Talk:Northern Rail

West Yorkshire

I've added the WY routes that Northern don't produce timetables for, as these were missing from the list of routes Dupont Circle 15:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Northern rail logo.gif

Image:Northern rail 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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 23:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Routes

Can someone explain what the colours mean on the list of routes, I would have expected it to have been explained in the article? Keith D (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Good question. The answer being I don't know :). They don't even match the colours on the transport boxes on the various pages (for example, Meadowhall Interchange). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 23:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

All the colours match the zones that all the Northern-produced timetables fall into. See the Northern timetable pages Dupont Circle (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 21:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies to bump this, but when the colours were originally put on in 2007 ish, each zone of the Northern network was given a certain colour which was put on the top of the timetables, it has since become obsolete DannyM (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Frequency

I don't see an easy way to do this, as daytime frequency is very difficult to put on some of these routes as alot of the services are infrequent. DannyM (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

New rolling stock

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/rail-electrification.pdf Here it states Northern rail will receive trains from Thames Link route, to operate the electrified route Between Liverpool and Manchester. Class 319, Class 321 or Class 365 units. Mark999 18:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That's odd. On British Rail Class 350 the same document is cited to say that new electric Desiros will be used. NRTurner (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well the government did say, that they we issue a new rolling stock plan in the Autumn so I guess that will be clearer Mark999 11:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

350s will replace TransPennine 185s from Manchester-Scotland services. The DfT says the cascaded units from Thameslink will be completly refurbished and air conditioning will be installed in the pdf linked to above. 365s already have air conditioning, so that rules them out. 319s have been suggested as the units Northern will get, I don't know if there's any verified reason for that over 321s. Epm-84 (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

tweeting vandals

[1][2][3] --ADI4094 11:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Out of date

Service 30 - hull-york etc - not done by northern anymore - no pacers? Sf5xeplus (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I checked the Northern Rail timetable and they seem to still run services from Hull to York, however I will have to check up later to see whether the pacers are still used though. It also seems that the service to Leeds is no longer operated by Northern, rather the timetable states that First Transpennine Express trains operates Hull-Leeds,with Northern just operating the York and and the Doncaster/Sheffield route. Jamko31 (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I can confirm that Pacer's are still used on this route.Jamko31 (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

From looking at the first timetable available for download [4] quite a lot of the trains are operated by Northern, with others being TransPennine Express and Hull Trains. I'm not sure where the information regarding Northern not running trains between Hull and Leeds has come from...? BNC85 (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am aware Northern still run Hull to York using Class 158's. There are no direct Hull to Leeds services run by Northern Rail (there are however direct services run by TransPennine Express) the only way to do that journey with Northern Rail is to change at Selby.Ainsworth74 (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The Oldham Loop Line

The myth persists that there was some form of "greater" Oldham Loop Line which included the Manchester to Rochdale via Castleton route. Operationally this was never the case, the services to Rochdale via Castleton and via Oldham were entirely separate. The pattern of operation on the Oldham Loop Line under Northern Rail was that all trains ran to the Oldham stations, with around half then going on to terminate at Crompton and Shaw. The remaining trains that ran on to Rochdale terminated in the bay platform there. This pattern of operation persisted during the whole life of the Oldham Loop Line under heavy rail (in earlier times trains terminated at Royton rather than Crompton and Shaw). The fact that the Oldham Loop Line was a separate operation perhaps made it easier to consider it for conversion to Metrolink. Interestingly when the Metrolink services start on the whole of the former Oldham Loop Line the previous heavy rail practice of terminating services at Crompton and Shaw will continue.WizardOfTheNorth (talk) 09:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Dumfries to Newcastle services

Do the Dumfries to Newcastle weekday early morning services really exist? George8211 (talk | mail) 12:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed they do: http://ojp.nationalrail.co.uk/service/timesandfares/DMF/NCL/tomorrow/1108/arr -- Alarics (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but they're ScotRail, not Northern Rail. I have therefore removed them from this article. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I hadn't noticed that. -- Alarics (talk) 05:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

South West Trains Galore?

