Template talk:Current UK TOCs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:British TOCs)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Trains / in UK / Passenger trains (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Ireland (again)[edit]

An anon user has just added Iarnród Éireann to this template. I removed it, on the grounds that their passenger operations in the UK are restricted to the Belfast-Dublin Enterprise service, which is already listed. --RFBailey 17:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Virgin Trains[edit]

Another anon user is adding Virgin CrossCountry and Virgin West Coast to the "sub-brands" line. I have reverted this change, as they are not brands as such: they are subsidiaries which operate different franchises but under the same brand. This is the opposite of, say, one and Stansted Express, which are two separate brands used by the same company operating a single franchise. --RFBailey 14:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite right. Virgin West Coast and Virgin CrossCountry are highly notable for the very fact that they are not brands, Virgin having chosen (uniquely, I believe) to combine two franchise into one train operating company, with no division between the two visible to passengers. David Arthur 15:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No need to worry, in a few days one of Virgin's "sub-brands" will be gone! Dewarw 16:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

How should Virgin West Coast (and what would have been the other one) be added on here? Simply south 00:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Technically, Virgin West Coast should be in National, and Virgin Trains in the sub brand section. However this could be potentially confusing, as people would usually see it as being the other way round. The other two solutions are: 1) Display them in National as "Virgin Trains (Virgin West Coast)", 2) Don't display it at all, as the Virgin West Coast article could probably be merged into Virgin Trains. --Jorvik 00:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see what's wrong with it--Virgin Trains is still the brand used. There are no sub-brands anywhere, so putting anything related to "Virgin Trains" in the sub-brand section is a mad idea. I'm currently in the process of updating the Virgin Trains article to reflect their new status. The Virgin West Coast article should be merged into that--it contains little of worth that the other one doesn't. The change to {{Defunct UK TOCs}} seems reasonable to me. --RFBailey 01:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Grand Central[edit]

An abstract question I grant you, but how long do you think it will be before we move Grand Central to the {{Defunct UK TOCs}} template? And do you think they will get any trains running before we do? Hammersfan 21/11/07, 10.42 GMT

10 years. Yes, they already have. Simply south (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Ever the optimist :-P Hammersfan, 21/11/07, 12.05 GMT

Why don't we put Grand Central and W&S on the future template. It will be ages before they start, just see! Dewarw (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The ‘future’ template is for prospective companies — that is, unapproved proposals. Grand Central and Wrexham & Shropshire both have full approval to begin service; the repeated delays to Grand Central’s opening are caused by practical considerations. David Arthur (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
We could change that situation, so that the "current" template is just for operators that are actually operating trains, and re-jig the "future" template so that it has "confirmed" and "prospective" sections. Grand Central and Wrexham & Shropshire would be in the "confirmed" section, while the others would be in "prospective". --RFBailey (talk) 03:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
To me this would seem to give unnecessary prominence to the prospective operators, by listing them in the same place as companies with an actual legal entitlement to run trains. David Arthur (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I agree with RFBailey, because Grand Central and W&S are on the "Current" template- yet they are not running at the moment (and won't be for a while, knowing this country!). They should therefore be on the future template. Grand Central launching soon? I'll believe it when I see it! Dewarw (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the wording of the Prospective template should give pause - both Grand Central and Wrexham & Shropshire are not "prospective" operators. They have slots already allocated in the current timetable, which means they could (if they had the rolling stock) start tomorrow. Naming the "Prospective" template as perhaps "Future UK TOCs" might be better if you do feel it necessary to remove these two from this template. However, if that is to be done, it needs to be made crystal clear that the prospective operators (Grand Union etc) have no official approval/sanction as yet and are merely proposals, unlike GC and W&S. Hammersfan, 13/12/07, 17.36 GMT
I can see where your coming from with this. Do you think that they should be spilt. It just seems wrong, for me, to have prospective TOCs in a Current TOCs template. Dewarw (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have gone with your suggestion. I have made it clear on the "Future" template, which TOCs are approved and which are not. Dewarw (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do i have a sense of deja vu with the above discussion? Simply south (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't possibly imagine :-P Hammersfan, 14/12/07, 12.17 GMT

As Grand Central have announced their start date is to be the 18th December, I have added it back to this template Hammersfan, 16/12/07, 21.51 GMT

Granted, Grand Central have made numerous previous announcements but this time it seems very likely that this will be accurate because GC have been running training runs with the rolling stock which they've been waiting so long for. Adambro (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Changes[edit]

I have made quite some changes to the templates (one edit leads to another etc!). Are they ok? Dewarw (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Is a footnote saying that Eurostar operates in France and Belgium really necessary? The note for Ireland is needed to account for the fact that there are two incompatible and unconnected railway networks in the United Kingdom, but the fact that Eurostar is in the ‘International’ category seems quite enough to explain it. David Arthur (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree - the only reason a note for the Irish network is included is because it is completely seperate from the British network, even to the extent of operating at a different gauge. The note (as I recall) was the agreed means of including NIR and Enterprise on the UK template (does anyone remember the broohaha over that? Happy days LOL). It isn't necessary to include a similar note for France and Belgium Hammersfan 14/12/07, 12.14 GMT

Wrexham & Shropshire[edit]

Now that WSMR has a start date, when do people think it should be moved onto this template? Hammersfan, 03/04/08, 11.45 BST

When it starts. Until it does, it is still a "Future" UK TOC. Btline (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Future UK TOCs template[edit]

From Monday, the only "confirmed" TOC will start. That will leave the Future TOCs template with three pipe-dreams. Obviously, they should remain on it, but perhaps the template should be altered in some way.

