Talk:TransPennine Express (2016–2023)

Changes made to TransPennine Express

I have corrected your page with factually correct information and it keeps being undone. Stop undoing this as your changing it to an incorrect version — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.154.117.130 (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Your changes were unsourced and unexplained. The template is Template:North TransPennine, not Template:North Route, and similarly for the others. You removed sourced statements and added unsourced statements, and you also changed the correct possessive pronoun "its" to the incorrect "it's". --David Biddulph (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no North TransPennine and the same for others, they are called the North Route, South Route and Anglo-Scottish Route. The north west route does not exist anymore as it has been transferred to Northern Railways. All of the information I have amended is factually from sources, your 'sourced' statements may have been correct at the time but are no longer true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.154.117.130 (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

In this edit you again broke the links to the templates, as you can see by the redlinks. Stop doing that. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Just to add to @David Biddulph:'s comment - there's absolutely no mention in any of the sources that have been included in the fleetlist of the new CAF EMUs for TransPennine Express being designated as Class 397 units (which you included in the edit shown above). The class designation is currently listed as "TBC" because this information is not known at present - Coradia175 (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The class has officially been announced as being Class 397 by TransPennine Express and CAF. I am correcting the errors in your page, if you can't handle the fact that you are wrong then you shouldn't do the job you do. You need to change the links to the templates to be North Route, South Route and Anglo Scottish route, that is what TransPennine express call them. You are ruining this website as a source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.154.117.130 (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware that isn't the case. Apart from that you haven't provided a single source to support this claim and neither can I find a source which states they will be designated as Class 397 electrical multiple units as you have suggested. All I am doing is removing the incorrect and unsourced information that you are repeatedly adding to this article so that it remains factual - Coradia175 (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any kind of industry information? It has been designated the class 397. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.154.117.130 (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2016‎ (UTC)

A keystone of Wikipedia is verifiability, so you need to include references to published reliable sources. ... and please remember to sign your posts (4 tildes: ~~~~ at the end). --David Biddulph (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Then why don't you correct your information which is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.154.117.130 (talk) 09:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Isn't it funny how you have now changed it to say class 397 yet when I did it I was wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.154.117.130 (talk) 09:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Very simple. The edit which was accepted has a reference to a published reliable source, but when you tried to add it you supplied no references. David Biddulph (talk) 09:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

But it was a fact, you do not need to reference a fact because it is a factual piece of information! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.154.117.130 (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing that it is a fact. What we are disputing is that you didn't provide a reference to a reliable source for the information as David Biddulph has said. I have since found a source confirming the unit class designation and added it to the article - Coradia175 (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22Reborn

I fail to see how my update of the TransPennine article is vandalism? Vandalism is an "action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property". All I have merely done is update the article to reflect the reality of the service since the change to the rail timetable at the end of May. I am a daily commuter, I have seen it, experienced it and read it. I am more than qualified to put that factual statement on to Wikipedia. Or is Wikipedia more concerned about not upsetting big corporations over accuracy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User%3AFlyer22_Reborn n Dnalor79 (talk) 06:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Should we include the Liverpool to Glasgow route in the services list?

Should we include the Liverpool to Glasgow route in the services list? Other editors have objected, saying that it's cherrypicking to include that and not the Middlesbrough via Darlington or limited stops services. However, I think that's different because those are the same routes, just with different calling patterns or lines travelled to get there, not different end destinations. Bellowhead678 (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Not in the table in my opinion.

The three daily services between Liverpool and Glasgow (plus one to and from Preston) conveniently run at a fairly regular interval of about 1 train every 4 hours so, depending on how you look at it, the route could well be considered "regular". However, the awkward thing about the route is that almost every single one of these services has a slightly different stopping pattern. This means it's difficult to decide which stations should be included and which ones get missed out. If we only include the stations served by all services, the list will be very small and somewhat inaccurate, as most services stop at about double the number of stations in reality. Whereas if we include all stations that are served at least once, we run into the problem of having to specify how often trains stop at each station, which would look quite chunky and confusing... plus then there would also be no reason to exclude other limited-service stations from the table, like those between Newcastle and Edinburgh (North TP), between Sheffield and Scunthorpe (South TP), or between Manchester Airport and Piccadilly... and at this point the table would start to look like an actual timetable - and way too detailed for a Wikipedia article. Including some stations but not others isn't satisfactory either: the difference between "irregular" and "limited" is rather blurry with such infrequent services. So even if this route were to be included, it would be hard to agree on what goes in the "calling at" column.