Why is every piece of rolling stock Northern has listed to be transferred to South West Trains? It can't be right and there's no source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thealexweb (talk • contribs) 10:18, 29 August 2013‎

Too right. It's long-term vandalism by an IP-hopper. More at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Why isn't IP 86.158.105.73 blocked yet?. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Number of stations called at

Northern Rail gives a figure of 529 in a few news reports in 2007 (e.g. Northern Rail unveils train named 'William Wilberforce', 18 October 2007. The same number was mentioned in 2006 (New trains on track, Telegraph & Argus, 14 November 2006) and 2013 (Wirral blogger Scott Willison’s adventures on the railways up for major online writing award, Wirral News, 25 September 2013) and "northernrailorg" on Twitter (12:51 am - 14 Jan 2014) mentions that they "manage and maintain approx 529 stations" (implying that they call at more than 529). In 2009 the number of stations operated was reduced from 471 to 462, so are these likely to be incorrect repetition of the same number or just a coincidence that all are the same? Withdrawn (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

You might find this helpful, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/318233/northern-prospectus.pdf gives figure of 526 stations called at of which 463 they manage. WatcherZero (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I couldn't find that (and searching within it doesn't find the number, I had to scroll through). One new station is Buckshaw Parkway (2011), another is James Cook railway station but that's too recent to appear in the statistics. Category:Railway stations served by Northern Rail currently lists 525 pages (but four are missing, and one's there that shouldn't be, as it's closed), and the Commons category lists 515. Withdrawn (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I've compared Wikipedia with Commons and http://www.journeycheck.com/northernrail, which lists 523 stations (Chester-le-Street, Durham and Glasshoughton are missing, as is Runcorn which is seasonal and not currently operating, otherwise I assume their list is correct), and now the categories are at 528 and 526 stations; the differences between Wikipedia and Commons are that Dumfries is categorised in Wikipedia (one of 13 Scottish stations on the Newcastle - Carlisle - Glasgow service, others are not in the category) and Cramlington is not categorised in Commons (there's no category as there are no images). Should Dumfries and the other stations (Glasgow Central and all Glasgow South Western Line stations Barrhead to Gretna Green) be in the category or not? Withdrawn (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Fleetlist

I have removed the seats per unit column again. This isn't needed because the information is available on some of the unit articles and from other sources such as the websites of the train leasing companies. The addition of this information also made the "Class" column look untidy - and no other Train Operating Company article has a fleetlist at present which lists the amount of seats per unit JamesSteamPacket (talk) 01:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

According to the edit history the user who removed it was Coradia175 not JamesSteamPacket. Do you have two usernames for Wikipedia? Doing so is a breach of Wikipedia T&Cs. A number of people thanked me for adding in that referenced information. If in your opinion the table is untidy maybe the 'routes operated' should be removed given it's unreferenced and can change at frequent intervals? The number of seats per train is different between operators even when the other operator has the same class of train. The 158s, for instance, have numerous different interiors and the pages about the train quite often say how many seats the train had when new opposed to how many they have now. Epm-84 (talk) 10:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment @Epm-84: please do not label edits with which you disagree as vandalism, as you did here in your edit summary. Vandalism is something quite different - please see WP:VAND - and the accusation should not be made lightly, at all, ever. You may hate these edits and think they are stupid or whatever but you will get nowhere accusing people of vandalism when it is not. Thank you. DBaK (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment 2 @Epm-84: and on your other point, I hope you have tried clicking User talk:JamesSteamPacket? It would be better to avoid comments such as "Do you have two usernames for Wikipedia? Doing so is a breach of Wikipedia T&Cs." if you not sure of the precise meaning. I mean, no, it is absolutely not - it's much more complex than that. I have or had two and I have not breached anything at all in doing so. Hope this helps. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't realise that. Someone once accused me of having two usernames and breaching Wikipedia T&Cs when I was using a public computer and wasn't aware someone else hadn't logged out from it before making a Wikipedia edit, so perhaps my understanding isn't quite correct based on what someone else said to me. On usertalk User talk:85.199.229.158 the user JamesSteamPacket claims he accidentally removed the train capacities due to making edits on an outdated version he had locally (which would be very careless.) However, in the edit history the user Coradia175 claims the capacities was removed purposely because the equivalent information isn't on the other operator's pages, so to me it looked like 2 different people removed the information for 2 different reasons. However, now I see it was the same person twice and it isn't clear why it was removed given there are conflicting reasons given for the removal of information. Epm-84 (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@Epm-84: If other users thought that the seating capacity is relevant then why didn't they revert my edits? You haven't added any referenced information to the fleetlist - the seating capacity information that you have re-added is not referenced and neither was the information you had inserted previously before I removed it. Based on your argument that the route information should removed because it isn't referenced then I think it's fair to say that the seating capacity information that you added to the table should be removed as well - because that information isn't referenced either

