Template talk:British TOCs/Archive 3

Pipe Dreams
After November, the "future operators" box will become pretty much empty. I propose that the proposed open access operators, such as Grand Union, Glasgow and City etc. are reinstated onto that template. After all, they are now the next expected developments,even if they have not been developed that much. Dewarw 15:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the future operators box should be seperated out into a new template, with Grand Union etc. This is because it could be several years before these ever start operations, so grouping them with the current operators is not appropriate at this time. --Jorvik 17:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, when should this be done? Dewarw 17:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * How about 11th November, when the new franchises begin and the box would otherwise empty. I've started a draft which can be found below. Feel free to discuss, suggest modifications etc.

--Jorvik 18:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Are companies that merely want to run open-access operators (but have yet to receive permission to do so) notable enough to be described as ‘future’ operators and linked on the page for every train operating company? David Arthur 18:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Under this proposal they wouldn't appear on every train operating comapny page, however I agree with what you are saying. So, the title could be changed to "Proposed train operating companies in the United Kingdom", and Wrexham & Shropshire switched to the main template with a footnote. --Jorvik 18:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds reasonable — I do think Wrexham & Shropshire belong more with the operating train companies than with these speculative ventures. David Arthur 19:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I fully support this. Looks good! Dewarw 20:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks as though Glasgow Trains is the next one that has a chance of going through now. Although i'm not sure if their application has been approved, it looks as though they are applying for trains and looking into operations according to their parent company. I suppose i should add this to the main Glasgow Trains page unless someone else does. Simply south 22:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * How about calling them prospective operators? David Arthur 13:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the proposal no longer involves any changes to this template, I have gone ahead and created it at Template:Prospective UK TOCs. --Jorvik 18:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

See below. Simply south 17:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Open Access
should open acsess operators be split from national?Mark999 16:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark999 (talk • contribs)


 * We've got Grand Central coming soon, Hull Trains and Heathrow Express already - I'm not sure its a useful distinction though. Other peoples thoughts ? Pickle 17:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No, keep it simple. People will not care whether they are "open access." If necessary add an asterisk and a footnote etc. Remember, if they are open access they are still "National." Splitting is not a good idea. Dewarw 17:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

WSMR
Wrexham and Shropshire received their final approval today from the ORR and have announced that they will start operating from Spring 2008. I have adjusted the template accordingly Hammersfan 03/09/07, 16.14 BST —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammersfan (talk • contribs) 15:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Merger Proposal
I was thinking: there are very few ways in which Wiki users can get to the pages of the "pipe dreams (Grand Union, for example)."

Would not it be better if the "possible future franchises" are moved onto the main TOC template.

This would result in more people finding/being able to find these small companies.

No designs would have to be changed, just the templates merged.

Please show your support/ say that the idea is not good. Thanks, Dewarw 16:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure at the moment. Just a note but from above are you proposing prospective UK TOCs be merged here? Whereas the merger template is showing this template be merged into the prospective template. Simply south 17:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a single link on this template to a page (or category) listing the proposed operators, but I don’t think they’re anywhere near notable enough to merit individual inclusion on every train operating company’s page. David Arthur 17:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't believe the future companies should be moved back on to the template as discussed above, which is why a seperate template was created in the first place. If you visit my sandbox, and take a look at the second template, you'll see a possible way of linking to the proposed operators from this template. --Jorvik 21:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with the idea of a merger. However, I've looked at Jorvik's sandbox I must say that I do like the second version.  The current template, with its two separate boxes, is really messy and horrible.  I don't think it's necessary to include the far-fetched pipe-dreams on the main template.  --RFBailey 00:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If we do go with Jorvik idea 2, how will it be edited when there is a new company to replace one just finishing? Will it go in scheduled? Simply south 10:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it would be better to rename that section as "forthcoming" rather than "scheduled", which is a potentially confusing term when applied to train operators. When a replacement franchise is confirmed, yes, it can be added to that section.  --RFBailey 12:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but how about including a link with the pipe dreams. My main concern here is that there are not enough links to them- even if they are not notable enough to appear on the main template. And I like the new design. Dewarw 12:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Where do you mean about including a link? There is a link to "prospective" operators at the top, just under the title bar.  (Maybe this could be made a bit bigger!)  --RFBailey 12:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I mean including a link on the Uk TOCs template to the Possible TOCs template. Sorry, for not making myself clear enough. Dewarw 15:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's what I thought--as I say, Jorvik's template includes such a link. --RFBailey 16:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this any better?

