Talk:Rail Operations Group

New Article
Article has been re-created. A bit geeky perhaps but hauled rolling stock moves can actually be quite complicated with use of barrier vehicles and consequent risks. ROG now also have some further mentions that can be added to the article. ROG is also now a TOC and has expanded somewhat since the previous speedy delete. I've just completed the major edits needed to split the section out from the UK Rail Leasing article which should enable this article to grow freely to its own level.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Disputed
summarised 'add cites' has removed, added and changed content. while some changes are improvements and useful corrections to existing content others such as founded date conflict with for instance ROG twitter account. Not suitable for an undo and difficult to work through the disruptive bits so choosing to add disputed template.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I have examined the state of the article prior to the concerning edit by IP and the edit made under 'add cites'. The nature of the article was significantly changed and existing cite removed. The references to mail magazine are probably correct however some content changes introduced were incorrect including foundation date, parent company and the nature of fires etc. The version I have reverted to does require some improvement. Of more econcern was the nature of the description of the company introduced by that edit. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Foundation date should reflect the date operations commenced, not what date the legal entity was registered at Companies House. It is of no relevance that the legal entity that underpins Northern that commenced trading in 2016 was registered in 2003, for LNER that commenced this year, 2003. Thus it is correct to state 2005, although admittedly the field description isn't great, 'Commenced' would be better than 'Founded'.185.201.60.15 (talk) 08:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Going forward
@185.201.60.15. Thankyou for your recent edits which have incorporated some content missed from edit oldid=857547164 and applied some technical corrections. You have access to better resources than I. In view of these cites it is my opinion it is currently better your version stands, and I certainly don't want an edit war. I have some interest in this article as it was previously deleted at an AfD. I initially created a redirect to a section on the UKRL article and subsequently expanded out to a full article. I would not confess to being the greatest editor and have a number of flaws, however I do have a number of comments (some of which would apply to my own contributions to articles I have written): Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd comment the consolidation of everything into a 'History' section seems a backward sense. If I came to the article I want to know what ROG is about and history timeline doesn't work for me.
 * The changes to the 'lede' does not give a idea of what the company is about to the casual reader. Really something covering the breadth of vimeo.com/266396828 (But that is a primary resource).  So I prefer the previous lede.  Edging towards somewhat more encyclopedic and prose and less listing fact.
 * We've lost about class 56 hires. Probably the relevant cite never made it from the UKRL page.
 * I want a bit more emphasis on translator vehicles and characteristics and disadvantages. We've lost that a little in the restructure.
 * The image and caption on the needs to be about rail operations group and not over describing the image which can be fully described on commons and clicking the image through to the commons will describe it fully. It's not about a link to Old Oak Common.  A crop of the 'Rail operations group' casting from the front of the '37 might work well with another image moved to a thumbnail.  A picture of an M.U. hauled by a locomotive might be ore indicative of R.O.G.
 * I'll remove the NR identifier from the infobox as I'm not going to try to back it up.
 * Moving Livery to it's own section would be good at some point.
 * The difference between ownership and long terms hires needs to be carefully considered. My understanding is two of the 37s and leased from UKRL, others from europhoenix.  Unsure if UKRL owns any 37s ... but AFAIK owns the 47s.  www.europhoenix.eu/fleet.php is somewhat useful but out of date.  In general it seems ROG hires 37s through Europhoenix whilst (UKRL directly owns 37905/6 AFIAK).  I understand ROG owns its class 47s.

New dedicated page for Orion?
With the rise of the logistics sector of ROG over the next few years would it be wise to create a new Wiki page dedicated for the sub-brand Orion? Might make it easier to separate rolling stock movements from logistics. Is Orion a TOC/Freight company? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxopolitan (talk • contribs) 15:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)