Template talk:Current UK TOCs/Archive 1

Division

Is there any reason that the franchises are arranged as they are? There seems to be some bias in terms of the London and South Eastern section - it could be seen to imply that thats the only places where these operators are - should South West trains be here?

Also is this being undermined by the move to multi service level franchises? Should the new Great Western franchise be listed as an InterCity operator given the scale of local services it will have inherited? Ian3055 23:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Would London Commuter be a better title - and for Greater Western, when First Group make up their mind about the sector names we might not have a problem - I know the original idea was 'First Great Western Express' for the current FGW, 'Great Western Link' remaining as is, and 'Great Western Local' for Wessex. Still leaves the problem of where to put 'one' Enotayokel 12:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Without knowing the franchise map like the back of my hand, the particular one which causes me problems is Chiltern, it strikes me that their business is going to be pretty well spread across their route London-Birmingham-Kidderminster/Malvern. I dont know what the answer is just the the current is a bit misleading. Ian3055 20:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Why is 'one' in that list three times? And why is Virgin, which is two franchises, only represented once? And if 'one' is listed under the same name twice, why not FGW under two different names (FGW and FGW Local)? bz2 20:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

British or UK

Now that the train operators in Northern Ireland have been added should the title of the template not be Trains Operators in the UK, not British train operators? --Achmelvic 23:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Iarnród Éireann/Irish Rail

I think it is somewhat questionable that this entry should be in the template as Iarnród Éireann/Irish Rail services within the United Kingdom, i.e. Northern Ireland, are offered jointly (Enterprise) with Northern Ireland Railways rather than exclusively by Iarnród Éireann/Irish Rail?

Djegan 20:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

DART certainly has no place here, and I think Iarnród Éireann’s operations in the U.K. are adequately covered by the Enterprise link in the International section. David Arthur 22:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Railtour operators

There's been some reverting back and forth over the inclusion of railtour operators, so we'd better reach some sort of conclusion over them. Should they be listed in this template? If so, someone better write some decent articles on them. bz2 21:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I must say I can’t really see any great justification for them to be included, since they aren’t really part of the serious railway system or committed to long-term operations. This template seems to have gone a bit critical in the past few days; I think it’s really a bit excessive to mark open-access operators on the template, since it doesn’t affect their service from a passenger’s point of view and is explained in the articles. David Arthur 22:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Template redesign

This template is getting rather unwieldy, and will only become more so with the coming reorganisation of the railway franchises, since First Great Western will be operating in three separate categories (four if you count Heathrow Connect as an airport service). I also think that the details on which are, for example, open-access and government-owned railways do not belong on the template; indicating the sorts of services that companies provide seems useful, but beyond that, the template’s function is to list the companies, while their respective articles give the more involved information.

I also wonder whether Grand Central should in fact be listed, since at present they only have provisional approval, which remains subject to discussions between their managers, the Office of Rail Regulation, and other train operating companies using the East Coast Main Line. What are other people’s views?

This is my proposal for the new template for after 1st April; does anyone have any comments? David Arthur 23:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

My impression is that it's a lot more crowded and difficult to read, and so it's not really an improvement over how the existing template would be post-changes. --Fuzzie (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say its more difficult to read too. Part of the solution to this maybe to only include operators which are actually running services at any given time, all these forthcoming operators are just getting in the way. The other major problem we have to get over is the division of franchises, First Great Western provides an immediate problem, but with the forthcoming changes to the map its going to get ever more difficult.

London and South Eastern has to go in my view, really it is just a subset of Regional, but with an incredible London POV, IMHO. Can we really put Chiltern and Silverlink in that section when they take up parts of the Central franchise? There must be some sensible way to organise these - thinking cap time. Ian3055 00:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

By the time Central gets axed, the only London suburban operators will be pretty much Southern and c2c. All the others will have significant long-distance offerings. What about just splitting out the airport and intercity operators (Virgin, FGW, GNER, TPX, Hull and MML), lumping the rest (including FGW local) into a 'regional' or 'local' group? Oh, and Grand Central and the railtour operators can go. What about this? bz2 12:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

One thing that has always struck me is if First TransPennine should really be classed as an intercity operator as much as they market it as one. I've always viewed it as an inter-regional service and not actually more high profile than say Scotrail or Central's express routes, after all the rolling stock used is no more impressive, and Scotrail's sleeper service is often classed as intercity. Plenty of other examples of the problem with classifying into the current structure exist, such as SWT services to Exeter or Southern's express trains to Brighton which would surely be called intercity if were not in the south-east. And since Greater Western is going to include both intercity and local services in the same way that ONE/Anglia already does maybe we should just have a simple list of all TOCs plus international and airport links like this? --Achmelvic 14:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. We might as well restore the split between government-run and open access... there's tonnes of space for footnotes. Also, "London airport links" (single capital) looks better, IMO. bz2 14:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That looks great. --Fuzzie (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That looks nice, except that I would remove the 'not franchised' note - I don't think it really contributes enough to the template to justify the extra space it uses. David Arthur 17:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That version as it is looks great, there is no need to separate them any further, the numbers of franchises are falling anyway. All I'd say is re the airport links section, should we illiminate the word "London" so as to make provision for any other services? And do we want to include parts of franchised operators separately in the airport section (eg one Stansted or Gatwick Express if its merged into Southern)? But yes, this is a vast improvement. Ian3055 17:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I would list the airport links separately only if they are at least branded separately, if not actually separate companies/franchises; even one’s Stansted Express seems a bit borderline to me. David Arthur 19:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Happy that people like my attempt at the template here, have tweaked it a bit. How abouts we go with it after 1st April once the franchise changes have happened? --Achmelvic 10:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd definatly agree that something needs to be done to make the template both simpler and also less open to change, ie so we don't get the situation that have had in the last fortnight or so of it changing almost every few hours, esp as it now appears to have railtour operators included! As it seems that there are enough ppl to keep it up-to-date anyway I'd agree should only include companies actually running trains at that moment, so for dates like 1st April when which franchises change (which don't happen very often anyhow) it can be changed then. Whilst London and South-East does carry much more passenger traffic than rest of the UK, as has been mentioned, the divisions that are used will increasingly become useless for classifying companies. Afterall they are a hangover from the time of the BR sectors which were used for privatisation. --Achmelvic 00:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

Regarding the current revert war, I can understand the reasoning behind removing Northern Ireland Railways and as a consiquence Enterprise (train). As the template is currently based it s clearly a "Train Operating Company" rationalisation and this terminology is only applicable to the post-privatised companies (of British Rail) and not Northern Ireland which is still public and unfranchised and has a distinct system. Category:Post-privatisation British railway companies has about as much relevence to Northern Ireland as Category:Transportation companies of Ireland has to Britain.

Djegan 14:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

And in case anyone doesn't know, not only are they regulated separately, they are of different gauges and there are a multitude of other differences. It therefore makes more sense to talk of the British system and an Irish system. If you want a template, put NIR in a template with Iarnród Éireann and Enterprise. — Dunc|☺ 19:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I’m inclined to agree to the separation — though in terms of national boundaries Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, as far as the railways go, the systems are British and Irish, and it only confuses things if Wikipedia treats them as a combined unit. David Arthur 21:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Compromise

As a compromise, I have seperated the GB and NI services on the template. That way, all views are maintained equally - NIR and Enterprise remain on the template (which I think they should), while staying seperate from the GB companies. However, it should be noted that there are a handful of individual branded services listed (Eurostar, Enterprise, Stansted Express) which are owned by other companies and, as such, the two Sleeper services (Caledonian Sleeper, Night Riviera) should also be included. Hammersfan 23.25 BST, 29 March 2006

The problem with putting this template in NIR and Enterprise articles is that it assigns Category:Post-privatisation British railway companies to every article that it is placed in and this category is irrelevent (for reasons explained under Northern Ireland above) to those two articles. Djegan 22:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered simply removing the categorisation from the template and adding the category to the individual articles? Seems like a logical thing to me Hammersfan 09.10 BST, 30/03/06

