Talk:National Express Coaches

Misc.
Does the accedent need to take up so much space, can it not be cut down? PH

Comment
Are there any more operators currently operating National Express coach services?

If so, please add them to the list KC

Comment
Can someone do a piece on the recent north east railway franchise won by national express? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Vehicle involved in the accident on 3 Sept 2007 is a Scania Irizar reg no YN55 PXC. This is operated by Bebb Travel, part of Veolia Transport. They have been operating this route since June 2007, after they took over services previously operated by Travel West Midlands —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.196.244 (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed irrelevant section about the marketing of their website Qwerty1985 (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Rail franchises
The article should be updated now that all of NEG's railway franchises are to carry the National Express brand name. 217.155.20.163 (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * How do you mean? This is the coach page, I think you mean National Express GroupMickMacNee (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Updated - National Express Group MickMacNee (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
National Express name is more synonymous with its parent company so this should be moved for disambiguation, with (after the move, if it goes ahead) National Express redirecting to National Express Group. Simply south (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC) [Can someone correct synonymous?]


 * National Express Coaches, perhaps if a move is needed. MRSC • Talk 15:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like it has been rebranded this according to the website, so i am going to close early and move it here. For evidence, see the NX page Simply south (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. National Express Coach is not the same as National Express Coaches. National Express appears to be being retained as the coach identity, with other UK divisions given straplines. Also, foreign NX Group operations are not being rebranded and their names have nothing to do with the National Express name. MickMacNee (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As proposed, I'm going to start this discussion at the National Express Group talk page as that page is the least likely one to change name. MickMacNee (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussion now here MickMacNee (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NXC.png
✅ Btline (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Logo
Please retain the coach logo. This has been discussed already It is used to prevent confusion between the "National Express Group" and "National Express Coaches" articles by providing an easy and quick identification. Thanks, Btline (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't realise this had been discussed before! I won't change anything, but I thought changing the article was what was to show identification between the National Express Group and Nat Ex Coaches, which is does. Therefore, the logo should be used to show the actual logo of the company, not to identify the article name. I fail to see how the logo is official. It may appear on the website, but that is a completely different format with rather a large gap in between, the logo there is the "National Express" bit. The logo on here has just been pushed together. Maybe just the word of "coaches" next to the proper logo would be acceptable, but I don't see how something that doesn't represent properly what it is meant to is any good. -- Arriva436 talk  15:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the logo has been formatted to make it fit the infobox. If this logo is used, then there is no need for the word "Coaches" to be written beside. Once again, it is used to enable users to easily and quickly distinguishes between NX Group and the coach company. This is esp important due to the recent re-branding, which could cause confusion. The use of this logo ends all confusion, and it is in line with all the other NX sub brands. Thanks, Btline (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This logo has been manufactured, and is in my opinion a deriviative work of copyrighted images, and thus deletable. Changing logos is not how WP:disambiguation is done. 'Coach' is a website device only, and not part of the official logos used by the company on its coaches, timetables or legal documents, infact National Express Ltd is the coach company, not National Express Coach. If they intended it to be used this way, they would have. MickMacNee (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it is part of Wiki policy to use infobox images to allow people to see that they have arrived at the correct page. Using the NXG logo would just confuse. Remember, the NX Group logo switched as well in the rebrand.

There is nothing at all wrong with the logo as it does not misinterpret the brand. If I had left a part of it out, chopped it up, or added a part in, then it would be deleteable, Making it fit the infobox helps make the page better.

Also note that the page is called NX Coaches, so the logo should be used to represent that. It keeps this page inline with other brands of NX as well.

Finally, NX choose to display the logo on their web site - so Wiki should do the same, It is called, interpreting the brand accurately. Btline (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * But the fact you have moved the "coach" part means it is not how National Express uses it, and also it looks really bad anyway, with lines nearly touching the logo.


 * It you have a look at the Nat Ex Coach website, you can see that they definitely do not choose to use the logo that way as I have said above, it's completely different. If you scroll down, there are two examples in the adverts where just "National Express" is used as a logo. The "coach" is there on the website to avoid confusion. It is not the logo. The article name is what should avoid the confusion here. -- Arriva436 talk  17:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

