Talk:Directly Operated Railways

Merger
I'm not sure an individual article is merited for this company at this time. Sure, it is a separate entity to East Coast (train operating company) but in reality it is only a holding company for that and potentially any future publicly owned TOCs. If other franchises are nationalised then this holding company may become more worth of note but until that point there isn't a great deal that cannot be appropriately covered within the East Coast (train operating company) article. Adambro (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any harm in a short standalone article, although I would see the reasoning for a merge into East Coast. But as you say DOR may take over other failed franchises, in which case a separate article would be more sensible. Maybe hold off a merger and see if anything else of note happens to merit the expansion of this article? Not necessarily taking over franchises but DOR is a distinct entity, and there is precedent for other holding companies to have a standalone article (cf. LOROL) 13:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnbrb (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for your comments Cnbrb. I'm going to propose that this article is merged into East Coast (train operating company), primarily as I've explained because I feel this subject can be appropriately covered in that article. Of the current material, I don't see much that cannot be incorporated into the East Coast article, primarily because, at the current time at least, DOR is a holding company with one subsidiary, East Coast. DOR only seems to have been created to exist as a legal entity holding shares in whatever franchises are being operated by the DfT. If other franchise are renationalised then a standalone article might be appropriate. Adambro (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merge. DOR is a separate operational and legal entity, simple as. If it dies having never been responsible for any other TOC, so be it, but it is not wise or even accurate to suggest DOR is simply a part of East Coast, which merging would suggest. MickMacNee (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have noted that DOR is a separate legal entity but isn't it the case that DOR is only a legal entity? They don't operate any trains, DOR only exists to own East Coast and potentially, other nationalised franchise operators. To merge the content here to East Coast would not suggest DOR is a part of East Coast. I am confident we would be able to find wording to make that clear without any difficulty. Unless further operators are renationalised, Directly Operated Railways, whilst not part of East Coast, is simply part of the background to that company. DOR is not known for anything other than being the owner of East Coast. Even the suggestion that DOR will remain in existence beyond the privatisation of the East Coast franchise can be dealt with in that article. To keep this as a separate article to me is perhaps to speculate that DOR will become known beyond the context of East Coast and we shouldn't base articles on speculation. Adambro (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it honeslty worth the effort? We cannot predict the future role of DOR, and yes, at the moment their only role is to own EC for the next two years, but the fact remains that it exists separately from EC for a reason, so why bother messing around merging the two when they are logically and legally two separate things? Its not like the govt. absolutely needed to create DOR legally or operationally to be able to run EC, but they did. MickMacNee (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think merging would require much effort, in some ways it would simplify things. One of my motivations for proposing this merger is that a more comprehensive East Coast article would cover pretty much everything that this article covers. Yes, I'm sure there was some reason why the DfT created DOR rather than owning EC directly but I don't think that means it is necessarily appropriate for us to have a separate article on DOR. I don't think we need our articles to mirror the exact legal structure of organisations to provide our readers with a good understanding of a subject. Adambro (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would not see that as creating a comprehensive EC article, I would see it as Wikipedia poorly presenting two distinct topics to the reader as one. The operational and legal specifics of rail privatisation in Britain are hard enough concepts to get across to readers as they are, so why should we ignore the benefits Wikipedia offers of allowing topical segregation using articles with contextual linking between the two, just to keep the content together on one page? Never mind the fact it would only be a comprehensive article as long as EC remains in public hands, and as long as DOR owns only one franchise. Anyway, I suggest soliciting other people's comments going forward. MickMacNee (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What I mean when I suggest that "a more comprehensive East Coast article would cover pretty much everything that this article covers" is that a better East Coast article would have a more detailed background/historical information that would describe everything about DOR that this article does. When it is considered that DOR only exists, at least at the moment, to own EC, it is hard to see what benefit to our readers duplicating this information would be, particularly since anyone interested in reading about DOR is very likely to be also interested in reading about EC. Adambro (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I would also have to oppose the merge as this is the operator of last resort and is not part of East Coast Main Line Limited. It is likely in the current economic climate that DOR may take over more railways in the future - who is to know? It is precisely for that reason, that these two separate entities designed for and incorporated for different reasons and purposes, should remain separate. I agree with the comments made by MickMacMee. Scribbz (talk) 02:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely it is if, and only if, the DfT take over more franchises via this company that it may become appropriate to have a separate article. I'm cautious about keeping this article based upon speculation that it will do. Until that does happen, nothing about DOR cannot be appropriate covered in the article about EC. I recognise the point that this company is "operator of last resort" but the government has always been that so I don't really see how the formation of this company to serve that purpose is particularly special. DOR is merely a legal entity created by the DfT to organise the operation of failed franchises. The current situation is that DOR is only really relevant in the context of EC. As I've already said, since a more comprehensive EC article would cover the background of DOR, and DOR is only known for owning EC, I don't see what a reader gains by having pretty much exactly the same content in a separate article. A reader's interest in this subject could be satisfied more simply by a redirect to an appropriate section of the EC article discussing DOR. Adambro (talk) 08:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

strongly oppose As the person who first created the East Coast Railway page, I still believe that DoR needs to be kept separate. There are a lot of internal railway whispers that FCC are about to have the franchise stripped off them for the recent driver issues. This is where DoR will come into its own as a Holding Company. DoR is a separate company and has separate directors. DoR is NOT part of EastCoast as merging will suggest, DoR owns EastCoast. EastCoast does not own DoR. Fkmd (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Jumping the gun?
I've just telephoned DOR and apparently the DfT hasn't issued an official response has to what will happen to the WCML franchise from 9th December 2012 while the competition is re-run. I think we might need to double check our sources if it is certain that DOR will take over the WCML as a temporary franchise holder even if the Virgin Trains-backed judicial review is not going ahead due to the u-turn, otherwise we might be saying the wrong things unintentionally. Thanks. --Marianian(talk) 11:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Demise?
I also question the Demise section. Whether or not DOR will ever be used again as it was on the East Coast remains to be seen, but the legal entity is alive and well. As of August 2017, DOR Limited (06950819) is still maintaining its accounts with Companies House and has 3 current Directors that all list their occupations as Civil Servants. The company and directors all give the address of Great Minster House which is DFT HQ. Rjshook (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)