Firstly, I have added Category:Post-privatisation British railway companies individually to the relevant articles and removed it from the template, which therefore means that the template can now be added to the NIR and Enterprise pages without adding them to the category. However, I have also noted that someone has added Iarnród Éireann to the template. This is incorrect, as IE's only operation in the UK is Enterprise, in conjunction with NIR. Enterprise should be treated the same as Eurostar - that is a train service operated by three companies (LCR, SNCF and SNCB). If Iarnród Éireann is to be on the template, perhaps SNCF and SNCB should be too? Of course they shouldn't, because they aren't British, and neither should IE, because it isn't a British company. Therefore, IE should be removed and just Enterprise listed. Also, someone has rearranged the Stansted Express as one (Stansted Express). If this is acceptable, then why not under the sleeper category First ScotRail (Caledonian Sleeper) and First Great Western (Night Riviera)? Hammersfan 09.35 BST, 30/03/06

To take both this discussion and the one above about template redesign into account how about this layout here as a compromise for both? Have to wait until Saturday (1st April) when the franchises change before using my design. --Achmelvic 08:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That looks ok, but I at least think that the intercity services (GNER, Virgin, First Great Western etc) should be split from the regional services and that Grand Central Trains should also be included (as it has been definatively announced, unlike the new franchises due for 2007). I also think it would look better if it wasn't centred. Hammersfan 15.45 BST, 30/03/06

The problem with splitting companies into types is that some belong in more than one, e.g. First Great Western (after 1st April) will be an intercity and regional and London & SouthEast operator, as one already is, so should be in all three groups, hence it'd be better to just have one group for all regular operators IMO. Also there is the arguement that First TransPennine Express doesn't run proper intercity services like, say, GNER but simply a more marketed version of the type of express services run by First Scotrail or Central, basically unlike at the time of privatisation where do you could draw the line between intercity and regional now the former BR sector operations are being broken down and re-merged. --Achmelvic 15:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget though, FGW, although all part of one company, will still have three seperate brands, which can easily be considered seperate operators. As for 'one', although all services except Stansted Express are branded simply as 'one', it would be possible to categorise their services as one (Anglia) under InterCity, one (West Anglia) under London and one (Great Eastern) under regional. I agree that First TransPennine Express is a borderline case for being classed as an InterCity service (possibly for the main reason that it doesn't use sleek fronted high speed trains :-P), but you could compare it perhaps more to Virgin Cross Country than either Central or First ScotRail, as it doesn't seem to operate any local services. Hammersfan 16.40 BST, 30/03/06

However from the announcement on their website [1] they aren't now going to go with the original idea of having three brands, from tomorrow it'll all just be First Great Western. There will be only one article for FGW so we'd have three links in different categories going to the same place, simply adding more clutter to a template that looks over burdened as it is. One only have one One website and there's only one One article on Wiki so should only have one One entry here ;-). And it'll only get worse, for example when the DfT let the proposed West Coast franchise that combines commuter services from Silverlink we'll have the same situation. I'd repeat that the idea of different categories is a leftover from the BR sector days which isn't appropriate to the system we've got today, afterall at privatisation instead of giving it more thought they simply sold off companies in the structure that was in place in at the time. If we start dividing up franchises into sub-groups it's going to become a very cumbersome template. --Achmelvic 08:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

How about then thinking outside the box - rather than the traditional categories we've been assigning (which stem from the old sectors of British Rail), why not come up with some new categories? For example:

• International: Enterprise, Eurostar
• Mainline: Chiltern, GNER, Grand Central, Hull Trains, Midland Mainline, Virgin West Coast
• Integrated: First Great Western, one
• Cross-Country: First TransPennine Express, Virgin Cross Country
• Regional: Arriva Trains Wales, Central Trains, First ScotRail, Island Line, Merseyrail, Northern Ireland Railways, Northern Rail
• London Suburban: c2c, First Capital Connect, Heathrow Connect, Silverlink, South Eastern, South West Trains, Southern
• Airport Express: Gatwick Express, Heathrow Express, Stansted Express
• Sleeper: Caledonian Sleeper, Night Riviera
  Then, as more integrated franchises are created, they can be added to the integrated category. Hammersfan 11.00 BST, 31/03/06

Fair enough with adding the template to NIR/Enterprise, I have no problem with this as long as no inappropriate/misleading categories or terminology is used. One thing I would say is that a separate Northern Ireland section maybe unnecessary and just clutter. Djegan 17:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

In that case, both NIR and Enterprise should be reinstated to the main template, but shown in such a way as to make it clear they are not part of the National Rail network; the same should go for those operators on the National Rail network that are open-access and not franchises, beyond simply putting an asterix by them. This is what I had in mind. Hammersfan 16.45 BST, 31/03/06

Whilst I'd still prefer a simpler non-divided template if we were to go with your idea I've slightly adapted your proposal here to make the layout a bit simpler and use less page space, what do people think? I wouldn't bother with the Cross Country section meself, esp as it's a repeat of entries above under Mainline, plus not sure what order the categories should be in? I think the title should make it clear that is only for scheduled service so doesn't include Railtours and in theory heritage lines etc. One problem is that people will keep editing it to what they see as the right structure, have noticed someone has already changed the 'live' version for tomorrow. Ultimatly it needs to come under the remit of the Wikiproject I proposed in the Rail operators article discussion to look into all the UK rail articles and their structure as IMHO they need to be majorily overhauled, all brought up to date and given a more logical setup but that's a much longer term concern. --Achmelvic 19:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That actually looks pretty good. On the Wikiproject idea, I think I can safely say we are in complete agreement, otherwise this whole saga will, like the river, just keep rolling along. Hammersfan 20.20 BST, 31/03/06

Latest revert war

Thanks to the latest revert war the template is even more of a fiasco than previously. Iarnród Éireann/Irish Rail has no place in the template as discussed above, nor does London and Continental Railways, SNCF or SNCB. If one anonoymous editor is messing with consensus and common sense then protection rather than compounding the fiasco is the way to go. In any case the template should be kept simple. Djegan 12:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

In that case, perhaps the anonymous editor, who ever he or she is, should think about things a bit more before simply reverting. The template does not feature train operating companies, because the majority are owned by a handful of companies, or are integrated franchises covering more than one sector. What in fact are listed are brands - Virgin Trains is a brand, First Great Western is a brand, one Railway is a brand, GNER is a brand. The "individual train services" that our anonymous reverter seems to have a beef about are also seperate brands - operated by TOCs yes, but branded seperately, and, as such, provided that there is an explanation that they are operated by FGW, one Railway or whoever, should be individually included on the template. That way, we prevent single articles being listed in multiple categories, as we have with FGW (four times) and one Railway (three times). Surely that's better? Hammersfan 20.15 BST, 02/04/06

Exactly, we have to stick to brands to a big extent and not start listing owners/operators. After all Virgin Trains is partly made up of Virgin Cross Country which is officially Cross-Country Trains which is owned by Virgin Group and Stagecoach Group, but passengers (oh sorry customers) just know it as VT. Where would we stop? The template as it is now seems the best compromise that we'll get. I'm starting to think we should add a big line at the top asking people not to edit it without discussing reasons here first otherwise we'll just be going round in circle every few hours! --Achmelvic 19:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. Actually, I'm glad you brought up Virgin Trains, as I had a thought about that - seeing as Virgin operates two franchises under a single brand name, wouldn't it be more logical to include it in the "integrated" category? (even though it strictly isn't an integrated franchise) Hammersfan 11.55 BST, 03/03/06.

The current version of the template is realy messed up! It's titled 'train operating companies' and includes several individual trains that are operated by companies wich are listed as well. There should be no trains only companies.

Since when are sleepers train operating companies?