Also, if you look at articles on other TOCs, they generally omit such limited routes in their tables as well. The table on Southern doesn't include services between London and Guildford; Thameslink and Great Northern don't include any of their peak-time services to Littlehampton, East Grinstead or Peterborough; SWR is missing its services to Bristol and those to Weymouth via Yeovil Pen Mill; CrossCountry has its extensions to Penzance, Aberdeen, Paignton, Bath, etc. listed separately, not in the table itself, and so on. The general "rule" (I suppose) seems to be that a limited route is only included if nothing else runs on the given line(s). This looks the case for instance in the East Midlands Railway article - e.g. the limited Lincoln-Doncaster route (which is the only route on the line) is included, while the limited route from Nottingham to Norwich via Oakham (all lines are served by several other regular routes, though sometimes by different operators) is not.

For the Liverpool-Glasgow route in particular, I would suggest taking the same approach as that on the CrossCountry and Avanti West Coast articles - i.e. leave the route out of the table but mention it in prose further down the article. This could be done by replacing the "Future services" subsection with a sentence about the route (that subsection is outdated anyway). 2A00:23C5:D00C:ED00:916B:BE86:CD20:E4DE (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

"Central" TransPennine???

I've noticed that an IP editor on 13 June made this edit to the services section in which they seem to have created a Central and North East TransPennine route name. This is the first time I've heard anything be referred to like this (of course previously it was North / South / North West (the Scottish services)) , but is this what the services are now referred as officially, or is this made up cruft which should be reverted? TC60054 (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

TC60054: It’s still North TransPennine, South TransPennine and Manchester to Scotland Route on the planned engineering section of the TPE website. I’d revert. Rcsprinter123 (articulate) 21:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Rcsprinter123, confirmed my suspicions. I've reverted to an older version of the page which looks to be fully intact and re-done my edits which were lost in the revert. I've left a note on the edit summary to visit here if any other editors find an issue with the revert. Thanks again TC60054 (talk) 23:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Anglo-Scottish rather than TransPennine North West?

I notice that the map added to the article today by User:Rcsprinter123 used the term "Anglo-Scottish" for the WCML route of TPE, whereas the article uses "TransPennine North West". Looking at the company's website I see that they do use the term "Anglo-Scottish" on numerous pages (such as https://www.tpexpress.co.uk/~/media/penaltyfareroutemapfeb2020.pdf, for example) whereas the term "TransPennine North West" does not occur at all. I realise that Wikipedia uses WP:COMMONNAME (for article titles, at least) rather than necessarily the official name, but on searching the web I find that most search results for "TransPennine North West" are from Wikipedia or its derivatives, and that if I exclude Wikipedia results from the search the results seem to be from a number of years ago. I realise that "Anglo-Scottish" does seem rather ambiguous, given that some "Northern TransPennine" services do go to Scotland, but I wonder what the community regards as the common name or the most reliable-sourced name for the WCML TPE route. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I see that the thread above this one does discuss a similar question, and that the term "Manchester to Scotland route" is used in some parts of the TPE website for the route in question, which may of course cause the Liverpudlians to feel rather neglected. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to have a proper name. Manchester to Scotland, Anglo-Scottish, TransPennine North West (was that one made up by Wikipedia?) seem to be all the same thing. I don't particularly want the map to use a name different to in the article, though. Perhaps we could go with West Coast Main Line for both as a compromise? Rcsprinter123 (parlez) 18:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

We need to be wary of both WP:OR and WP:USINGPRIMARY. At least West Coast Main Line is a real thing, so it might be the best solution. Tammbeck^talk 18:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

TransPennine North West was the route name used in the previous (First / Keolis) franchise which included the Manchester to Scotland routes, plus the Manchester to Blackpool, Barrow and Windermere services which transferred to Northern. With respect to the name, the TP North West name (as far as I know) fizzled out in 2016/2017 and was replaced by the Manchester to Scotland route name that we currently see, this is the official one now, although this name hasn't changed since the introduction of the Liverpool to Glasgow service in December 2019. I'd be tempted to stick with Manchester to Scotland until it's updated to include Liverpool, unless it can be found that official names that are different can be found through official sources. TC60054 (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

