Talk:South West Trains

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Queenstown Road[edit]

Having added to this article I still find the listing of the suburban services difficult to put across, since they consist of interwoven services, often using the same lines for parts of their routes. I am going to have a further look at this - I think I can see the way to tackle it. Give me time! Peter Shearan 18:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I removed Queenstown Road from the list of stations which all trains pass through on their way into Waterloo - it only has platforms on the Windsor Lines, so isn't served or passed through by trains on the SW main line. Pedantic, I guess, but Wikipedia is a pedant's paradise. --Mpk 12:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

So all trains pass by it but not through it? Pcb21| Pete 13:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Correct. While it's possible for trains from the main line to reach the Windsor lines from CJ (there's a crossover not far from the country end of QR station), the platforms themselves are on the Windsor lines only. The four tracks of the main line pass by, but not through the station. --Mpk 19:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

(Following paragraph restored although it had been deleted, as the paragraph following it makes no sense otherwise. --Mpk 19:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC))

Surely some mention of what an officious bunch of jobsworths seem to be employed by SWT should be made. The quality of service is pretty dire and their booking staff (call centre) are devoid of any customer service skills at all. - Den 03 Jan 2006
Feel free to add this information to the article iff you can do so without breaking the policies on Neutral point of view and No original research. In this case the latter means that you will need to cite some published reports on the quality of service provided by South West Trains - perhaps the relevant Rail Passengers Council have something? Also please Sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes ~~~~. Thryduulf 12:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, it is not fair to simply put your own opinion. I travel in to waterloo each day from Raynes Park, though which a large majority of the suburban services past, and can tell you the quality of service is very good! Also, saying that trains do not all pass through Queenstown Road is very very pedantic, so I assume that also means that main line trains don't also pass through Raynes Park, or Berrylands, which they clearly do..... ~~~~ Jrhilton 21:02, 31 March 2008 (GMT)
Well that is true, but only because the main line is the middle two of four tracks through those stations. When you get to Queenstown Road, the main line is quite segregated from the single island platform. (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Dmccormac (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
True, I stand corrected, lets agree, all mainline trains pass "over" Queenstown Road station, as there is a tunnel under the lines for passenger access.....Also, to explain the complex Suburban services, I feel that the best way is a graphical representation, followed by the line details below......anyone agree, and when will the Office of Rail Regulation statistics for 2006/07 passenger number stats be published, its interesting to note that passenger usage on a lot of the Suburban stations operated by SWT actually went down between 2004/05 and 2005/06 according to the published stats, and I'm interested to know why, fair dodging, more travel card usage, or less people using trains, etc maybe more travel card usage i suspect?~~~~ Jrhilton 21:02, 31 March 2008 (GMT)
I see no reason why travelcard users would not be counted. They are still paying passengers. Perhaps travelcards and season tickets don't get counted at the ungated stations? It is in SWT's interests to count them as best it can. The more it can show the travelcards being used the better it can argue for an increased share of the their revenue. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I think it is because most of the stations on the Suburban Route do not have ticket gates. From a personal perspective there are no gates at Raynes Park, so if you did not have a ticket, you could still travel to countless locations, e.g. New Malden, Berrylands, Thames Ditton, Hampton Court, Hampton Wick, Norbiton, Teddington, Fulwell, Hampton, Kepmton Park, Sunbury, Upper Halliford, Shepperton, and almost all stations between here and Guildford plus Chessington South, and by changing at Surbiton you could get out of most stations on the Alton Line too etc, so in reality thinking about it, most of the stations don't. I was going to suggest we put in each station page if there are barriers, but that might be used by fair dodgers as a good dictionary of which stations they can get to for free.... Judging by the number of people caught when there are ticket inspections here at Raynes Park, I would say fair dodging is rife and a big problem which is bad as it does effect us fair paying passengers. Though from the recent moving of ticket machines and building work, it looks like ticket barriers could be coming here quite soon, no doubt related to the idea of being able to use PrePay on rail services......I believe that the system for sharing/allocating travelcard revenue includes some estimates for passenger usage as there are so many train stations out of zone 2 that do not have barriers plus on sundays often barriers are left open for most of the day when stations are not fully staffed, and it is hard as a result to estimate usage exactly....someone must have a quite interesting job working it all out, or maybe they just have to press enter on a computer somewhere......~~~~ Jrhilton 21:02, 18 May 2008 (GMT)

Lead image[edit]

The lead image was previously a Class 170. This was replaced by withdrawnwith the comment

I have changed the picture of the train at the top of this article, because the old train shown was of a fleet which South West Trains are throwing out, and the new in service for forseeable future.