And since when is it the task of templates to explain to us the differences between the legal frameworks under which various companies operate, or their ownership structures? My recommendation: get rid of the sleepers; move Northern Ireland to a separate template for the Irish network, since the railway boundaries are different from the national ones; move Eurostar back into InterCity (sorry, ‘Express’) since that leaves it the only entry in ‘International’; remove Grand Central until they start actually operating trains; and eliminate the footnotes. David Arthur 23:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I Agree I will remove all individual train wich belong them selves to train companies and remove NIR. Plus i would suggest to rename 'London & suburban' since Southern, South West Train & Southeastern are more than just suburban Operators.

Delete this template

This is getting us nowhere; nobody is ever going to agree to anything regarding this template, because people are not willing to compromise, discuss, agree, with the cosequence that we end up with the farce of having three foreign rail companies listed with the UK (not, I hasten to add for the benefit of certain people who won't take no for an answer, British) operators. I say we just delete this template and start all over again with an agreed set of ground rules that people stick to. Hammersfan 11.25 BST, 04/04/06.

To be honest I'm coming to the same conclusion, this is just getting annoying, dull and repetative. How abouts we just don't have a template and simply use categories which certain companies/services can be added to like Current Railway Passenger Operators in the United Kingdom, Current Railway Passenger Operators in Great Britain and Current Railway Passenger Operators in Northern Ireland? --Achmelvic 12:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that's probably the best idea - having a "current UK passenger operators" category means that "certain" people can't keep complaining. Hammersfan 14.15 BST, 04/04/06

Yes this current version is past its used by date. How about listing all operators as listen on the national rail website [[2]] and then grouping them. On way of grouping could be by type, franchise, open access operator, etc.

Certainly it appears to be going towards a deletion as the refuseniks will not accept that the template should be a series of brands/services and not companies — their not willing to discuss and only do unilateralism. Iarnród Éireann/Irish Rail keeps going back in when it has no business in the template as discussed previous. Djegan 18:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

TfD

As putting the {{db}} tag on this template marked all the articles it was included in for speedy deletion I have removed it - I also disagree that it should be deleted. Instead I have nomianted it at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. Thryduulf 22:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

Now that things seemed to have calmed down a bit, I suggest the following version:

The rationale behind this version goes like this:

• Upon the privatisation of British Rail, there were clearly three types of franchise: InterCity, London & South East (i.e. the old Network SouthEast) and Regional. Nowadays, it is much less clear cut, especially with the creation of 'one' and the new First Great Western franchise (which was formed from one of each of the three types!). It's only going to get worse, with the creation of the new West Midlands franchise etc. I have therefore grouped all of them together as "Domestic" operators.

• Grand Central Trains doesn't need to be there, as (as far as I know) it's still not 100% clear that they will be operating services at all. If (and when) they do, they can be added into the table.

• Stansted Express doesn't exist as (and is not branded as) a separate operator, it's part of the 'one' franchise.

• While it is true that Eurostar has three shareholders (Eurostar UK, SNCF and SNCB), the three don't need to be mentioned individually on the template, as its ownership is explained clearly in the Eurostar article.

• The same can be said about the joint IE/NIR Enterprise service.

• Complications over which operators are franchised and which are not can be better described in the articles themselves, not on the template. After all, people who are not experts in the precise workings of the railway industry won't know what this means anyway (and we need to remember that such people may be reading these articles!).

As you can see, I've added a bit of colour. Also, if someone could explain what's wrong with the line spacing in the first box, that would be good.

On some other pages, such as here and here, there's a mention of a possible UK Railways WikiProject. I'm willing to support this. --RFBailey 20:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Achmelvic's version

Aye I've been avoiding this template for a week or so since it was just getting silly and very annoying that was constantly changing. Whilst I'd still prefer not to have a division between GB and NI I quite like your proposal, tis kinda like my one here. One change that I'd make it to have the title making it clear that this simply for current (ie not Grand Central) scheduled (ie not railtours) operating companies (not owners or seperate services), so I'd try like this (I've removed the spaces before and after the breaks that seems to have fixed the strange line gaps):

The only problem is that if that last month or so is anything to go by if you change it to this template certain people will just change it back again and reinclude all the pointless information, call me a cynic.

Also I have started a Wikiproject for UK railways at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways, it needs lots of stuff doing on it so please do join up. --Achmelvic 08:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If one of the above proposals were adopted, then it would probably be better to name it as something like "UK TOCs" rather than "British TOCs" - that way, people would not be able to complain about NIR and Enterprise being included with all of the operators on the British mainland. Two other points: I think Grand Central should be included, with a note to say when they start running, as they have been given the official go-ahead from the ORR to start operating. This shows that they have begun the final preparation work to begin running services from January. A final point is that I still maintain that all seperately branded services should be included; this includes Stansted Express, Caledonian Sleeper and Night Riviera. I realise that these are not train operators in their own right, and yet people seem to be forgetting that most of the operators on the list are owned by a handful of companies - First Group, GoVia, National Express, Stagecoach and Virgin own the bulk of train operators, operating under different brand names. Why not then these individual services, which are, IMHO, pretty unique in the UK and deserve to be mentioned. Hammersfan 11/04/06, 13.25 BST

Hammersfan's version

Both of these proposed templates are quite good, the current template is cluttered with details on franchises, etc. Regarding unilateral reversions, if it happens again then its time to ask for a the template to be protected rather than surrendering to one or two editors whos ideas are isolated and are not willing to listen to consenus or discuss. Djegan 12:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thryduulf's tweaked version

I like the one above, but I've changed the line breaks and added a Notes title as below:

The only thing with this is that it looks a bit crowded, but I don't know how to fix that. Thryduulf 14:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid it will look crowded, for the simple reason that there are so many different operators. Hammersfan 11/04/06, 16.50 BST

I don't think it's all that crowded (for a really crowded template, look at this for instance!). I still think it would be better to separate out Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as the two have completely distinct railway systems. I'm not convinced about the inclusion of the sleepers either: as is made obvious by how they've been named in the above, they're clearly operated by First Great Western and First ScotRail! That said, they are a special kind of operation, so I suppose they could stay.

Stansted Express is a funny one; it does have its own website [3], which has prominent links to Gatwick Express and Heathrow Express (although that may be down to BAA's influence). I might pop into Liverpool Street (it's on my way home) to try and get an impression of how distinct it is.

I'm still not convinced that Grand Central should be included straight away either. Having found this document on the Office of Rail Regulation website, I'm now persuaded that their services will happen, but until they actually start they don't really need to be there. That said, if it is to remain, I'd make a stylistic change just to put the "Notes" in a single bar across the bottom. --RFBailey 16:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right about BAA having influence as regards the seperate branding of Stansted Express, and how it links to both Gatwick and Heathrow Express. I've travelled on the Stansted Express several times, and it does have its own dedicated platforms and ticket areas at Liverpool Street, just as the other two do at Victoria and Paddington. I've put the names of the operators with the sleepers because I think it does need to be made clear that they are services, not operators, the same with Stansted Express. But, just like there should be a seperate section for the dedicated airport express links, there should also be a seperate section for the dedicated sleeper services. As for Grand Central, I will say that this template did, for a long time, and before this whole conflagration started, that the new operators which started on April 1st (First Capital Connect and Southeastern) were included alongside the operators they replaced, with notes to say so. As a consequence, I think it should remain on the template, simply because it is a train operator. It just hasn't started running yet. Hammersfan 11/04/06, 20.00 BST

I don't see the problem with having an operator that doesn't run any services yet. As you say, it is an operator. But by the same reasoning, I think the sleepers should be removed - they aren't operators. JPD (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes with Grand Central Trains its just a thing conncerning the titeling. Sleepers and airpot trains shold not be listed since they are clearly not operator and are in contradiction to the title. Otherwise there could be a dozen other onse that are added. This would just make the template messy. And Anyway its not about trains, its about operators.