End date

Franchises handovers always occur at the end of the DfT reporting month which is always a Saturday except for the end of the financial year when the period is shortened or extended to conclude on 31 March. Thus the TransPennine Express contract will conclude at 23:59 on Saturday 27 May and TransPennine Trains will commence at 00:00 on Sunday 28 May. Airpopg (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Got a source to replace the one that is already in the article? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Read the source. It is unequivocal in stating that the contract ends in the early morning of the 28th. What you are stating is original research WP:OR. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 25 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: First move carried out; second move not done per discussion.. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

---

• TransPennine Express → TransPennine Express (2016–2023)
• TransPennine Trains → TransPennine Express

– Has now been confirmed that the TransPennine Express brand will be transferring from the FirstGroup operator to the DfT OLR Holdings operator on 28 May. Much like was the case with ScotRail and Southeastern, the articel about the incumbent should then become the primary topic, with the article about the predecessor moved to make way. Ahead of the request for evidence, I am unaware of any yet that is available to be made public, suffice to say that the operator has confirmed. But as this requested move will not be closed for at least 7 days and the handover will happen in less than 3, we will know for certain by then. Blamelstone (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

This move will certainly go ahead on the 28th, as is tradition... support anyhow. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source to confirm the brand is continuing? Once confirmed I wonder if a better name would be to follow the example set by Southeastern (train operating company 2006–2021), i.e. have TransPennine Express (train operating company 2016–2023) 10mmsocket (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that's largely because SE is a name used in multiple instances.

I striked my earlier comment when I realised that TPT may well be the new 'name' for the services, given the sources in the TPT article. Thus, I think:

1. TPE -> "TPE (train operating company 2016-2023)"*
2. TPE page left as a disambiguation page potentially (incl FTPE, its predecessor).
3. Leave TPT alone as that would be the new trading name.

Hope that makes sense?

*Ideally that could be followed with an RM for one or two other pages which don't follow such a "___ (TOC date-date)" pattern? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Interesting point. I never really thought that KeolisAmey Wales was the right outcome for the previous Transport for Wales Rail article. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we need "train operating company" in the title unless it would otherwise be ambiguous with something that isn't/wasn't a TOC. "Southeastern" fits that criteria (see Southeast (disambiguation)) but nothing other than TOCs that use/have used the TPE name so just dates seems to be sufficiently WP:PRECISE. Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Good point. Struck out... 10mmsocket (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I support this, in principle. There's merit also in @Mattdaviesfsic's idea that "TransPennine Express" be used for disambiguation, but I'm not 100% sure on how I feel about actually implementing it. XAM2175 ^(T) 16:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

It has now been confirmed on the TPE site that the trading name will be TransPennine Express. [1]https://www.tpexpress.co.uk/terms-and-conditions 77.102.202.196 (talk) 07:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment: BBC reports that “As of Sunday, services are running under the name TransPennine Trains, which is part of the Department for Transport's Operator of Last Resort.” JamesVilla44 (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's their legal name. It says nothing about their branding. XAM2175 ^(T) 18:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The statement on the "T's & C's page above is quite clear "We are Transpennine Trains Limited trading as TransPennine Express". If you look at the @TPEassist twitter feed which has been active since the 28th, you will see that at least once it has referred to its service as TransPennine Express. I think the BBC simply made a lazy edit - they're not beyond doing that!

Personally I think we should halt this consultation, do the first move to TransPennine Express (2016–2023), make the few absolutely necessary redirects where it's the company that's being referred to, then do the second move leaving in place links that point to TransPennine Express as the service. Happy to dive in and help do most of that redirection. 10mmsocket (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I think TransPennine Express (2016–2023) should be done. JamesVilla44 (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Definite consensus for the move to this new page, so just carried it out. Over 500 pages link to the TPE article, which will need to be sorted out at some point. Usage on TPT/TPE for the OLR franchise seems mixed at best. If we wanted we could keep TPT as the new franchise, and - as I suggested above - use TPE to disambig TPT, TPE (2016-2023) and FTPE (its predecessor)? Would be good to hear others' thoughts. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I would agree with naming the new page TransPennine Trains. Might be worth setting up a redirect for TransPennine Express to link to the TPT page, and create TransPennine Express (Disambugation) linked at the top of both pages. Would also allow linking for the older "franchises" in BR days which used the TransPennine branding. Danners430 (talk) 09:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind, someone beat me to it :D There’s now a disam page at TransPennine Express, and I’ve linked it at the three main TPE pages. Danners430 (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll close this RM then - feels rewarding to have a good, clear, civil discussion! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Don’t get used to it - I’m sure the status quo will return soon! Danners430 (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References