The new image referred to is of the single Class 960 (ex. Class 121) that SWT use for route learning. While this is undoubtedly a good photograph, it is not representative of the SWT fleet. The picture is in the fleet section, and it does belong there. The lead image should illsutrate a typical and distinctive aspect of the article. For this reason I changed the picture to a Class 442 unit - which are used on the SWT Waterloo-Bournemouth-Weymouth route and are unique to the SWT franchise. I explained this in my edit summary:

change lead picture again. The Class 960 unit is used only for route learning, replaced with a Class 442 used on the mainline services to Weymouth

Without comment, the lead image was changed back to the Class 960 unit by withdrawn. So I have changed it back to the Class 442 with the edit summary

change lead picture back to a Class 442 for the same reason as last time - see talk

I would like the comments of others regarding this. For full disclosure the Class 442 image used is a photograph I took. withdrawn took and uploaded the Class 960 image. Thryduulf 10:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

CPeter: I have put the 442 back because it gives SWT a better image, as well as being some of the most reliable trains in the country, they have the nicest interior (including Compartments for first class.) and buffet cars, not to mention being cyclist friendly; they have guard's vans. As this picture is also down the page, I will replace the below picture with something else. For ease of reference here are the three images in question:

Thryduulf 10:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the image should be of a more modern train; since the company have gone to such lengths to introduce new trains, we should show them rather than old stock. David Arthur 15:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

South West are the most active player in Community and Heritage programmes. Therefore it fits that a train affliated to such be shown. However, the trains that operate the heritage line are not in South West Trains livery. The Class 121 unit, however, is and so fits both of my specified criteria: it portrays the heritage status, but is in a fitting livery for a lead image. For that reason have I restored the lead image to the original.

  • Maybe so but it hardly represents the train passengers are mostly likely to travel on, there is 1 bubble car, not used by any passenger and the 2 Cigs which are confined to a 3-4 mile (CPeter: Lymington Branch is 5.5 miles long.) branchline that newer stock cannot operate. Compare that with the 110 Class 450's (increasing by 17), 45 Class 444s, 91 Class 455s, 9 Turbostars (though they are leaving), 24 Class 442s, 2 Class 158s and 22 Class 159s (The 158/159 fleet will increase by upto another 17) I'd hardly say SWT were a heritage operation. The vast majority of passengers will be traveling on Desiros and 455s, the lead picture should be representative of the current fleet and that means Desiros and 455s. By your reasoning Chiltern's bubble should be top of their page, same with Arriva's when it arrives next month*, with the DfT wanting Pacers on community rail should First Great Western's lead image be changed to a pacer on April 1st. (*correct me if they already have it) Enotayokel 20:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • So why not have the 5WES? This suits both of you as it has compartments for 1st class passengers, like slam door trains, they have 24 so it is quite likely for you to get one, and it is also in their own livery. I agree with CPeter, they give SWT a better image.
      • Never been on one my self, I live at the end of the West Of England line, so its solely 159s with the odd Turbostar if the dispatchers are feeling sadistic (never been on a Turbostar, but have been in a formation with one, my portion was the 159 with the 170 being detached halfway), but yep, they carry passengers so satisfy that requirement, and their 1960's motors/electrical gubbins could qualify them as heritage. ;) - Mind you I've only been in two compartment trains, an Italian owned coach on a Cross border, and the German ICE which has compartments in most coaches, prefer open seating myself Enotayokel 19:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the lead image to the one which was there until Unisouth replaced it on the 3rd of May (full disclosure - I took the picture, but I didn't originally place it in the header myself!) and which isn't used elsewhere in the article. As far as the above is concerned, I figure that a pair of 450s at Waterloo is about as representative an image of SWT as you'll find. --Mike 21:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that it should either be a Five Wes or a 455, as SWT have refurbished both and are in their own livery.

I've reverted this as 455s aren't really exclusive to SWT, and a tight shot of a 442 didn't exactly say much other than letting the viewer see what the front end of a 442 looks like. I think that 450s at Waterloo are far more.. eh, as I said above. Iconic, like. Most SWT commuters don't commute on 442s, and the image of SWT is overwhelmingly as a commuter railway. Also, sign your comments, please. Four tildes, like this: --Mike 22:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Messy Desiros & Bad Photos[edit]

I have just cleaned up the desiro section of the article. I have...