(unsigned comment left by 88.134.110.40, 05:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC))

If we are only listing operators and not services and not splitting into service type then there is no reason why Heathrow Express and Gatwick Express should be separated out - and where does Heathrow Connect fit? The only separation of operators that makes sense is franchised vs open access. Thryduulf 08:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I accept that Grand Central can be included. But as Thryduulf says, if the template is listing operators, not services, we don't need to separately label the airport operators, or include the sleepers. But I don't think that we should label franchised/open-access operators in the template: that's too much information, and it can be better explained in the articles, not in the template. --RFBailey 09:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: sleepers (I know I keep coming back to it) - if the rationale is going to be operators and not services, then both Eurostar and Enterprise should also be removed, as they are both services run by train operators (NIR and IE for Enterprise, Eurostar UK, SNCF and SNCB for Eurostar). I think, given the special nature of these services, they have a right to be included seperately, as do the three airport express services, given the nature of where they go and what they do. I wouldn't include Heathrow Connect in the airport links because it is a stopping service - the express trains go straight through from their termini to their airports.Hammersfan 12/04/06, 12.35 BST

Just to be picky though Standard Express services do not simply go between Liverpool St and the airport, they all call at Tottenham Hale and either Bishops Stortford or Harlow Town. --Achmelvic 12:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I knew they stopped at Tottenham Hale (after all, Liverpool Street is in the back of beyond as regards connections into central London), but I thought the only other stop was Stansted Mountfichet, the last before Stansted Airport, and even then it was only like every third train that stops there. Hammersfan 12/04/06, 13.30 BST

I'm just going by the timetable on the stanstead express website here if you click on the link for the full timetable. --Achmelvic 13:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep, seen it. I stand corrected. Hammersfan 12/04/06, 16.45 BST

Hammersfan's second version

OK, how about this then? I've put Heathrow Express and Gatwick Express back in with the operators, and grouped Stansted Express, the two sleepers and the two international services into a single category. Hammersfan 12/04/06, 18.35 BST

By what argument is Eurostar a ‘service’ comparable to the sleepers which ScotRail and Great Western operate? Certainly it is owned by LCR, SNCF, and SNCB, but since none of those companies operate trains in Britain under their own names, I would think Eurostar counts as a jointly-owned operator in its own right - if we were listing corporate parents rather than the companies that people actually see, then the template would list First Group, National Express Group, Stagecoach Group, Keolis, and the like. David Arthur 18:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Then why not list them like that then? I disagree about Eurostar being classed as a "jointly-owned operator in its own right" - Eurostar is owned by three train operating companies, whether they operate other services in the UK or not. As an operation, Eurostar should be classed in the same way as Enterprise. Do you believe that Enterprise should be classed as a "jointly-owned operator"? In spite of all the arguments, I believe everyone is in agreement that Enterprise is a service - its rolling stock is jointly owned by both IE and NIR, with each owning half. The same is true of Eurostar, with all three companies owning a portion of the rolling stock. And what about Stansted Express? If your rationale is that the sleepers are owned by single TOCs, then do you believe Stansted Express should also be removed? The two sleeper services are unique in the UK, there are no others, and I maintain they should be included. Yes, make the point that they are owned by FGW and First ScotRail, but they are so unlike any other of the services provided by these two operators that I believe they deserve to be listed seperately. Hammersfan 12/04/06, 21.05 BST

Sorry Hammersfan, I don't think grouping together all the anomalous ones as "services" is at all helpful. I'd rather keep Thryduulf's version than have this: at least that separated them out as to why they were anomalous.

Incidentally, as Enterprise is a joint venture between IE and NIR, so I agree that is should count as a "jointly-owned operator". --RFBailey 23:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I dislike the title "services", it says nothing about why these services are inlcuded but others like Central Train's Liverpool-Norwich services, VXC's Penzance-Scotland routes, or ATW's Holyhead-Cardiff trains are not. Perhaps two sections - "Sleeper services" and "International services" would be better? Thryduulf 23:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

All I'm trying to do is find some kind of compromise - some people don't believe that the sleepers should be included. I'm simply trying to find something acceptable for them that will see them included. I think that having the airport, international and sleeper services in seperate categories is the way to go, which is why I suggested it in the first place. Hammersfan 13/04/06, 00.15 BST

Can we at least reach some agreement?

OK, the debate has gone on for a while, but can we at least agree on something and actually do something about it? We all seem to have reached a consensus that Thryduulf's version is good, and is probably the way to go (discussions about sleepers aside). Isn't it time that we changed the template itself, because, as it is right at the moment, it is an eyesore. Hammersfan 13/04/06, 00.25 BST

(Hopefully) final proposal

All right: how about this?

It's basically Thryduulf's version, with a minor stylistic change. Unless anyone has any serious objections, I'll change the template to this version when the TfD debate finishes (which hopefully will be later today, or tomorrow). --RFBailey 16:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly what I'm thinking of. However, I think we should be careful about naming it "British TOCs". People might get less (what's a polite way of putting it) arsey if it were named something like "United Kingdom TOCs", due to the Northern Ireland operators on there. Hammersfan 13/04/06, 18.05 BST

That is good until we get agreement on sleepers, airport links, NI, etc. I've made a couple of very small stylistic changes. I've added a "Six-Per-Em Space" (a narrow space ( ), 1/6th the width of an M.) before the ‡ after Grand Central Trains. The other changes is that I've put a normal space between the symbol and explanation on the bottom row of the table. Thryduulf 18:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Thryduulf, I removed your that spacing character: it didn't render on my browser (IE6, so not something obscure) and instead showed up as a special character! --RFBailey 23:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Another case where IE is inferior to Firefox then :) Thryduulf 10:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Since wenn are Sleppers and Statsteed express train operators? Don't they contradict the template title?

(unsigned comment left by 88.134.110.46, 19:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC))

And since when have the British and Irish networks been joined? — Dunc|☺ 20:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, don't you ever quit? Is anyone here suggesting that the rail networks of Britain and Ireland are joined? As far as I can see, no one is suggesting anything of the sort. We are simply putting all of the operators of passenger trains in the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (emphasis on the Great Britain and Northern Ireland please) into the template, hence the suggestion that the template be renamed "UK TOCs". And, if you'd been following the debate (rare I know), then you'd see that we are trying to reach an agreement as to what will go on the template, including the three unique and seperately branded services that are run by other operators (which I believe are named Stansted Express and the sleepers). Hammersfan 13/04/06, 22.40 BST

No, you still haven't realised the importance of this; I have explained the differences between the networks, which consist of different ownership, regulation, gauge, history, etc, and still you insist that they are part of the same network? There is no UK network, it is a figment of your imagination. — Dunc|☺ 10:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Are the sleepers separately branded? If they are, then I approve their inclusion, but my impression was that they were run under the brands of their operating companies just like any other named train. David Arthur 22:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not clear, but including them doesn't do any harm. Re Northern Ireland, to indicate the difference between the Northern Ireland system and the rest of the UK, we could include them in a separate part of the template (as in my original proposal), but that isn't really necessary.

Caledonian Sleeper has its own rolling stock and logo, which is on the article template. Night Riviera has its own rolling stock and locomotives which are painted in the old GWR green rather than in First Group's corporate colours, to differentiate it from FGW's other services. Hammersfan 14/04/06, 14.40 BST

We do need to remember that this template is only a list of links to articles which include detailed explanations of all the issues discussed here (e.g. precise ownership, franchise status, branding, the fact that NI is separate, and so on). It's not meant to be a definite description of them all. Also, we don't need to be 100% consistent about what constitutes an 'operator', if it makes the template simpler for the reader to understand, and for the reader to navigate their way to relevant articles. We must remember that we are writing an encyclopaedia for other people to read, not just for ourselves! --RFBailey 23:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that I really agree with RFBailey and Hammersfan's positions, let's go with the template as is proposed at the moment. What's been said is exactly right, this a template for operators of scheduled passenger trains in the United Kingdom, nevermind which system they are running upon and ultimatly it's a guide for users to find the articles that will tell the full details of their ownership etc, if the articles don't then we need to update and correct them, not this template which should be a minor thing. --Achmelvic 01:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the template scholdn't have any individual services an strictly stick to train operators. Otherwise others not so familiar with the system might think they are operators themselves .

