Talk:UK Rail Leasing

Text and/or other creative content from this version of UK Rail Leasing was copied or moved into Rail Operations Group with this edit on 22 March 2018. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This article was nominated for deletion on November 18 2016. The result of the discussion was delete.

Trains: in UK Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

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).

Article Recreation

An article of this name (and subject) was deleted circa 26 November 2016. However several links to least 5 significant) to UK Rail Leasing exist. On 17 July 2017 the article was recreated as a link to Rail freight in Great Britain. As a Wikipedian Reader clicking on a UK Rail leasing link I quite frankly wondered why I had been directed to that page.

Overall I want to read Wikipedia and get some idea who UK Rail leasing are.

Reviewing the deletion discussion:

I've tried to be more encyclopedic
UK Rail leasing have developed a tightlock coupler ... arguably bit geeky but significantly more engineering than 'only interested in rail related leasing'

At about the same time 'Rail Operations Group' and 'Europhoenix' articles have gone the same way (and had the same redirects to Rail freight in Great Britain. Because they use the same base (and these companies sometimes work co-operatively though they are essentially independent) I have chosen to merge these here ... not totally perfect. I personally am happy to split these off but I don't want to do the footwork. However at least a basic description of what they are about is now present here and the links to these companies should now make sense. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rail Operations Group split to independent article

Proposing time has come to Split Rail Operations Group back to it's own article. Being headquartered at Derby, doing things beyond Leicester TMD, having a couple of things (not yet mentioned) which give more notabilty and beginnning to get undue weight in this article are some reasons. Because the previous Rail Operations Group article was deleted it is I likely perform this split cautiously at some point.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC) This has been done.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Europhoenix

Recently an attempt to split the unrelated Europhoenix article into its own article was rebuffed on the basis of a prior deletion consensus From what I can see the only rationale for including Europhoenix in the UKRL article is that the two have had some limited business dealings, certainly not enough to say they are intertwined.

By having a detailed section with an infobox the reader could easily misled into thinking Europhoenix is a subsidiary of UKRL, which isn't the case. They are legally quite separate, each having different owners, directors and registered addresses as evidenced by their Europhoenix and UK Rail Leasing Companies House filings.

It appears to be a case of shoehorning the Europhoenix text into the UKRL article for the sake of it putting it somewhere. The vast majority of the text in the section is of no relevance to UKRL. Either the Europhoenix text should be strong enough to stand in its own article or the text condensed to a brief summary without the detail, much like the ETL and ROG sections immediately below.

Alternatively we could delete this article, it too was the subject of a deletion consensus. 185.201.60.217 (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@IPA (I'd like to use IPA if I may as you IP changes - or any other pseudonym you'd prefer)

please be aware we are probably more on the same side with a hope for a stand-alone Europhoenix at some point. Where we differ perhaps is I have greater concerns that the version you put in place had (in my opinion) an almost certain chance of being brought to WP:AfD and deleted; especially because of the prior history. If the article is viewed by a non Railway enthusiast person as a series of locomotive moves/purchases/hires it may well get deleted. I also realise we've likely had some different views of content on LSL and ROG articles. (I'm happy about how LSL has ended up but not the way it got there and if you were the IP you were probably irrated).

I cam to this area in March 2018 when UKRL, ROG and Europhoenix articles has all been deleted/redirected to some really obscure WP:SURPRISE places like 'UK Railfreight'. And I was really concerned. I was really concern individual articles would all be deleted but felt fairly confident UKRL with the others merged in would be safe, and UKRL was the only obvious holding article. ROG has expanded heavily over two years and began to sit uncomfortably in UKRL so was (successfully) moved out (actually forced by an IP user adding a list of stock moved).

As a way forward I have recreated IPA's suggested incarnation at User:Djm-leighpark/Europhoenix and hope IPA and myself can agree a possible candidate for re-incarnating Europhoenix there. If IPA or anyone else makes edits can they please keep copies as this is not a secured page. I hope this is helpful to IPA, but I am willing to consideration alternatives. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on this beyond making sure that current consensus is followed and we don't have unsourced material sitting around (either here or in a separate article). Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Elmidae. I have replaced by previous content which did contain inaccuracies with the IP's users suggestion (I have left out a couple of uses of associated companies as I currently have possible slight doubts (simply have got time to check currently). I feel this needs a little rework adjustment for prose flow and lead in but I will go with your comments of sourced accuracy. Can I give due apologies to 'IPA' as I am a little rushed. Any improvements to this section in no way somes a new article being formed and may give WP:UNDUE weight in this article to it if europhoenix gains weight within in. Thanks Elmidae for your help.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree article should be split, definately seperate organistaions with no formlal ties. As it stands it appears that Europhoenix is a subsidiary of UKRL which it isn't. Tukulun (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tukulun thanks for your comments. I am going to assume you are different to the anon IP user I have referred to as 'IPA'. Support of another non-IP user to the split is I think helpful. Do you have and thoughts on the way forward? Thankyou.

Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UK Rail Leasing article update

Per above section it is likely Europhoenix will fly off this article shortly. But UKRL needs an update to to relate to events over the summer. In particular sale many 56's to GBRF for alternative re-engineering. While some of what has gone on is well known (or guessed) reliable sources are more difficult. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]