  • Removed stupid statement on the picture of 450 seats
  • Put it in a better position with the other desiro photo, right at 200px
  • & removed bad photo of the passenger information screen

I have to say the section is much better now. Lenny 11:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Does this article even need a photo on train seats? Simply south 13:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I think not - would be better posted under the Class 450 article - Enotayokel 10:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Picture reverted![edit]

Main picture reverted, better image, nicer look, a 5WES at Waterloo

  • Kept the WES theme (though TBH I'm not fussed as long as something used in passenger service on the main line) - but changed it to a brighter and less gloomy picture that shows the livery better (for the title) - really the title picture should be something generic to show the livery and TOC rather then the train - Enotayokel 16:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I am to remove the wessex electric double and place a better image in its place, you cant see much of a train or livery in it. Unisouth 07:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

  • But it is now one that is used Three times in the article already. Lets not have another revert war, but let us have some variety - Enotayokel 19:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Put varied pictures of desiros in the article. Unisouth 18:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sout Western dates[edit]

Copied from 94.'s page

I don't think the information should be added to South West Trains as it is effectively a new franchise, seperate from the old one. Anyway, the new information cannot be added to SW trains' article as it is going to be a new, different company. Simply south 18:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

UK vs England[edit]

Some anon keeps changing "United Kingdom" to "England" as the name of the country SWT operates in. Please stop doing so, random anon. The National Rail network covers the whole of Great Britain, which includes Scotland and Wales as well as England. SWT's particular area of responsibility is mentioned further down. --Mike 02:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:South West Trains logo.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:South West Trains 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 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 08:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Class 121 → Class 960[edit]

The described Class 121 in the Current Fleet section is actually a Class 960, so i have changed it! Many Thanks ACBest 18:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Island Line sub-brand[edit]

there should be a section on this. Simply south 21:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stagecoach Island line.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Stagecoach Island line.jpg 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation of Criticisms[edit]

I've added a couple of citation needed tags to Criticisms section. The only thing I could find was this article - and it doesn't mention the bit about bonuses: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabdiel (talkcontribs) 13:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't say they get bonuses, but does say they are judged according to the number of penalty fares. "A confidential memo, obtained by The Times, reveals that South West Trains is introducing a system under which guards are judged according to the amount they collect in penalties. The memo, headed “commercially sensitive, please do not circulate”, instructs guards to treat passengers as fare dodgers even if they come up to the guard on the train and ask to buy a ticket. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Standoor (talkcontribs) 13:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Edits by[edit]

Would someone please have a look at the edit history of, both to SWT and to the Portsmouth Direct Line page? To me, the edits look counter-productive. If so, further effort may be needed to stop these edits. David Biddulph (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

And I assume that is probably the same editor. David Biddulph (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Smart tickets[edit]

In the tickets section of the article it talks about smart tickets. It's not clear whether these are South West's own ones or whether they are Oyster cards. Can someone clarify? Imcdnzl (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

DONE That was my fault, I've clarified it now. --Wintonian (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed on a couple of ticketing sections[edit]

Requesting citation on some of the information in Ticketing, especially Platform Ticketing (I've put in a notice there) (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

SWT's web site seem to contradict the information in the article see: [1] "Please note that you may require a platform ticket to allow access to platforms or you may be asked to sign in at gated stations." Shall we just remove the sub-section as it's not clear?--Wintonian (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearing up[edit]

There are images that take up virtually the entire width of the page. I also can't see any citations for these units entering service. (talk) 08:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

All complete nonsense: none of those trains is transferring to SWT. I have deleted them. -- Alarics (talk) 08:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Reverted edit[edit]

On 22 February at 21:11 I made an edit to this article replacing the "routes" section with a frequency table. I have done this because I believe that such tables are considerably easier to read and more feasible, as well as being easier to edit (should there be a timetable change). This was reverted by Charlesdrakew, stating that "Wikipedia is generally written in prose" (even though many other British TOC articles, such as Thameslink, Great Northern, Southern and Great Western Railway also contain similar tables).