I know that the seating capacities of each DMU/EMU vary with different operators - but like I said no other TOC article has these listed - so why should it just apply to the Northern Rail article? The London Midland Class 350 subclasses have different seating capacities - and these haven't been specified on the London Midland article

With regards to the Class 158/0s being 2 and 3 car units - this is clearly displayed without the need for the seating capacity to be listed. I updated the image to show a three-car 158/0 which along with the two car unit diagram in my opinion clearly shows that Northern operate 2 and 3 car units of this class

I strongly disagree that I "vandalised" this article - Coradia175 (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Please look at reference 34 page 74 onwards, which I added and is the ONLY reference in the current fleet section. That is an official Department of Transport document which includes all rolling stock details except what routes each type of rolling stock is used on. Therefore the only thing not referenced in the table is the routes the rolling stock operates on. Epm-84 (talk) 11:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see that and I hold my hands up - but whilst the source is perfectly valid you haven't stated in the link to the reference where the information is listed on the PDF document. How on earth are people meant to know what page it's on without looking here first?

It however isn't the only reference in the fleet table - refs 32 and 33 supports the route information for the Class 158 and Class 333 units. Upon further reading of ref 33 (page 40) it is actually made clear what units operate on electrified and non-electrified services in the Yorkshire and the Humber region. The route list in that case is (albeit partially) referenced. Edited to add: That reference wasn't initially added for the purpose of verifying the capacity of each DMU/EMU type - it was added to add a reference to the number of each DMU/EMU class in Northern's fleet. Even then - the capacity information is available on that PDF - so why is it necessary on the fleetlist as well?

You didn't answer my question - why you think only this article should list the seating capacities? London Midland's Class 350/1, 350/2 and 350/3 subclasses as well as Arriva Trains Wales' Class 175/0 and 175/1 subclasses all have capacity differences - so why aren't the capacities listed on those fleetlist tables? The perfectly valid route information has been on this fleetlist for over five years - so why on earth should that be removed? If other users thought the capacity information was worth including in the table then it would have been included at the same time or not long after the fleetlist table was created - Coradia175 (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete cover off on individual unit articles, there is a limit to the amount of statistical info required. What next, a columns for the types of seats, brand of loo? D47817 (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Coradia175 Like I've already pointed out:

1. Just because the information isn't included in other TOC articles doesn't automatically mean it shouldn't be included in this article.

2. There's a vast difference between Northern Rail and London Midland. London Midland have a consistent fleet, every 350/1 has the same number of seats, every 350/2 has the same number of seats etc. Northern Rail have three different internal layouts of 142s and yet there's no subclasses of 142s, a similar situation applies for 150s, 153s, 156s, 158s and 323s in the Northern fleet. Northern probably have more different internal layouts within the same subclasses because of their fleet including a large number of units cascaded from other operators.

Ref 33 (page 40) makes no reference of the class 322s because they hadn't arrived. Since the 2009 West Yorkshire RUS was published the Northern Rail fleet has changed and consequently which trains operate on which routes have changed. In fact there were no plans for the 332s to come at that point and the RUS makes reference to a new order of EMUs to replace the 323s and to add extra capacity for West Yorkshire instead - a plan which has long since been scrapped. Epm-84 (talk) 08:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

1) Well @D47817: and I both disagree with you on that point - with the current opinion being 2-1 in favour of the seating layout column to be removed. As D47817 has said - the information should be covered in the individual unit articles. D47817's opinion that there is a limit to what information needs to be specified in a fleetlist is a very valid one and I agree with that opinion. I will say again - if other contributors to the article thought that if individual seating capacities was relevant to the fleetlist then it would have been included upon or shortly after the fleetlist table's creation

2) You are totally ignoring my point - I did not say that the individual subclasses each have seating layout variants - I quite clearly said that each subclass has a different capacity to the other. There are currently fourteen different classes (including subclasses) of unit operated by Northern Rail of which eight have seating variants and six do not. It's hardly a massive majority and in my opinion - I don't think the reference you inserted is very visible

3) One class of EMU not being mentioned in that reference doesn't matter. Generally contributors to this and other TOC pages are rail enthusiasts and keep a record of which which class(es) is/are generally operating on what route(s) - so I don't actually think there's any need for the routes to be referenced. The East Midlands Trains route list is unreferenced - should that be removed as well?