(unsigned comment left by 88.134.110.46, 04:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC))

Thryduulf's second version

This is based on RFBailey's "hopefully final version" above, but with the services clearly marked in the notes. Thryduulf 10:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I say we go with this one. It's a definite improvement on what's already there.

As for Northern Ireland, I know that Northern Ireland's railway system is very different from the rest of the UK (publicly owned, different gauge, etc.), and I know that there is no such thing as a "UK railway network", but this template isn't claiming otherwise. --RFBailey 12:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we all deserve now to sit down with a very large brandy and a cigar!! Seriously though, having finally gotten down to proper discussion about ideas, I think we've proved that consensus can be reached. At the very least, I reckon we all deserve to pat ourselves on the back for coming to an agreement that (hopefully) everyone who has contributed to the debate can, if not be happy about, then at least live with. Hammersfan 14/04/06, 14.40 BST

I've alphabetised the sleeper services above and on the live template - "First Great Western Night Rivierea" comes before "First ScotRail Caledonian Sleeper", but remove the operator names and the "Caledonian Sleeper" is before "Night Riviera". I've adjusted the notes accordingly as well. Thryduulf 13:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion

This template was previously nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 6#Template:British TOCs. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

New version implemented

As per above, I have replaced the previous version of the template with Thryduulf's second version.

I would strongly advise that if anyone disagrees with this, that they discuss it on this talk page and not make any unilateral revisions with discussing it first! Otherwise we may have to ask for it to be protected. --RFBailey 12:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The Enterprise is also a train service and schould have a 'operated by' foot note.

The Enterprise may not be british but it's still jointly operated.

The Enterprise is not British, it is Irish. Shall we go over this again? Irish gauge is 5'3", British gauge is 4'11.5", the networks are separate, they are regulated differently, use different rolling stock, have a different history. NIR was never, ever, part of British Rail. To summarise they are different. — Dunc|☺ 17:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The way the operators run , eg the gauge has nothig to do with this list, so excludig irish rail for that reason, makes no sence. This list is for the uk and that includes ni. So nir and the enterprise should be in.

Protection requested

Because it seems that not everybody is content to wait for conensus to arrise here regarding Northern Ireland, I have requested full protection (see WP:RFPP) of the template to stop the revert wars. I urge everybody to act as though this protection was already in place and discuss the Irish question instead of editing the template. Thryduulf 22:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Endorsed. --RFBailey 08:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Definatly seconded, this constant reverting when the majority of people here have reached a compromise is immature. --Achmelvic 08:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The Irish Question - What is the scope of this template?

Having read all the discussion I think the key question that it all boils down to is - what is the scope of this template?

I think most people would agree with the following

• If the template is for the whole of the UK then NIR and Enterprise should be included.
• If the template is for Great Britain then the NIR and Enterprise should not be included.
• The present name of the template ("British") is ambiguous - i.e. it could refer to either:
  • "Of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"
  • "Of Great Britain"
  • "Of the British Isles" (see the British article).

Primary argument for UK:

• The United Kingdom is a sovereign political entity and this template should include all parts of it. (Political geography)

Primary argument for GB:

• Rail transport developed separately on the Island of Ireland to GB, such that the two systems use different gauges and have never had a common operator. (Physical geography).

So we need to decide on what the scope of this template is - i.e. Great Britain or UK. To start off I suggest a straw poll - note that this is to establish consensus on what the scope will be, not what the scope currently is. Thryduulf 12:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

As an argument for the position I advocate, I'd draw people's attention to the List of companies operating trains in the United Kingdom article. Although there is a "split" suggestion there, it has been there for a month, and no one seems now to be advocating that this be separated into seperate articles for Britain and Ireland. Indeed, it seems that, given NIR and Enterprise have not been removed from there, people are happy for them to be included. Given that this template is essentially the template for that article, what's different? Hammersfan 26/04/06, 13.15 BST

Straw poll

• Users who believe the scope of this template should be the United Kingdom:

1. --Achmelvic 13:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
2. --RFBailey 14:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC) provided that it has separate sections for Great Britain and Northern Ireland (like this one did).
3. --Ian3055 20:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
4. --Hammersfan 20/04/06 09.25 BST
5. --Aquilina 11:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Users who believe the scope of this template should be Great Britain:

1. Thryduulf 12:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
2. David Arthur 13:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
3. --Fuzzie (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Grouse 19:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Gwernol 21:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Captain scarlet 08:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Yes, obviously. Common sense is a marvellous thing. — Dunc|☺ 09:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Djegan 20:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Samluke777 20:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

In order to prevent any disputes in future I suggest:

• Iff the consensus is that the scope is the United Kingdom, this template should be renamed {{UK TOCs}}
• Iff the consensus is that the scope is Great Britain, a separate {{Island of Ireland TOCs}} template should be established.

(Neither name is set in stone, they are just first suggestions) Thryduulf 12:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: There is a similar discussion going on at Template talk:UK Major Railway Stations. As a general principle, this is probably something that needs to be discussed at the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways, as to how separate we regard Northern Ireland from Great Britain as far as railways are concerned. --RFBailey 14:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Iff there are to be separate Great Britain and Island of Ireland templates then there ought to be a simple, for the x network, see Y at the bottom of each Ian3055 20:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought we'd come to an agreement on this issue. I did suggest some time ago that, as it is valid to have the NIR services listed on the template, then it should be moved to "UK TOCs". All this template is supposed to do is direct users to articles about those companies that operate passenger trains in the United Kingdom. Or are we suggesting that users of Wikipedia are so ignorant that they won't be able to tell the difference between the services on the island of Great Britain and the island of Ireland simply by reading the articles themselves? Hammersfan 20/04/06, 09:35 BST.

The edit/revert wars indicate that not everybody agrees that the template is supposed to "direct users to articles about companies that operate passenger trains in the United Kingdom". I am not assuming anything about the inteligence of anyone. Thryduulf 10:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the latest thing is seemingly all down to a single individual - those of us who participated in the discussion, to my mind at least, seemed to have reached a consensus that it was valid to have the NI services on the template. Hammersfan 20/04/06, 11.55 BST -- Also, I've just seen that a certain user who refuses to take part in the discussion has taken it upon themself to create a seperate Irish template in order to - and I quote - "removed stupid irrelevant template". I think something needs to be done about this user if they continually refuse to even take part in fair discussion and airing of other peoples views. Hammersfan 20/04/06, 13.55 BST

Clearly there is an vocal minority here, which continue to go against consensus established two years ago (see Talk:Rail_transport_in_the_United_Kingdom/Alternate_naming_schemes - in that case largely a different set of users but with the same result). Can we give it a rest now? — Dunc|☺ 15:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

We can give it a rest when a decision is reached by mutual consensus, not when one person decides that's what's going to happen. Hammersfan 20/04/06, 16.30 BST

Some of us were not around here a year ago, let alone two years ago. It would have been helpful if somebody had informed us earlier that the discussion in 2004 had ever taken place. Also, I don't like the implication that I don't have any common sense: my suggestion above was an attempt to be reasonable. It was trying to account for the facts that (i) Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and (ii) its railway network is distinct from that within the rest of UK (i.e. in Great Britain). As for being part of the "vocal minority", as the straw poll is currently 7/4 in favour of the "Great Britain" basis, it looks like that's what will be used anyway. But I wouldn't say that that basis is at all "obvious", given the reams of discussion on this page (and elsewhere). If it was obvious, there would be nothing to discuss. --RFBailey 15:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If a majority is in favour of one or other proposal (keep Irish or remove Irish), then all well and good. But arbitrary and unilateral alteration is, in my view and in this instance, unacceptable behaviour, given the amount of debate and effort that has been put in by so many people. And, for the absolute last time, no one here has ever put forward the suggestion that the railways in Great Britain and the railways in Northern Ireland are part of the same network. If you look at the relavent articles, you'll see that note is made many many times of this fact, of the fact that there are seperate gauges, and of the fact that the railways in Northern Ireland are still owned by the state. What is being stated on this template is a list of companies that operate passenger trains in the political entity that some of us call the United Kingdom. Given that many other countries have rail systems of different gauges (admittedly usually owned by the same state corporation), I think that it isn't unreasonable to include the British and Northern Ireland companies on the same template. Hammersfan 20/04/06, 17.15 BST

