Talk:Locomotive Services Limited

Content Fork
The upgrade of this from a redirect to a full article without discussion has caused an unresolved content fork and likely will cause issues unless reverted. There may be a set of renaming of articles that would work better but that probably needs a planning consensus.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I've reverted to a redirect. See discussion at Royal Scot Locomotive and General Trust.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Royal Scot Locomotive and General Trust which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Upgrade to Article
Made to article and LSL content attributed. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Content fork with Crewe Diesel TMD
I've just realised there is a content fork with Locomotive Storage (LSL/LS) and LNWR Hertiage (LNWRH) on the Crewe Diesel TMD article. We may need to consider the best way to fix it. To hard at present for me to suggest. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

"Creating Locomotive Services Ltd." listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Creating Locomotive Services Ltd.. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 6 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Controversial move undone
I have reverted the move from  Locomotive Services Limited  back to  Locomotive Services . Please gain consensus before making such a controversial move - it is not usual to include "Limited" in the name of an article. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

What is the right name for the content then?
@: When you made move from to  at special:Diff/1040932555 with the claim Non-controversial move removing "Limited" as the word is rarely used on corporation articles unless disambiguation is needed. I AGF you were not aware I was blocked at the time by {{{u|Drmies}} after RPSI and Dublin tram streess and would have been likely otherwise to challenge that controversial move for discussion. And I agree has some grounds for his contested move, the article as its stands if more about the group that about the TOC precisely. Patron Jeremy Hosking has set up the associated companies/brands in a likely very sensible way for accountabilty, I beiieve its best known as LSL or Locomotive Services Limited because Locomotive Services if just too close to locomotive servicing etc in general usage. If the article was about the TOC, narrowly defined, it would be Locomotive Services TOC. To my best understanding this article is about the group. One can then discuss a name for the article, I am minded the British people would likely for Hosking's big trainset given history with Boaty McBoatface bus the name here is likely best either Locomotive Services Group or Locomotive Services Limited (per the common LSL abbreviation). Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Djm-leighpark, please don't ping me unless my presence is necessary. I have no content knowledge of or real interest in trains. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think that any of the group constituent companies are notable enough in their own right to have their own standalone articles, but the totality of the group's operations, including the ToC, is notable. Thus I think this article should be about the group, its structure and the activities of each constituent member of the group. Thus I think the name is good as it stands. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree the article is about the group and its activities, and the lead phrase probably should be changed from ""Locomotive Services (TOC) Limited[1] is a train operating company" to indicate the article is talking about a group of companies. I do notice, in passing, ting "Locomotive Services Group" name is being promoted on facebook.comm at /pg/LocomotiveServicesGroup and I assume that is an official website.  It also has a logo that could be used here.  And to be clear, and merge or split with regards this article is controversial, though how it got here is likely more an accident of history.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like we're reaching a consensus on content. I'm not sure moving it to Locomotive Services Group is necessary, but I wouldn't object. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Skimming though companies house I al inclined to see they are not directly connected companies/trusts/LLP but the Patron generally has controlling interest; at least as far as simply me can see.  I quite like the fact the Locomotice services Group (which is not a company methinks) has a logo (On the faceook page) and is an actually used name for the group (assuming the facebook page is official - but it does seem genuine).  I may put forward a move proposal but it might be controversial so I'll have a chew over first for a little while, at least an house or two.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've elected to put that proposal forward and see what consensus (or lack thereof) results. Experience says its best to go with the flow on anything UK Railways related.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 5 January 2022

 * 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: Moved to Locomotive Services Limited Editors provided no compelling reason for suggested new name which as one editor remarked:  is fictitious. The previous name: Locomotive Services Limited is consistent with sources and per the company website their preferred name. The precedent of not including legal status in company names WP:NCCORP is not absolute. Moving pages without discussion is also not good wiki practice if there is an inkling of opposition. Article is move-protected for six months. Mike Cline (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Locomotive Services → Locomotive Services Group – This article is the container for a group of organisations and brands mostly under the effective control of a single patron. Even searching for the current title seems to indicate the current title name is not commonly used in isolation, and does feel close to a verb rather than a noun. Locomotive Services Limited (LSL) is often being used to refer generically to group, though LSL is simply a major and perhaps oldest member of the group it has not felt by some to be a suitable name for this article. The proposed name, Locomotive Services Group, means this article defines the overall group and has the benefit it is in use on an official facebook page "facebook.com" / "LocomotiveServicesGroup". An appropriate logo with that also exists there which could be placed under fair use on this article. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - good proposal following discussion above :10mmsocket (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose LSL is the parent company, there is no legal entity named Locomotive Services Group. Yumosumo (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @: Per the warning I've put on your talk page your opinion is welcome but you should not have moved the page while it is under discussion; and it should have been left at Locomotive Services while under discussion. I know I personally prefer Locomotive Services Limited to Locomotive Services and I leave it to others to determine if it can remain as is under discussion or whether your move has to be moved back per trying to make the best of a bad job.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd also want to see evidence LSL is the parent company. It is, as far as I know, the oldest of companies/trusts/brands.  But I would like to evidence of the structure to support LSL is the top company.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Opppose (and leave / return to Locomotive Services Limited) We shouldn’t be creating fictitious group articles to try and bring together loosely associated articles. Group articles should reflect formal structures where holding companies and their subsidiaries can be identified, e.g. FirstGroup, Stagecoach Group. LSL is not the parent company, there is no parent or holding company, the parent is Jeremy Hosking.


 * Of the Jeremy Hosking controlled entities, Locomotives Services Limited (LSL) is the largest with £13 million of net assets. By comparison Locomotives Services (TOC) Limited only has £7,000 of net assets. LSL owns 100% of Saphos Train Travel Limited and Statesman Rail Limited plus two dormant companies, but nothing else. So while they share common ownership and are thus related, they are not part of the same group, and articles should not be written to infer that they are. The other subsidiaries should have either have stand-alone articles where warranted, (which they aren’t in most cases), or otherwise incorporated into that of their parent, i.e. Jeremy Hosking. Prepopots (talk) 07:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support While I would have preferred "Locomotive Services Ltd", I very much agree that a page about a company should not contain "Ltd" as per Wikipedia precedent. "Locomotive Services Group" is a good way of making it clear that the article also discusses the other companies under the same patron, and opens the door to expanding information about the TOC and other Jeremy Hosking enterprises which would otherwise not be worthy of a full Wikipedia article. Danners430 (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2022 (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.

Tables
All of the rolling stock tables are totally or largely uncited, needs to be addressed. The Key Publishing or Platform 5 rolling stock publication may be a starting point. Prepopots (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Dodgy company?
Apparently don't care about PRM and make their 43s emit disgusting thick black smoke. Anamyd (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Not entirely sure what this has to do with the Wikipedia article, as this isn't a forum. Danners430 (talk) 07:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)