Any ideas/comments? Btline (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Changed to prospective.  Done Btline (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. --RFBailey (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Transport for London[edit]

Overground is not a train operating company in the United Kingdom, it is a brand name used by Transport for London. So Overground should be in the sub-brand section. Transport for London should be included as a company. What are the vehicles in the underground called? Are they called trains? Then the underground should be included as a sub-brand. --BIL (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear.... you've open a can of worms! You have a point, although I still think LO should be on the template. I would wait for several other opinions to arrive before doing anything, in case it is reverted as "vandalism" - you know what some editors are like!! Btline (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Maybe this template needs a bit of clarification. This only involves companies and other such organisations offering AFAIK passenger services on the National Rail network. So, although the London Underground (and if gong by other metro networks, the Docklands Light Railway, Tyne & Wear Metro and Glasgow Subway) involve trains, they are not part of the National Rail network, even though some share the tracks. Simply south (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, ‘train operating company’ is a term with a very specific definition, which goes well beyond simply a company which operates trains. It means a distinguishable operator of passenger services (goods trains are run by freight operating companies) on the national railway network, not including local metros and tramways, and organised by their external identity, not by their ultimate owners.
Therefore, London Overground is the real train operating company; replacing them with Transport for London is no more logical than removing Southern, Southeastern, London Midland, and Gatwick Express in favour of Govia (who are the ultimate owners, but remain invisible to the general public). Likewise, LOROL are contracted to run London Overground's services, but they do so transparently, and have no role in setting fares, organising timetables, procuring rolling stock, or any of the other jobs of a train operating company David Arthur (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The train operating company seems to be London Overground Rail Operations, while London Overground are the lines. --Rumping (talk) 10:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Dutchflyer[edit]

I've added Dutchflyer to the International brands; however it's not the grandiose service that it once was with perfectly-timed non-stop expresses at each end, indeed it's not a discrete company either. Thoughts people? —Sladen (talk) 12:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Is Dutchflyer really a distinct company, or even brand? Eurostar operates independently of any other TOC, and I believe even Enterprise at least has its own dedicated stock with its name painted on the side. Does Dutchflyer have anything parallel, or is it just the name of a co-operative service? David Arthur (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
No, Dutchflyer is the brand used by NXEA, Stena and NS for its through services. It operates using scheduled NXEA and NS services that are timed to connect with the Stena Line sailings. So I don't think it belongs on the template Hammersfan 15.56 GMT, 24/12/08
Re: "Not any more". In unspecified times past, the Harwich ferries belonged to the LNER and the Liverpool Street service was a dedicated Pullman that shuttled back-and-forth as the ferries arrived, whilst the Continental end was met by its through carriages to Copenhagen, Berlin and Milan. The direct Harwich–Amsterdam Centraal service stopped a couple of years back (in advance of the withdrawal of the HSS) and it's now a bog-standard (but still timed) train on the British side, and a simple commuter NS train with a required change at Rotterdam on the Dutch side. —Sladen (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Notes at bottom[edit]

Shouldn't this show which is a sub-brand of which? E.g. Island Line now being part of South West Trains? Simply south not SS, sorry 16:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that comment has lost me! Can you rephrase? Regard, Btline (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Corrected to right word (whoops!)

And here is the thing i meant. Simply south not SS, sorry 17:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The only reason we ever had that particular note was because of that whole rancourous debate about what counted as a TOC in the United Kingdom; putting that on there was the compromise that allowed NIR and Enterprise to be included on the template. As I recall, the sub-brands have never had notes stating which TOCs they belonged to, because it was never an issue. Besides, speaking personally, I think too many notes on there has the potential to make it look cluttered. Hammersfan 24/12/08, 19.12 GMT

New East Coast State run[edit]

Where in the Future section should the new East Coast trains company be?.Likelife (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

When there is enough reliable information about it that it has it's own article, then it should be on the future template as a future franchise operator until it takes over, when it should be moved to the current template. Do we know yet how it will be branded? Based on what happened with Connex, I'd guess it will simply be "East Coast" but that is just a guess. Thryduulf (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
We should wait until we have more info. "Guesses" and speculation have no place on Wiki. Btline (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, that was my point. Thryduulf (talk) 07:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok then I din't whant to guess the name and I never ment for the page to be made now.Likelife (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)