--Jorvik 17:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes! Completely understand (I was not talking about the newly designed one, but the current one!). I like the new one and fully support it. Dewarw 17:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK: let's wait for the franchise changeover date, then implement it. --RFBailey 19:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Since there is so much empty space in the ‘Forthcoming’ row, couldn’t the start dates be put in brackets immediately after the name rather than as footnotes? For that matter, the same could even be done with the sub-brands. David Arthur 19:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Possibly. Actually, I don't think it's necessary to have the footnotes on the "Sub-brands" line at all, but that's an old chestnut I don't want to revisit!  --RFBailey 20:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Given all the debate there was about the legitimacy of having the "pipe dreams" on the main template, I certainly think they should not be included directly, but having a link to their own template is a good idea. As regards the footnotes, I think it is worthwhile having a reference to who the actual operators of these services are. As for the layout, as long as it is clear, I have no real view how it actually looks Hammersfan 23/10/07, 10.52 BST
 * One other thing - to avoid any of the previous "unpleasantness" in regards to NIR and Enterprise, we need a note saying that they both operate on the Irish network Hammersfan 23/10/07, 10.55 BST

I suppose i shouldn't ask if the template should have a further section on open-acess operators, currently there are 1/2/3 (Hull Trains only/Hull Trains + Heathrow Express (or was it Connect?)/Hull Trains + Heathrow + WSMR). Simply south 10:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think a further section is neccessery. See other peoples views above, under the heading Open Access. Remember, this is a navigational template, designed to help people move around the different TOC articles. Detailed information such as whether it is a franchise or open-access (and perhaps even start dates etc.) should be explained in the articles. --Jorvik 11:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly--this is a navigational template; it's not supposed to be the definitive source on all information about train operators. Explanation of who owns what, how they're franchised (e.g. does Heathrow Connect count as open-access or not?), where they operate, etc., is best given in articles, not on a navigational template.  Regarding the "Irish problem", maybe have separate sections for GB and NI.  (I'm not keen of having too many footnotes.)  --RFBailey 12:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure a new section would work under both the current and new arrangement. Enterprise would still have to be put under international and that would leave Northern Ireland Railways in the Irish railways section alone, unless Enterprise was put in both. But then again with Enterprise arranged like that, maybe it could. Hard to tell. Simply south 13:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Assuming dates were excluded, then there should be five footnotes:
 * First ScotRail (operator of Caledonian Sleeper)
 * First Great Western (operator of Night Riviera)
 * 'one' (operator of Stansted Express)
 * South West Trains (operator of Island Line)
 * The Irish rail network note for NIR and Enterprise.
 * I don't think there should be seperate GB and NI sections, because, in my view anyway, Enterprise should be counted as an international operator alongside Eurostar, and I don't believe NIR should be treated differently from the other national operators, because it is merely a template showing passenger train operators. Mind you, there will be another operator added to the sub-brands section come next June, when Gatwick Express is merged into Southern. It's a tricky one. Perhaps it would be better to leave off footnotes about who the operators are...however, I am completely convinced that we should not split it into GB and NI, but that we need to make clear that both NIR and Enterprise operate on the Irish network. If we are to cut down on footnotes, then that is the one I would be adamant about keeping Hammersfan, 23/10/07, 16.03 BST

A little rejigging and this is what I come up with. Hammersfan 23/10/07, 16.07 BST

How about links from the Defunct & Prospective TOCs templates to this template (and the other corresponding template)? Dewarw 19:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That seems the logical thing to do. It can be done now, or we can wait until November 11th, for consistency purposes. --Jorvik 19:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. When the new template goes online, it will be possible to exchange between all of the templates easily! Dewarw 20:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As everyone seems to be agreed, why wait until November? Hammersfan 24/10/07, 22.34 BST


 * It has been done. A minor point, but the symbol associated with Current on each template is the opposite to the other link, which in timeline terms could be potentially confusing. See the templates (Defunct, Prospective) to understand my point. If anyone knows of a more appropriate symbol for Current, then please suggest it. --Jorvik 21:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have two suggestions:
 * 1. On the "Defunct" template, have one right-facing arrow for the link to "Current", and two arrows for the link to "Prospective" (with the same in reverse on the "Prospective" template).
 * 2. No symbol at all (it's only a decoration, after all).
 * --RFBailey 22:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't the defunct link be removed from prospective template and vice versa (and symbols of course)? It would make sense so to show past, present and future. Therefore current will only be present on defunct and prospective, and these only on the current. But if not, that is okay too. Simply south 22:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Prospective new Defunct TOCs Template
Please see Template talk:Defunct UK TOCs here. Dewarw 19:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

