Talk:National Transport Trust

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 Mid-importance).

This article lacks references.

Scope[edit]

I understand some of the comments but the whole point of this page is to identify the scale and importance of Britain's unique role in the development of transport systems and engineering. The Our Transport heritage programme [page surprisingly deleted] is a major community exercise devoted to linking the thousands of sites of notable heritage by geography, timeline and context; it also aims to encourage physical as well as virtual visitors - particularly the young - by giving website and contact data, routing information...even local weather forecasts. It is a not for profit exercise with no opportunity to earn revenues from the site. Anmarshall (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

This is a hopelessly jingoistic Britain is Best type of article, which reads as though it were an extension of the website of the Transport Trust. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you fail to understand or recognise the number of transport firsts that originated from Britain, particularly in the 19th Century and the first half of the 20th century. Thereafter, Britain's influence faded as post WW2 R & D was led by the US and, to a lesser extent, germany and Japan. How on earth can that be deemed to be jingoistic? Anments —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anments (talk • contribs) 16:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Tagishsimon had it about right, with or without the reference to jingoism. The page undoubtedly reads as an extension of the Transport Trust's own PR dept's offerings. A less officious, more encyclopaedic approach is certainly desirable. One example that appeared to me as unnecessary and officious was

The key needs for the aviation category are to prioritise individual aircraft for preservation; to move middle grade airframes into hangarage; to pay greater attention to civil aircraft; to deal with pressing gaps in conservation skills and to consider grounding benchmark airframes.

Straight out of Whitehall central PR IMO; and the question of whether historic aircraft should be grounded is an issue widely contested in the historic aircraft preservation community. This is not the place for the Transport Trust to promote its views. IMO that section should be removed until a more considered version is inserted. George.Hutchinson (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganised[edit]

I came across this article earlier and found it confusing and poorly organised. Per WP:BOLD I've reorganised it (in particular, moving the red wheel plaque section to the bottom), added some references (the link to the HLF report had to be retrieved from the National Archives' web archive) and written a lead to summarise what the trust does. The 'Our Transport Heritage' section still needs rewriting, as its current tone is not encyclopaedic. --IxK85 (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that its current tone is not encyclopaedic. The page reads as an extension of the Transport Trust's own PR dept's offerings. A less officious, more encyclopaedic approach is certainly desirable. One example that appeared to me as unnecessary and officious was

The key needs for the aviation category are to prioritise individual aircraft for preservation; to move middle grade airframes into hangarage; to pay greater attention to civil aircraft; to deal with pressing gaps in conservation skills and to consider grounding benchmark airframes.

The question of whether historic aircraft should be grounded is an issue widely contested in the historic aircraft preservation community. This is not the place for the Transport Trust to promote its views. IMO that section should be removed until a more considered version is inserted. George.Hutchinson (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rebranding[edit]

In the introduction to the article, it states "The Transport Trust recently changed its name to reflect the national remit and coverage of its activities." This will not be valid forever, as "recently" will change as time goes by. Does anyone know the date they rebranded from the Transport Trust to the National Transport Trust? Their website has an article created on May 28, 2020 that goes into detail: https://www.nationaltransporttrust.org.uk/new-patron-and-rebranding but I'd rather be sure. L1ght5h0w (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]