behind all the last stopping trains, then running through Redhill at a snail's pace. That said, it is only a guess.--Peeky44 (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV?

Can someone explain why there's an NPOV template at the top of this page? There doesn't seem to be any discussion of it on the talk page. I'm going to remove it if nobody can explain what the debate is. --Jfruh (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it, as no-one seems to have spoken up. --Jfruh (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Handover of franchise to Southern

Since this article about the National Express Company that operated the GX franchise. Isn't it better to keep this page as is and include information about GX operations after 22 June in the Southern article. In my understanding this is a simple handover of franchise operations from one company to another. 91.65.36.246 (talk) 10:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A new section could be added to Southern specially for Gat Exp, or perhaps a new article could be started for the Gatwick Express brand that is part of Southern, a la the Caledonian Sleeper. The Island Line page was retained however after its integration into the South Western Franchise. Spiritofsussex (talk) 10:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree a new article should be created for GX the sub brand of Southern, just like Stansted Express. This article is about the National Express company and not the souther sub brand. A similar thing as spliting the articles of ScotRail (National Expess) and ScotRail (First Group). 91.65.36.246 (talk) 12:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ticketing II

Does the section "Tickets & fares" need all that information? Per WP:NOTTRAVEL (and also WP:NOTTIMETABLE) I really think that this information is outside the scope of Wikipedia. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claims

Under "Express service", the article currently states

The first unit was taken on a promotional tour of the UK introducing it to travel agents in various centres, thought to be the first time a Southern Region train had travelled north.

I find this hard to understand, and even more difficult to believe. It is so loosely phrased that various interpretations seem valid, and I am not sure if any of them are correct.

"Southern Region train"
1. does this mean a complete train manufactured for the Southern Region? It cannot be that, as the article then states that the coaches came from the Midland Main Line...
2. If it means a Southern locomotive, that happened 36 years earlier in the 1948 Locomotive Exchange Trials
3. If it means a complete Southern Region train, surely they went off the Southern Region on long-distance specials (football trains, holiday trains etc).
What is meant by "travelled north"?
1. It cannot possibly mean moving towards the north (the most obvious definition) - all Southern trains would have eventually ended up stranded on the coast!
2. Other options mean having to define what exactly is meant by "north".
  1. North of London?
  2. North of the Southern Region's most northerly line junction with another region?
  3. The North of England?

Any ideas? I don't want to just delete it - if there is a reliable source which verifies and clarifies the claim, it would definitely be notable. --Peeky44 _{What's on your mind?} 12:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.thameslinkrailway.com/download/10210.2/route-factsheet-5-brighton-main-line-and-coastways and other sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Gatwick Express. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gatwick Express. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gatwick Express. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A new edit

I just put a train hired from GN -- RiceKrispiesfan123 (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]