It's been four days since I brought this discussion up with WikiProject UK Railways - with only User:D47817 responding. I think it's more than fair that if nobody else has said whether they think the seating capacity information should be included or not by April 14 2015 - then the current opinion of 2-1 in favour (at the time of posting) of the removal of the seating capacity information from the table should stand - Coradia175 (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the point of an argument over whether potentially useful factual information should be removed. Neither do I see the point of trying to draw a conclusion over whether information should be removed after 4 days. I don't look at the page every week but I do visit it quite frequently. I noticed the information had gone but wouldn't have been able to revert the edits by the time I saw it due to conflicting intermediate edits Hstudent (talk) 12:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Neither do I - which is why I don't understand why you have continued it four days after my previous message without any further contributions from Epm-84 or D47817 - or indeed any other users before April 14th. I think that a week is more than reasonable to allow any other contributors to have their say but nobody else joined the discussion - so I don't see the point in keeping it open for discussion any longer without a good reason

I am not disputing that the information is factual - but it's not in the right place. It should (and will - when I get around to actually doing it) be covered on the individual unit articles - Coradia175 (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I'm saying a one week deadline for saying whether the information should stay or be removed is insufficient on this article. On a very popular article that may be OK, but so far you've got two people saying it should be removed and two people saying it should stay. Arguing it was two people saying delete and one person wanting to keep it so it should go before seemed a very weak argument. I'd suggest most people probably don't object to the information being included but they aren't going to bother to write a defence for keeping the information on the talk page. Hstudent (talk) 08:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually I understand it perfectly. The deadline was more than sufficient - this subject was raised at WP:RAIL nearly two weeks ago and nobody else joined the discussion. The deadline to cast a vote was April 14th which nobody disputed previously. I find it extremely unusual that you have suddenly joined this discussion in Epm-84's favour - and since then Epm-84 hasn't contributed to the discussion. The vote of 2-1 in favour of removal at the time of the April 14th deadline stands - and I am going to remove the information from the fleet table in the next few days

I think that the list of contributions from Epm-84 and Hstudent far too similar to believe that they are two different people and I have reported my suspicions to an administrator for further investigation. However - I think you'll find that if other contributors other than yourself wanted the information to stay on the fleetlist then they would have reverted my edits or put the information back in themselves - Coradia175 (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Coradia175 I do have things to do with my life apart apart from editing Wikipedia pages. Unlike you I can't come back everyday. You're thinking of reporting me because someone else agrees with me? Seriously! Like I said previously three people thanked me for adding the seat capacities to the table, just because at least two of them haven't come on to the talk page to say they think the information should be retained doesn't mean they don't think it's useful information. When you originally removed the information as the user "JamesSteamPacket" I told you that and you replied saying you removed it by accident and said you would add it back in. Then when you didn't I added it back in and you started a debate as to whether it should be removed. If you felt so strongly about removing the information why didn't you tell me in the first place? Both times you removed the fleet information someone who wasn't logged in made a further edit to the current fleet section very soon afterwards. Was that you by any chance to prevent simply someone clicking undo and adding the seat capacity back in? Epm-84 (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually - I do have other things to do and I don't spend every day of my life on Wikipedia as you seem to think I do

I have reported you because I find it extremely difficult (and there is supporting evidence) to believe that you and Hstudent are two different people - not because "somebody agrees with you". The administrator I raised my concerns with agrees with my judgment - if you don't believe me then I will give you their username and you can ask them yourself. I removed the information initially with a view to putting it back in - however I changed my mind after deciding it is not necessary and makes the table look cramped. The information will be placed in the individual unit articles instead - however if I'd have told you that I wanted it to be removed in the first place you'd have still insisted on it remaining anyway!

No that was not me at all - and to be honest I'm getting fed up of you carrying on this pointless argument which in my view you clearly cannot accept didn't go in your favour. The only person who wants this information included is you - and prior to the deadline (which was a week ago) two people voted for it to be removed and the only person wanting it to remain was you

When I actually get the time within the next few days - I will be removing the information from the fleetlist which will be on the basis of the consensus reached with the April 14th deadline. Now however I think it's time this discussion was brought to a close - because it's gone on for nearly a month and a consensus was reached seven days ago - Coradia175 (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Coradia175 So you're saying you honestly originally deleted the information accidentally by carelessness (because you said you used an out-of-date copy of the article saved locally instead of taking a live copy), you then said you were going to add it back in but then decided not to because you didn't want the information included? However, you didn't tell me that you'd backtracked on what you had said. I don't believe that is the case. I think you wanted to get rid of it as soon as I added it in but when I asked you why you removed it saying people had thanked me for the update you couldn't defend why you removed it so made up a story. You then argued it wasn't referenced when it was. You then argued someone else agreed with you that the information should be removed so planned to remove it. So your reason for removing the information is to keep the table tidy? Why not just delete the table altogether as then it would be much tider? Epm-84 (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not disputing I said that - however after uploading the newer variant I had worked on and comparing it to other TOC articles - I didn't see the point in including it on this article. Considering that my opinion has been the same since this discussion started - I don't see why you are complaining that I didn't inform you of my change of viewpoint. I genuinely didn't see that the seating capacity information was referenced (as it is poorly positioned) and I admitted my error after it was rightfully pointed out that the information is indeed referenced