Whose edit is more appropriate? Mvpo666 (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

You may find tables easier to read, but they can also interrupt the reading of the article, presenting instead a wall, a massive block of detail. "Other stuff exists" is a notoriously problematic argumnt on Wikipedia; looking at those other articles I notice that the table in Great Western Railway was only introduced in November, by a new, determined and now blocked editor, Devonexpressbus. NebY (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that tables are easier to read, or to edit. As for being "more feasible", what the heck does that mean? The existing style has served perfectly well for years and meets the editing guideline WP:USEPROSE. There is no point in adding a table other than for the sake of having a table.Charles (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I find Tables easier to read, it can help organise the information about the route rather than reading one big chunk of words in a massive paragraph. And the table which was done here, I find, was more informative, but it could be improved upon by other editors rather than removing it completely. The current one is in my opinion not very Encyclopaedic. The only one problem with the table is that it may fail WP:NOTGUIDE but the one on the Southern article has been there for some time so NOTGUIDE doesn't apply I don't think.Class455fan1 (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
You are missing the point that Wikipedia articles should generally be written in prose.Charles (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
There is no prose in the current Route section. All there is is a list of destinations in sentence form. I doubt that is prose. I think the table was a lot better. Tables are allowed and how they can be used can be found on MOS:TABLE, however I can't be bothered to read it right now, as i need to sleep! Class455fan1 (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I have just tried to bring the table back into the article; however, this time I have not removed the sentences that were already there, and on top of that, I have added some more. In other words, the article is still mostly written in prose; not a single piece of information has been removed from the article. The only significant difference is the additional service table at the end of the section. This was in order to try and keep everyone relatively happy: the users who wanted it written in prose are satisfied, and those who wanted the table (including me) are also satisfied.
However, a user named @Davey2010: has reverted my edit again. Is there any reason for this? Surely at this point reverting the edit only removes a large amount of content and does not improve the quality of the article in any way? Mvpo666 (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I apologize for the reverts - I hadn't bothered to check the talkpage prior to the reverts so I just assumed the editor was just adding this back without any consensus, Anyway I've self reverted, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 19:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
No worries. I hope it'll also get accepted by the other users who were originally against the table. Mvpo666 (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I have reverted the table. No consensus for it. Wikipedia is not a route guide. Utterly unencyclopedic.Charles (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
@Charlesdrakew: I don't see why you have a problem with the table sitting alongside prose. I have even made an effort to add more detail into the paragraphs that were already there.
In fact, now that I look at the old version, I don't think it's very encyclopedic either. The Routes section is literally an exhaustive list of major stations served by the company. No detail, no elaboration; just one mere sentence (which, by the way, isn't even grammatically correct). The Main lines and Suburban services sections are slightly better but they're not written in prose form, either: they just list the railway lines (in bullet points, without full sentences!) and very occasionally they mention where trains terminate. They're also terribly inconsistent: for example, the "London Waterloo to Portsmouth Harbour via Basingstoke and Eastleigh" service is separate from the "South Western Main Line" service even though they operate on the exact same route, while the Alton Line is in the Suburban section despite being a Mainline service.
Whereas in the new (reverted) version, the Mainline services and Suburban services sections go into a fairly good amount of detail: they say what the railway lines are called, where these lines start and end, whether the line is electrified or not, what kinds of services run on the given line, and it even states what type of train is used on a given service. Furthermore, most of it is written in full sentences (albeit still in bullet-point form), making it a lot more proselike. The only thing these two sections don't talk about is the frequency of services and the stopping pattern for each service - which is exactly what the table is for.
The table itself, I admit, is not very encyclopaedic. However, compared to the previous (current?) content of the Routes section, which was terribly unencyclopaedic as well, it's not really much of a change. The old version is a list of all major stations served by South West Trains, while the other is a list of all services operated by South West Trains. That is the only significant difference between them.
To sum up, I do not understand why you are constantly reverting my edits under arguments like "this is too unencyclopaedic" and "this lacks prose", while simultaneously reverting back to a version that is even less proselike and even less encyclopaedic. Mvpo666 (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
WP:NOT is policy and trumps anything that may be decided here by local consensus. Such tables will be removed.Charles (talk) 10:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
@Charlesdrakew: First of all, I have read the whole WP:NOT article and it does not mention anything about such "service tables". Even the WP:NOTTRAVEL (Wikipedia is not a travel guide) subsection doesn't say that tables aren't allowed (either explicitly or implicitly). So don't bring up the argument that the table violates the "What Wikipedia Is Not" policy; it simply doesn't.
Secondly, I would like to point out that most TOC articles already have a similar service pattern table. Chiltern Railways, CrossCountry, East Midlands Trains, Greater Anglia, Great Western Railway, London Midland, London Overground, Southeastern, Southern, TfL Rail, Thameslink and Great Northern, TransPennine Express, Virgin Trains and Virgin Trains East Coast all have some sort of service pattern table within their articles (some are more detailed than others). Moreover, no one has attempted to remove them; everyone seems to be okay with the tables in other articles (there were even several edit wars over changes to the tables due to new timetables being released). So if service tables are allowed there, why wouldn't it be allowed here?
Thirdly, you've raised a valid point about the edit lacking citations (although the old version didn't have any citations either...) so I have now added a few sources, mostly from the South West Trains official website.