London Midland Sub-brands
I have just noticed that London Midland has sub-brands(Express and City), so I have created pages for them. Please help me add to them and get them up to scratch. Thanks, Dewarw 17:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing with this is we don't know yet exactly what London Midland's plans are, because they haven't started yet. I think it would be better to wait a while before creating pages for the two sub-brands until it's actually clear what they're going to do. The same goes for the sub-brands of East Midlands Trains. In which case it might be better to redirect these pages (removing anything relevant to the main article) back to the London Midland page. Hammersfan 25/10/07, 18.46 BST


 * Okay, I will re-direct the sub-brand pages for the other operators (Esat Midlands etc.). Dewarw 17:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

When the sub-brands are just the name of the company with an extra word attached, I don’t think a separate link or page is really merited. After all, it isn’t obvious that a train marked ‘Stansted Express’ is really part of one, but I don’t think anyone will have trouble working out that London Midland Express is part of London Midland. David Arthur 14:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but if the sub-brands become as notable as Central Citylink (which is notable enough for its own page) then we could. Dewarw 17:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This should really be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways, as it doesn't directly relate to the template. --Jorvik 17:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've copied it over to there. --RFBailey 11:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

National Express East Coast
That is a funny name for a train company! Does anybody know a source for the actual operational name yet, or are NE just going to spring it on us in a few weeks? Dewarw 13:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * On their website, they mention they are called National Express East Coast, or NXEC. It might be possible also for them to be named InterCity East Coast, after the franchise but the former(s) seem more probable. Simply south 14:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Everything they’ve said suggests they really will use National Express East Coast; I think the idea is to create a brand identity parallel to First Great Western, First ScotRail, and so on, so that people associate all future National Express TOCs with each other. David Arthur 14:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Further to this, the DfT keep referring to the train company as NXEC. Stock market document as example. Simply south 14:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

But normally, Nat Ex do not do such a thing:


 * Central Trains (not National Express Central)
 * Silverlink
 * Wessex Trains (not Nat. Exp. West of England)

See what I mean, the name NXEC just sounds clumsy, unrealistic and different to what they have done in the past! Dewarw 15:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I know. They didn't do that with WAGN either. Why is NXEC clumsy and unrealistic? Many companies like the example i have just given have shorthands of their names (and don't forget GNER).


 * It may be East Coast only but i don't know (yet). Simply south 15:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess the best thing to do is wait until they start running. Hammersfan 28/10/07, 19.13 GMT —Preceding comment was added at 19:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It’s definitely a change of policy — I believe they want to move towards emphasising the unity of National Express Trains, rather than giving each company its own independent identity. David Arthur 19:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a shame. That was the one thing I liked about National Express. I hate it when big companies throw their name around. I feel that it should just be:


 * Great Western
 * ScotRail
 * TransPennineExpress
 * Capital Connect (or actually "Thameslink"!)
 * WelchRail (I am pleased that it is not "Arriva Cross Country," though)

etc. But of course, it not my place to say is it?! Dewarw 21:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (Not all of FCC was originally Thameslink, you know). It will be announced in December so just watch this space. Simply south 22:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed — it would have seriously diluted the Thameslink name if First had applied it to the Great Northern services while they remained separate. David Arthur 22:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Timeline name
This is a bit of a continuation of the merger\reform discussion name. There is now defunct and prospective templates (not in the ultra-literal sense of course). So should this one be renamed either Template:Current UK TOCs, Template:Current and Scheduled UK TOCs or something in-line with the other two? Or should this be left with the current name? Simply south 22:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The title already identifies it as containing current operators — renaming the template itself isn’t really necessary, since the template name isn’t shown to readers. David Arthur 15:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Template Merger
I think that the prospective/current/future templates should be put next to each other in the same way that we had the Current and Upcoming together.

This will allow Wiki users to navigate from any TOC past, present or future to any other with just one click.

This is a "sort of" merger, but there would be three boxes in the one template.

What do others think? Too complicated? Unnecessary? Too big? Dewarw 16:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Haven't we already discussed this? Simply south 17:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose, definitely. There’s no way either the prospective or even the former companies are important enough to put huge boxes about them on the page of every current railway operator. A single link is more than enough. David Arthur 17:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with David Arthur, I think we have discussed this already, and the idea would be too big and unnecessary. --RFBailey 04:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm with that view - there are a load of operators on this template already, and adding a load more would make it very unwieldy. Besides which, there has been a debate already about the so-called "pipe dreams" (i.e. the prospective operators that are in the pipeline but are no more than proposals as yet) and whether they should be included. Hammersfan 31/10/07, 11.58 GMT