Am I to assume that some decision has been reached? Am I to assume that the majority of people who have meaningfully contributed to this discussion have reached a consensus over the use of the {{Irish train operators}} template so "helpfully" created by a certain user on the pages for NIR and Enterprise? Or can I just assume that this is another example of unilateral action by someone who seemingly won't stop until they get their own way? Hammersfan 21/04/06, 09.15 BST

I don't consider 7/4 consensus and was going to wait a couple of days to see if anyone else wants to express an opinion (I've left non-partisan messages on the talk pages of everyone who has commented on this page but not contributed to this discussion informing them about it). If by Sunday it is still 7/4 or even less clear then I suggest we do something else to get more attention - listing at current surveys perhaps. As for the {{Irish train operators}} template, I think creating that before the discussion is over is bordering on WP:POINT. If there is consensus for it then its a good name (or at least better than my suggestion) and so we might as well use it. If there isn't consensus for it then I suggest we just redirect it here. Thryduulf 08:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider 7/4 consensus either. As for the {{Irish train operators}} template, that may well be regarded as a useful template in its own right. Perhaps filing a request for comment or something is the way to go here. --RFBailey 18:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll go along with that. Hammersfan 22/04/06, 12.25 BST

The {{Irish train operators}} is not justifiable in itself irrespective of the outcome here. Two companies and a joint service dont make a template, it was created as an means to an end. Djegan 21:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think it does make a good navigation template - there are three clearly linked separate articles that this provides a clean and succinct navigation between. I disagree with the timing of its creation (see my earlier comment) but not with its usefullness if they aren't included on a UK template. Thryduulf 22:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The point is though that we all seem to be agreed that, even if it is warranted, it is too soon to be putting it on article pages, since no consensus has been reached about the status of the Irish operators on this template. Does anyone think it is appropriate to put the {{Irish train operators}} template on the article pages at this point? Hammersfan 22/04/06, 12.20 BST

As NIR and Enterprise are on the current live version of this template I think it would be pointless duplication. Thryduulf 12:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

In that case can someone please get through to Duncharris to stop putting this template on the NIR and Enterprise pages. Hammersfan 25/04/06, 17.40 BST

So 14-4 isn't consensus then? Give it a break, please. — Dunc|☺ 18:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Ermm unless my eyes are deceiving me the current result in the strawpoll above is 9-4! I realise that you seem to be unwilling or unable to add any constructive contributions to this discussion but surely claiming more that 50% extra votes to one side is just beyond 'common sense'. If it is the discussion that was had a few years ago about dividing the structure of articles in Railways in Ireland and Railways in Great Britain that you are talking about a result from then that is not of relevance here. As has been stated NUMEROUS times above we are talking here about THIS template NOT changing the whole structure of railway articles about the UK and Republic of Ireland, a move that no one AFAIK is advocating. --Achmelvic 20:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If the Irish template keeps being added to NIR etc, would it be better to redirect it to this template until the outcome of this discussion? If the decision is for this to be a UK template, then redirecting it here would make sense. If the decision is for GB then it can be unredirected later. Thryduulf 21:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes Hammersfan 26/04/06, 09.30 BST

No, Hammerfan's crusade is becoming tiresome. Consensus (and the bare facts) are both against him. And yes, I was counting both polls together, though 9-4 is still consensus. — Dunc|☺ 21:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of points related to this.

• The only person who appears to be on a crusade is you - everybody else is discussing things rationally.
• I don't regard 9-4 as consensus. Its a majority but not a consensus.
• The previous poll was a completely separate poll over two years ago with a different purpose. Conflating the two is misleading at best.
• Your actions have led to the page being protected. If you continue in the way you have been doing then you are heading for an RfC over your conduct. Thryduulf 09:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

About the latest comment above noting that List of companies operating trains in the United Kingdom isn't split into two articles - that article makes the split between the two very clear. I personally wouldn't be terribly unhappy about this template containing both if it made the split very clear, although it seems a little pointless. As it is, the template just mixes them up confusingly. --Fuzzie (talk) 12:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

While the article makes it clear that the two networks are seperate, it includes both NIR and Enterprise in a single list of train operating companies in the United Kingdom, which is, after all, the basis of the article and the basis of the template. Hammersfan 26/04/06, 17.05 BST

I have been advocating having both, but split into separate "Great Britain" and "Northern Ireland" sections, as a compromise. --RFBailey 13:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Aye like this:

The trouble is that we've had this version before only for certain people to start changing it....--Achmelvic 13:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

RFBailey's compromise version

I wouldn't recommend using exactly that verion, as it doesn't take into account the sleepers/airport services/Grand Central issues we discussed earlier. Instead, I suggest this:

This version is a deliberate attempt at a compromise. It has every operator in the United Kingdom, but makes it clear which operate in Great Britain and which operate in Northern Ireland. If, however, the consensus decides that this template should deal only with Great Britain, then the current version (modified 26th April) is fine. However, I am not advocating the unilateral modification of the template.

As far as this template is concerned, I'm starting to lose the will to live.... --RFBailey 22:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

And apparently I'm on a "crusade". I think we all lost the will to live a long time ago. People who are unwilling to stray even one nanometer from their entrenched position have a tendency to do that to people who are perfectly willing to accept other points of view I feel. History is strewn with the wrecks of ideas that were stamped on because people would not compromise.Hammersfan 27/04/06, 09.55 BST

I'm rapidly getting pissed off with this template as well. However I would be willing to support this compromise version as it shows everything and makes it clear that the two systems are separate. I have added a note that Enterprise is operated by NIR and IE. If there was some logical way to include Iarnród Éireann then there would be no need for the Irish Railways template, which is all-but redundant with this version of thsi template and so there would be no point in having two of them on the Enterprise and NIR articles. Thryduulf 09:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Round and round in a circle we go

Oh look someone has removed the Irish operators from this template AGAIN, hmm this isn't repeatative at all is it....and good to see (well expected) that that someone still hasn't bothered to add anything constructive to this discussion. Can somebody with powers please do something to limit or end this constant sillyness, either locking/protecting this template until some form of compromise or decision is taken by EVERYONE or limit a certain user's ability to just keep reverting it every few days. --Achmelvic 08:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I have now protected the template. I know this is bad form as I am involved in the debate but it seems to me that protection is supported by everyone who has commented on it. The one person who has necessitated the protection has not commented anywhere that I have seen.

If you feel I have acted inapropriately then put a note at WP:AN/I (and link to that discussion here) rather than unprotecting yourself. Thryduulf 09:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but protecting the page will not stop hammersfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from adding it to aricles in which is does not belong however.

Secondly, since consensus is clearly to deal with the separate British and Irish networks separately, I think you accidentally protected the wrong version. — Dunc|☺ 09:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You really don't seem to have the ability to understand anything that has been said above countless times do you. --Achmelvic 10:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) This template belongs on the articles of all the operators it includes. That currently includes Northern Ireland. The version I protected is the last version for which there was consensus. Despite the fact there is not yet consensus for whether there should be one or two templates, the discussion is not about a design of template. There is a separate discussion about a new, compromise version that I encourage you to contribute to. Thryduulf 10:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

As a compromise, I have left the {{Irish train operators}} template on the NIR and Enterprise pages alongside this one in the hope that it may be acceptable to some people and stop them simply reverting the pages. Hammersfan 27/04/06, 13.00 BST

As YET ANOTHER compromise, I have added notes to state that both NIR and Enterprise operate on the Irish network, and that the title is "Operators in Great Britain and Northern Ireland". It seems to me that people have bent over backwards to accomodate just a single person; why is it that that person refuses to compromise himself? Hammersfan 10/05/06, 18.30 BST.