Lastly, you still haven't responded to any points I had raised in the above response. I'm still waiting for a constructive argument against them. Mvpo666 (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
@Mvpo666: Despite there being no consensus above for your edits, you have again re-added the content that others have removed. It's not just the addition of a frequency table, but a whole lot of other changes. Quite apart from going against WP:BRD, I would like you to please explain why WP:3RR should not apply to you. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
@Redrose64: the local consensus was not to remove the table; it was to keep the prose (as per WP:USEPROSE). Other users were initially unhappy with my edits mainly because back in February, I have removed all of the "proselike" content, not because of the table itself. Aside from the fact that the entire section had very little prose to begin with (as I have explained above), the reason I have now decided to try and add the table back was because this time, I thought I have edited the article in such a way that everyone would be happy. The table is there for users like me, who wanted the table, while the prose is also still there for those who wanted to keep the prose. Not only that: I have added a whole lot of extra prose content. I'm afraid I don't understand why some users (or rather one user) are still complaining about this.
"It's not just the addition of a frequency table, but a whole lot of other changes" - please enlighten me what exactly is wrong with these "other changes". I have: added a lot of useful information with much detail, modified the existing information such that it was written mostly in full sentences (i.e. prose), added no less than 16 reliable references (previously there were none; I thought Wikipedia was all about references, right?), corrected a few errors (e.g. Alton Line is not a Metro route) and improved the poor grammar of the previous version. I'm not trying to be egotistical here but I'm afraid don't see a single aspect in which the old version was better than the new one.
As for the WP:3RR rule, which apparently I've broken: as far as I am aware, I have only reverted twice within a 24-hour period. Here is the first revert and here is the second one. After those, I received a message from Charles on my own talk page stating that I should not add such large pieces of information without adding reliable sources. That is what I did in the third edit: I added about a dozen of sources in order to back up the additional content. This wasn't a revert of Charles' edit, but rather an improvement to my own earlier edit. So unless that counts as a third revert (which I don't think it does), I have only made two reverts so far. I only would have violated the rule if I reverted it again now (which I am not going to anymore, until we reach some sort of agreement; you were quite correct about me going against WP:BRD).
Mvpo666 (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
You added the table four times in the space of 24 hours 25 minutes. WP:3RR states "fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring". It seems to me that you waited for the 24 hours to expire, then re-added the table. What you did not do was wait for people like Davey2010 (talk · contribs) and Charlesdrakew (talk · contribs) to agree, or even wait for comment in your RfC (below, and please note that RfCs normally run for 30 days, not 18 hours).
MV - The whole point of me suggesting an RFC was to stop the whole edit warring bollocks - Everyone has far more productive things to do than to edit war over this seriously, As RedRose notes it honestly does seem like you've waited for 24 hours to expire just to revert again ...., Also whilst I'm here I was wrong to say there was consensus here - I read Class445s comment and more or less assumed everyone was fine with it ... I was wrong and for that I apologize, But everything aside I really cannot understand why you'd choose to edit war despite me literally giving you some rope here, It's times like this that I question why I even bother helping people who quite honestly don't want to be helped. –Davey2010Talk 01:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Like I already said, I have only reverted an edit twice. I didn't "wait for the 24 hours to expire, then re-add the table" because I didn't even make three reverts (never mind four reverts) yet. Also, even if you do count the third "revert" (the one with additional references) as an actual revert, then I have in fact done all three in under 24 hours (oops) so obviously I haven't waited. But again, I don't think that particular edit should be considered a revert.
@Davey2010: Where did you get the idea that I "don't want to be helped" from? I am trying to reach some form of mutual agreement here; I can't reach it without the help from everyone involved. The problem is, I have a feeling that both Redrose64 and Charles aren't even trying to come to an agreement at all. Charles was continually reverting my edits under multiple different arguments (few of which are still valid), yet when I explained why I disagree with him, he never responded to any of it. He still hasn't yet responded to any of the arguments I've raised in this thread. Redrose64 just started criticising me for violating about 5 rules at once (and [s]he was partly right, for which I do apologise), but [s]he never stated what [s]he has against the content of my edits. In fact I'm not entirely sure [s]he's read any of the content at all. [S]he just saw that I'd tried to add the same content a few times in a row so [s]he decided to remove it and effectively turned this thread from a discussion about me justifying the table into one about me justifying my own actions. I doubt that was his/her intention but that's basically what happened.
This is why I don't think we're making any progress here: I have been misunderstood by everyone else because of a few things I probably should have approached in a different way. Anyway, I again apologise for all of that.
Now let me try and steer away from all the accusations, and bring this back into a sensible, constructive discussion by starting from the beginning. I have three questions to everyone involved who is unhappy with my recent edits: 1. why are you not satisfied with the service table? 2. why are you not happy with the "other changes" (i.e. the addition of extra detail to already-existing bullet points in the Mainline and Suburban subsections, and adding a couple of references)? 3. Do you have any suggestions on how we can compromise?
I am hoping that this approach will allow us to reach some sort of consensus more quickly. Mvpo666 (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Request For Comment about the service pattern table and extra content[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed as No Consensus. There are only three definite opinions expressed, and two conditional opinions. Per WP:CONSENSUS, this level of participation is not enough to override wider guidelines such as WP:NTT, especially given the complete lack of participation over the last 8 weeks. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Should the Services section contain the service pattern table in the Routes section, and extra content on Mainline, Suburban and Other subsections? Mvpo666 (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