As stated before, despite what you are trying to assert by chopping up their logo, it is not being used, i.e applied to vehicles or legal names, in the same way as their other brand qualifiers are as you state. And by your logic used here, you need to chop up the group logo and add 'nx group plc' or even 'united kingdom' to the main group logo aswell. It is not the role of logos in infoboxes to achieve disambiguation, let alone is it stated as such in any policy. MickMacNee (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Arriva: you said "The "coach" is there on the website to avoid confusion." That is why it is on the Wiki page. MickMacNee: take a look at the "Purpose of use" section in the fair use section of the image page. It says: "The logo confirms to readers they have reached the correct article, and illustrates the intended branding message." Note that this is repeated across all other logos. Using the NXG logo would (a) Not confirm to readers that they have reached the correct article and (b) Not illustrate the intended branding image. As this is a common feature on logo images on Wiki, I would infer that there is policy about this. Btline (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree completely, its a derivative work of a copyrighted image in my opinon. National Express Coach is a meaningles brand if it is only used in the one example you are citing. You have basically completely missed the point of the entire rebranding exercise they have embarked on, and the reason for it, and making huge assumptions on the part of the general public in the process. Altering the logo is not necessary to reinforce information already provided all over the page, using the approved disambiguation policies. MickMacNee (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I disagree with that. I feel that the page is better with a specific logo. Surely you can see that it is useful? Btline (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note also this link. "National Express Coach" is used. Wiki should as well. Btline (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It merely reinforces that they use it when talking about the coaches on their group website, not that it is the brand image or name of the coach company. As I keep saying, you have manufactured an image to push a POV that over night the national express name means something completely different to the general public, which is precisely not what they intended by the rebranding, as supported by their usage of it compared to all the other (UK) companies. WP reflects reality, it doesn't define it, or better define it, or pre-empt reality. MickMacNee (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "The "coach" is there on the website to avoid confusion." That is why it is on the Wiki page. No, the article name having "coaches" in it is what avoids confusion here, not a made up logo, as I have said before. Also, it is not repeated across all other logos. It was a big rebranding and there are problems everywhere. Why someone put the new National Express logo on Travel Surrey I don't know, as they're are being rebranded the end of this year at the earliest. The link you show is again to avoid confusions, but is only writign, like the title of this article, and it can be done without a made up logo. Note this link!! Click on "general"  Arriva436 talk  18:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I objected to this on National Express East Coast, see the talk page, and I still object to it. The logo all these brands are using is simply the National Express logo, we shouldn't be creating logos ourselves for disambiguation purposes or whatever. Adambro (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect. For NX East Coast, the logo used is not just the NX one. See the timetables, the livery etc. That is a different matter.

The logo use on the coaches brand is separate. Let's keep it separate. Btline (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Picture of the old livery
I've just amended the caption on an image of a coach in the 'arrow on blue and red circles' livery from 'the old livery' to 'the previous livery', because (a) that livery isn't that old and (b) when somebody talks about the 'old National Express livery', I think of white coaches with the National Bus Company's 'red and blue arrow'.

Which makes me think that we need a picture of a coach in that livery to round off the collection in this article. Can anybody contribute one?. -- Chris j wood (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:National Express Logo.gif
The image Image:National Express Logo.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --01:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed split ('Service Brands' and 'Accessible coach routes')
Should we split out the list of national express routes into a separate article from both 'Service brands' and 'Accessible Coach Routes'? The sections would stay in the main NX coaches article but the details of individual routes would be listed in a single comprehensive article called List of National Express Coaches routes. We would also create redirects from all of the potential 'National Express route 202' which would redirect to the list of routs article unless there was an article for the route (as has been done with Green Line route 757 but not for any NX coaches routes to my knowledge). The accessibility status would become a yes/no field in the list with an associated notes in the notes field, the type of route could also be a field. It there are no big objections I will get on with it. PeterEastern (talk) 09:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have now created the following articles for discussion: PeterEastern (talk) 10:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * List of National Express Coaches routes (this is pretty much a copy of the accessible coaches list for now with a few additions)
 * National Express Coaches route 202 (this redirects to the list)
 * National Express Coaches route 350 (this is a stub real article for a route)

Undue weight issues
The entire text of 2007 National Express coach accidents was copied here after its AfD. While a merge was well within consensus, the Incidents section is now almost as long as the rest of the article, which seems like an undue weight violation. However, since all of the content is sourced, removing any of it is likely to be controversial, especially when much of the rest of the article is less well sourced. Any suggestions? Alzarian16 (talk) 11:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need a blow-by-blow chronological history of the investigation. Some of the language is also rather journalistic rather than encyclopaedic (what I came here to note). I think for both incidents all we really need is a summary of the accident (1-2 paragraphs) and then a single paragraph about the outcome of the criminal trial. If there were any lasting safety implications then we would also want to include that, but as there weren't in either case that's obviously not applicable here. Thryduulf (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes what on earth is "specialist" detailed information on a few incidents here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.126.68 (talk) 13:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I wonder
..whether we should include (all supported by evidence) the proposition that coach travel in the UK does not have a good press. It's not just that I personally do not want to spend five hours (on a journey which would take two by train), nor risk life long depression and nightmares by frequenting Victoria Coach station,nor sit next to a pensioner who insists on deshelling a boiled egg and says "it's the best way to travel and make friends, nor have to bribe the driver to handle ones luggage, nor stop at motorway service stations to drink warm pop at £8 a throw and risk drowning (or sexual abuse) in the toilet... no it's not my personal view here but the recorded problems faced by National Express. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.126.68 (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Reads like an advertisement
I've removed some parts that are more of an advertisement than a statement of facts, however, readers should be aware that this article reads like an advertisement generally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.169.66 (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)