Sorry, consensus seems to be that the separate networks are, well, er, separate, and should be treated as such? Why the crusade? You look in any British railway magazine, do they cover Ireland as part of the British network? — Dunc|☺ 18:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, fancy seeing you here laughing boy. What a surprise that you've yet again imposed your own will on things. Why are you so obtuse? Please tell me, no, actually show me, where any one of us on here with the exception of YOU has brought up that the two islands that make up our country have a single railway network? I'm fairly sure that it'll say "we're aware that Great Britain and Ireland have seperate railway networks; that isn't the argument we're putting forward". And, just in case this doesn't penetrate the fog, THIS MEANS WE KNOW GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND DON'T HAVE A SINGLE RAILWAY NETWORK!!!! For absolutely the last, final time, the template is to show the railway companies who operate the passenger services in the United Kingdom. That's the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in case you're feeling a little slow. And as for consensus, well, one Duncharris doesn't really make a consensus. In fact, until you started throwing your weight around over the last couple of days, we'd had a nice period of stability. It had been peaceful not to have to keep checking back to ensure that this template hadn't been vandalised. As for my "crusade", I'm fairly sure you started all of this off, so the crusade is on your head. Keep on crusading laughing boy. Hammersfan 10/05/06, 22.55 BST

NPA vios

Guys (non-gender specific): A few of you are in violation of NPA, some to a degree that might very well merit a temporary "cooling off period", i.e.,block. To wit, the following statements are utterly uncalled for, "You really don't seem to have the ability to understand anything that has been said above countless times do you","Well, fancy seeing you here laughing boy.", "Why are you so obtuse? "in case you're feeling a little slow.", "Keep on crusading laughing boy". I think everyone needs to take a deep breath, maybe have a soothing cup of tea, and come back to the article remember that personal attacks are against policy and realy serve no purpose and that just because you are frustrated goes not give you the right to behave in an obnoxious manner. Finally, rather than revel in ad hominem attacks, go after the statement, not the author. •Jim62sch• 09:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion

Right, conclusion to this silliness:

• We have voted 9-4 that NIR is not part of the British network. There is unlikely to be more people joining in in the near future.
• We have previously decided Talk:Rail transport in the United Kingdom/Alternate naming schemes at about 6-1

This is consensus. It is up to those wishing to overturn this to convince people of the worthiness of treating 1¹/₂ networks together. — Dunc|☺ 15:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• I am blown away by your arrogance. You're an administrator, so you take it upon yourself to TAKE OFF the protection this template was under in order to alter it (this dispite the fact that, given that there had been no discussion on the matter for some time, agreement already seemed to be reached on the matter), then put protection BACK ON to prevent anyone from restoring it back to a version YOU don't agree with. Go ahead and try to ban me if you like, but you are arrogance personified on this issue. Hammersfan 08/05/06, 17.10 BST

Page protection

Why is this page protected without been taggged or listed at Wikipedia:List of protected pages. Is it some sort of special case? MRSC 17:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll unprotect, especially since it is being edited anyway. Jonathunder 17:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

In that case can we now return it to the state it was before a certain person took it upon themselves to decide that the discussion was over? Hammersfan 10/05/06, 18.25 BST.

Change to GB only

Changing this template to refer to rail services in Great Britain only would be a quite simple solution to all of this. The entire topic was discussed at length some months/years back. For a start, it is impossible to divide up the history of railways in the British Isles in any fashion other than Great Britain and Ireland. I would agree that it is possible to for example, group major operators by UK and ROI, but it's probably simpler to follow the traditional division into GB and Irl. Even today there are essentially two rail networks, the one in Ireland that is 5'3" gauge, and the one in Great Britain that is 4'8.5" gauge. zoney ♣ talk 23:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I

a) hadn't realised this dispute was seemingly over (as there is still a problem on the Enterprise (train) page)

b) hadn't read the footnote "2" (operated on the Irish Rail Network).

The latter seems a sensible way to resolve the matter.

zoney ♣ talk 23:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

South Western

Should i add this to the template? This, or something similar, will be implemented in February 2007 and will combine SW trains and Island Line. Simply south 21:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going ahead. Simply south 23:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No it should not since it is a franchise and not a train operating company. Aditionaly it is of now use since the francise was awarded to south west trains and hence willnot be removed and repaced by it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.64.1.135 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC).

This is a bit of a hard choice as it is also the common name of a new TOC of the same name. Simply south 18:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get that Stagecoach is going to rebrand South West Trains into Southwestern? The article about South West Trains mentions it being the company runnig the new South Western Francise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.64.1.135 (talk • contribs)

Don't forget to sign. It's South Western, not Southwestern. I'm not sure if it is a rebranding or if it is just a replacement of the companies. Anyway, the information was obtained from the Department for Transport website and Swtrain's website amongst others. Just search for South Western. Simply south 17:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[[4]] and [[5]] both refer to South Western as the new francise and Swtrain as the company to operate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.64.1.135 (talk • contribs)

Neither of those links say what the service will be branded as - i.e. what will it say on the side of the trains? I will try and find a press contact number/email for Stagecoach and the two existing companies and see what they say. Thryduulf 09:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a shred of evidence that a train operator named South Western exists. It shouldn't be on the template. --Dtcdthingy 12:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence that anybody has presented about how new franchise will be branded: It could be "South West Trains", "South Western", "Southwestern Trains", "South Western Trains", etc everywhere. Alternatively the separate branding could remain. Until there is evidence then, as Wikipedia is not a Crystal ball, we should not be predicting anything. I've added a note to the South Western article that branding is not yet certain.

In the mean time I suggest replacing the current "Ends in February 2007" footnote with "To be replaced by the South Western franchise in February 2007" (or words to that effect). I don't have time to implement it now, but will do this evening if nobody has before then. Thryduulf 09:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay i have done that, altghough i am still sure it is "South Western Trains". Simply south 13:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs a clear, reliable source for this though. Thryduulf 15:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with the Department for Transport and Stagecoach? Simply south 17:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

They are reliable, but they aren't clear about the crucial question - how will the services be branded? See the first sentence of the First Great Western article - "First Great Western is the operating name of First Greater Western Ltd". i.e. the company running the trains now is legally a different company to that running the trains previously, but the name on the side of the trains is the same, so we have one article.

FGW's original plan was to have three brands "First Great Western" (or "First Great Western Express"), "First Great Western Local" and "First Great Western Link". If this had been implemented we would likely have had three articles. Thryduulf 18:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I possibly was imposing POV. I'm sorry. I guess it really does depend on what the common name is in the end. Actually i also see where Dtcdthingy is coming from. Strange, although these websites say that it is a brand new franchise called South Western, the current franchise is also South Western. Confusing and i am going against myself. Simply south 20:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Grand Central

It is being reported on several rail discussion boards that grand central's start date has been put back to May 2007 as they need to convert their new HST powercars to work with the Loco Hauled Mk3s they've bought - not a small job. --Enotayokel 20:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• If it is offically confirmed and cited in the artilce, then change it here. If it is just speculation then maybe change the note to "start date subject to confirmation" or something like that. We don't need it citied on the template, but it must be on the article. Thryduulf 21:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • BBC News reports 20 May 2007 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6168002.stm --Enotayokel 13:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

London Overground

I've added London Overground to the template, seeing as it's been announced as starting on 11 November 2007. I realise that that's a fair way in the future, but unless Ken has a major change of heart in the next year, it's not as if it isn't going to happen is it. Hammersfan 01.05 BST, 29/10/2006

I Agree but for the future additions should only be made if the francise is to start within the next 6 month

Well, the other new franchises won't be announced until next spring at least. London Overground is slightly different to the West Midlands, East Midlands and Cross Country franchises though. And can you please sign when you leave a comment. Hammersfan 29/10/2006, 11.55 GMT

East Midlands,West Midlands and Cross Country Franchises

is it allowed to add East Midlands Franchise,West Midlands Franchise and the Cross Country Franchises to these template bar or not as it says on the London Overground talk upper this article. meny thanks User:Jonjoe.