The fact is two people want it removed and one person doesn't - that is the consensus. My reason for removing and relocating your information is that is unnecessary on this page and on top of that it makes the "Class" column look untidy. The other user in agreement with me believes that it should be removed and relocated to the individual articles. Your suggestion of completely removing the table for the sake of the table being tidy in my opinion is an absolutely ridiculous suggestion

Considering that you have avoided responding to my suspicions that you are both Epm-84 and Hstudent then I can only assume that these suspicions are indeed correct. I will be raising this again with an administrator - because you have had at least two opportunities to deny my suspicion that both of those accounts belong to you - and you haven't denied it at either opportunity - Coradia175 (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect information edited on Arriva Rail North Wiki Page

Hi

My name is Eoin Sandford and I work for a Public Relations company called MHP Communications in London. Arriva the transport company are a client of MHP. This morning edits were made to the page Arriva Rail North. A lot of the updated information on this page is factually incorrect and recent edits do not back up the edits with any reference.

The page is incorrect as the franchise has not been awarded awarded to any company. On the announcement of the winning bidder this will be announced by the Department for Transport on their website as mentioned in the link above. The reason a request for amendment is being made is because this announcement is market sensitive - in that the announcement could potentially have commercial implications for all of the bidders, whether successful or not. This can be checked back with Department for Transport and we can provide a member of their team to confirm this.

I hope the Wiki Community can understand that this request for amendment or retraction is for the accuracy of Wikipedia and not commercial gain on the behalf of Arriva or MHP Communications. I am more than happy to fulfil any requests as per editors/administrators in the Wiki Community. I would also please ask for this request to be replied to as soon as possible due to the inaccuracy and complications for multiple companies and the government.

This morning edits were also made to other pages such as Abellio, Govia Northern, Future UK TOCS and Northern Rail in relation to the northern Franchise

Thanks

Eoin (Eoinsandford (talk) 12:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eoinsandford (talk • contribs) 11:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Article name post 1 April 2016

With Arriva to retain the Northern Rail branding when it takes over the franchise on 1 April 2016, should this article be renamed to allow the Arriva Rail North article to be renamed Northern Rail as the primary article? If decided to rename, this should be actioned only once the new franchise commences and not before, i.e on or after 1 April

Couple of options I can think of are

• 1) rename this article Northern Rail (train operating company 2004–2016) in the same manner as Thameslink (train operating company 1997–2006) and rename Arriva Rail North to Northern Rail as the primary article
• 2) disambiguate this page with Northern Rail (Serco-Abellio) and Northern Rail (Arriva) for the respective articles
• 3) disambiguate this page with Northern Rail (train operating company 2004–2016) and Northern Rail (train operating company 2016–current) for the respective articles
• 4) leave this article as is and rename Arriva Rail North to Northern (train operating company)

My preference is option 1 given that the new operator will become the primary topic and will allow for most existing links to carry without need for change. Morr747 (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC) Option 4 Changed my mind, to agree with Coradia175's suggestion. Morr747 (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm tempted to agree with you that the first option's preferable, though we should also be prepared if Arriva, whilst continuing to use the 'Northern' branding, refer to the franchise as 'Northern Trains' or simply 'Northern', both of which might necessitate a different name for the page. --Nicholasjf21 (talk) 03:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• It is an interesting point you bring up Nicholas but the branding for Arriva Rail North will be just "Northern" rather than "Northern Rail". Taking that into account my suggestion for article names would be to rename the Arriva Rail North article to Northern (train operating company) and leave the name of the Northern Rail article as it is

What may be an idea if we go with that is use the Arriva Rail North article as a redirect link to the renamed article