  • No - (Randomly invited by bot) I think train schedules and route specifics are inappropriate detail/ephemera for this project. I recommend using external links to that content. Jojalozzo (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
    From WP:NOTTIMETABLE: "Simply replicating information from published timetables, or repeating information (such as train times or service hours) which is subject to frequent change, may be considered directory writing. Distinguish between stating, for example, that a station is served by a certain number of trains per hour, and specifying the times of those trains. The former is information about the significance of the station; the latter is timetable information." Jojalozzo (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

  • summoned by bot. Don't see "the" service pattern table or know what one is. Think "extra content" needs to be defined. Elinruby (talk) 08:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
    @Elinruby: - Mvpo666 is asking which of these versions is preferred. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
    @Redrose64: You've linked to the history and not to a diff, so it's not clear which versions you're trying to point out to us. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
    I linked to a particular section of the history, the period of two days where the disputed content was repeatedly being added and removed. If you look at any of the diffs where the change in size is more than 10,000 characters (added or removed) you'll see which bits these are. Changes of 40 or so bytes don't really matter in relation to the greater picture. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Is it a sort of timetable? My initial reaction was the whole article is more than I want to know, but I realize that I might feel much differently if I lived in SW England so I am ignoring that initial reaction. I will try to give the question a serious answer if someone will enunciate what it is...Elinruby (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Do you mean the Services section and routes table in this version? The info seems alright. Could the table be listed in a drop down box or reference an external schedule? I am not certain what is the cause for the dispute, the reason for the reverts? Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Having read the above dispute, I am not really sure what to think. This huge table seems a bit obtrusive, but the thing it's replacing seems to be just an unstructured list of routes, and it seems like an improvement over that. It seems like more information than I would want, but as ElinRuby mentioned, this article may not exactly be for me. I'd probably weakly support the change, but it would be good if the disputants could boil down their arguments to the bare essentials. I don't see how WP:NOT plays into this at all. 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I have no issue with the information that seems to be in question, as long as it's referenced appropriately. As for formatting, we could discuss the manner of its inclusion, be it via tables or otherwise. Personally I'd suggest collapsible tables, so that if a reader is interested in such information they can easily click to see it. Those are by brief thoughts on this, viewed from afar. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • No - Summoned by bot. The routes AND timetables are overkill. I would remove everything related to frequency, and the entire routes section, but compromise by keeping the main lines and suburban services sections. Services can also use some culling. For example, does mankind really need to know that non-folding bicycles are banned from peak-time trains to and from London?Timtempleton (talk) 08:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Obviously yes More information is better than less, and the suggested information is not only accurate, it is backed by testable references and citations. Damotclese (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Question: How often does the train-per-hour type information change? Does it require as-of type tagging? Chris vLS (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
    Very rarely. No. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

South Western Railway[edit]

A number of items have been added relating to rolling stock ordered by First/MTR for use under their South Western Railway franchise. These are nothing to do with South West Trains and don't belong on this page in my opinion.

The class 707 was at least ordered by South West Trains, even if they may never see service with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feathers44 (talkcontribs) 11:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)