Just my thoughts anyway! - Coradia175 (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Hmm, tricky one this. For ease of use however, I'd definitely move the current Northern Rail to Northern Rail (Serco-Abellio), and the Arriva Rail North to become Northern Rail. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jcc: This franchise will be branded "Northern" and not "Northern Rail" so I think the Northern (train operating company) name would be best for this article and to leave the Northern Rail article name as it is - Coradia175 (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Coradia175: Ah, right. However, my point still sort of stands, just a bit tweaked. I think that we should move the current Northern Rail to Northern Rail (Serco-Abellio), and the Arriva Rail North to become Northern (train operating company). The sole reason really for this is that the majority of people will still search for, and call it "Northern Rail", and so it would be confusing having a "Northern Rail" in addition to "Northern (train operating company)". Either that, or the current Northern Rail should be moved to the slightly long "Northern Rail (train operating company 2004-2016)". Either way, I don't think "Northern Rail" should be the title of the Serco-Abellio franchise. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jcc: Yeah I see what you mean there - I agree with what you say and I think that'd be a sensible move. If nobody else objects to your suggestion then I think that'd be the best way forward for article names. Cheers - Coradia175 (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Option 1) gets my vote for the reasons above. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

---

• So far the consensus seems to be as follows:

This article:

Northern Rail (Serco-Abellio) (2 votes) - Coradia175 and Jcc

Northern Rail (train operating company 2004–2016) (1 vote) - Absolutelypuremilk

Northern Rail (unchanged article name) (1 vote) - Morr747

Arriva Rail North article:

Northern (train operating company) (3 votes) - Coradia175, Jcc and Morr747

Northern Rail (1 vote) - Absolutelypuremilk

What date shall we set to close voting and move the articles to the agreed consensus for each one?

Cheers - Coradia175 (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Coradia175: It looks like 7ten has decided to just move Arriva Rail North to Northern (train operating company), so I'd say let's look to move this article to Northern Rail (Serco-Abellio) as close to 1st April as possible, unless anyone votes for an alternative name to move this article to. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Northern page move

Copied from User talk:7ten

This page move...

What do you mean by "reflect trading rather than legal name"? Where did you get this from? The legal name and trading name of the company is Arriva Rail North Ltd. By changing it you have also broken the citation in the first sentence, as the Companies House page has no mention of Northern.

"Northern", confusingly, represents three things:

• The generic name of the franchise, independent of who currently operates it, e.g. "Arriva has won the bid for the Northern franchise".
• The brand used by both Northern Rail, and from 1st April, Arriva Rail North, for this franchise, such as on trains, posters, websites.
• Informal name of the company (both old and new)

However the proper name of the new Train Operating Company is definitely Arriva Rail North, so for clarity that is probably what the page should be called, however if you are arguing for using commonly known name then Northern Rail will also need to be moved, as that used the Northern brand too. --Jameboy (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The trading name is how the franchise will be branded, ie what appears on the side of trains, station indicator boards etc. Arriva have stated it will trade under a "refreshed Northern brand".[5] The logo does not mention Arriva. Maybe it will have an 'operated by Arriva' by-line like the 'a Serco-Abellio joint venture' as carried by the incumbent franchisee or 'a Deutsche Bahn company' as carried by other Arriva franchises. I believe that this is a DfT contractual requirement to adopt the generic brand it has specified to avoid the need for rebranding when a franchisee changes going forward, in much the same was as First Great Western was rebranded as Great Western Railway.

Yes the legal entity is named Arriva Rail North Ltd, but much like CrossCountry's legal name is XC Trains Ltd, the article name should reflect the trading rather than legal name. The current Arrriva Rail North website [6] is only a holding address, come 1 April it will move.

From my perusal of the discussion above, appears that the consensus is have the post 1 April franchisee article as Northern (train operating company) and with its predecessor to either remain as Northern Rail with an appropriate note at the top, or move it to Northern (Serco-Abellio) and have Northern Rail as a disambiguation page .

If the 2025 franchise were say awarded to FirstGroup, presuming it too traded as Northern, then the new article would takeover the Northern (train operating company) title of this article which would be renamed Arriva Rail Northern or something similar. If the 2035 franchise was awarded to Stagecoach then it would take the Northern (train operating company) title and its predecessor renamed First Northern. And so it would go on. 7ten (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with both of you, I'm thus moving Northern Rail to Northern (Serco-Abellio) because that's what's on the current trains "a serco and abellio joint venture", and Northern (train operating company) to be kept as is. Therefore, there is no confusion between the two franchises, and follows WP:COMMONNAME. In the morning, someone will need to change "This article is about the future Northern train operating company. For the current train operating company, see Northern Rail." which is currently on top of Northern (train operating company). Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with the page move based on common name of "Northern". --Jameboy (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Northern Trains which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)