TransPennine Express looses the First

Its being reported on Railwayscene that First TPX will just be TPX from now on

Due to issues with Keolis, parent company in the TransPennine Express franchise with FirstGroup, the company will be known as "TransPennine Express" again from the start of the Winter franchise.

Issues at Keolis have arisen with the brand "First TransPennine Express", namely that the company is not a wholly owned subsidiary of FirstGroup plc.

To avoid any further issues, the appendage First will not appear on any literature from the start of the timetable, and all information screens will be altered as soon as possible, and announcements changed to reflect the alteration, along with the website at http://www.tpexpress.co.uk

--Enotayokel 10:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC) (forgot to do it last night)

Ah, see I hadn't heard that. In that case, maybe the article should be moved as well? Hammersfan 10/11/06, 1350 GMT

I've made a request - as there is a redirect there I can't move the page myself - if you mark approval on the talk page of the TPX article then hopefully it will speed the process up :) --Enotayokel 16:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrexham and Shropshire

The title of this template is Current scheduled passenger train operators, yet Wrexham and Shropshire had not yet been granted approval by the Office of Rail Regulation, as stated on their home page, therefore they are not a scheduled operator and should yet be included in the template. --Jorvik 22:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless we add a new section for proposed TOCs then Wrexham and Shropshire don't belong on this template until they have been given permission to operate. Thryduulf 23:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Should we add a "proposed section" then or would it be too much clutter? WSMR, Grand Central and Grand Union come to mind. Simply south 00:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Grand Central are more than just proposed, so that just leaves Grand Union and WSMR. Another possibility is to add a see-also line to former TOCs and proposed TOCs templates/articles/sections. Make a mockup for these two here, and any other options you think might work, so we can agree on what we like without edit waring over the main template as has happened in the past. Thryduulf 11:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Operators and New Franchises?

OK, how about something along these lines - given the template is simply called "British TOCs", why not put a small seperate addition with these proposed new operators underneath the main template? Thus...

Current scheduled passenger train operators in Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Domestic:	Arriva Trains Wales - c2c - Central Trains - Chiltern Railways - First Capital Connect First Great Western - First ScotRail - Grand Central1 - GNER - Heathrow Connect Hull Trains - Island Line2 - Merseyrail - Midland Mainline - Northern Rail Northern Ireland Railways3 - 'one' - Silverlink - Southeastern - Southern South West Trains2 - TransPennine Express - Virgin Trains
International:	Enterprise3 - Eurostar
Airport Link:	Gatwick Express - Heathrow Express - Stansted Express4
Sleeper:	Caledonian Sleeper5 - Night Riviera6
1 Start date subject to confirmation - 2 To be replaced by the South Western franchise in February 2007 3 Operated on the Irish railway network - 4 Operated by 'one' - 5 Operated by First ScotRail 6 Operated by First Great Western

New passenger train operators in Great Britain
New Franchises:	Cross Country1 - East Midlands1 - London Overground1 - South Western2 West Midlands1
Proposed open-access operators:	Grand Union3 - Wrexham & Shropshire4
1 Starts November 2007 - 2 Starts February 2007 - 3 Proposed - 4 Awaiting Approval

This way, it can be acknowledged that these companies do exist, without allowing people to believe they have been given the go-ahead. Hammersfan 17/11/06, 11.15 GMT

That looks good, although I think "Future" would be a better descriptor than "New". Thryduulf 00:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Also the length of the line between links and notes should all be standardised to either – (a short dash) or - (a hyphen). Unfortunately it is all-but impossible to differenciate the two in the edit window (when they are next to each other, the dash is slightly higher than the hyphen: –-), the difference between them is noticeable when rendered. At least this is the case on my system (Firefox 2.0 on Linux).

Perhaps the hyphen would be better as the mix we currently have is presumably from people assuming thats what they all are. Thryduulf 00:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a note. East Midlands, West Midlands and Cross Country are all being bidded at the same time. Simply south 14:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

As is London Overground. As regards the hyphen/dash question, I have to say that I don't actually use the selections on the website - I merely use the dash on the keyboard while typing. Hammersfan, 18/11/06 21.20 GMT

Current scheduled passenger train operators in Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Domestic:	Arriva Trains Wales - c2c - Central Trains - Chiltern Railways - First Capital Connect First Great Western - First ScotRail - Grand Central1 - GNER - Heathrow Connect Hull Trains - Island Line2 - Merseyrail - Midland Mainline - Northern Rail Northern Ireland Railways3 - 'one' - Silverlink - Southeastern - Southern South West Trains2 - TransPennine Express - Virgin Trains
International:	Enterprise3 - Eurostar
Airport Link:	Gatwick Express - Heathrow Express - Stansted Express4
Sleeper:	Caledonian Sleeper5 - Night Riviera6
1 Start date subject to confirmation - 2 To be replaced by the South Western franchise in February 2007 3 Operated on the Irish railway network - 4 Operated by 'one' - 5 Operated by First ScotRail 6 Operated by First Great Western

Future passenger train operators in Great Britain
New Franchises:	Cross Country1 - East Midlands1 - London Overground1 - South Western2 West Midlands1
Proposed open-access operators:	Grand Union3 - Wrexham & Shropshire4
1 Starts November 2007 - 2 Starts February 2007 - 3 Proposed - 4 Awaiting Approval

Apart from the dash/hyphen issue that looks good. If you just used the "dash" while typing you are using a hyphen, but others have used a dash. Look at the difference in length beteen the marks left and right of "3 Proposed" in the notes of the Future box. Thryduulf 23:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

ps. Regardless of which we use, we should stick to one or the other and not a mixture! Thryduulf 23:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree - I'll leave the hyphen/dash issue to you. But, is therea consensus that the above is OK to put on the template? Hammersfan 19/11/06, 14.10 GMT

I'm happy with it, but I think we should wait for more input before running with it. Perhaps leave a message on the talk pages of others who've been involved with this template previously. Thryduulf 17:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If there are no objections (or any other comments), I'll make the change tomorrow. Hammersfan 20/11/06, 15.40 GMT

Are they to be seperate or together? Simply south 18:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Together on the same template, as above Hammersfan 21/11/06, 09.10 GMT

Comes under the same area - what exactly is the difference between proposed and awaiting approval? Simply south 00:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed - a company goes public with its proposal for run trains on a specific route.
Awating Approval - a company that has made its proposal and has submitted its offical application to run trains is waiting for the official approval.
Hammersfan 19/04/07, 16.38 BST

Island Line again

Since it's no longer an independent company and now just a brand, should it still be listed as a TOC?

2002: Island Line is a wholly owned subsidary of the Stagecoach Group PLC

2007: Island Line is a brand name of Stagecoach South Western Trains Ltd

--82.45.163.4 13:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've asked a similar question at Talk:Island Line, Isle of Wight Pickle 13:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Maby we shold have a sepeate section for those subbrands (Island Line, Citylink) similare to sleepers wich are also part of a franchise.

Status

What status makes Island Line a rural line? Simply south 14:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never found a criteria for why lines are categorised like this. If you read any of the Network Rail stuff they classify lines as "Primary", "Secondary", "London & SE commuter", "Rural" and "Freight". Our (Wikipedia) classification doesn't always seam to correlate (main line, commuter, rural and freight). However looking at the 2006 business plan for the South Western Main Line by Network Rail [6] - the Island Line is also classified as Rural. Perhaps we need to establish some criteria for classification of rail lines at List of railway lines in Great Britain. Pickle 12:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Brands

I'd be wary about putting a seperate section for operators who are part of one franchise but are branded seperately, because that will include different types of operators. As far as I can see there are at least five on the template that could be included in such a category:

• Central Trains CityLink (interCity cross-country)
• Island Line (rural)
• Stansted Express (airport link)
• Caledonian sleeper (sleeper)
• Night Riviera (sleeper)
  

These will be added to once Gatwick Express is transferred to Southern. There was somewhat of a disagreement here a while back over what constituted a train operator, and a consensus was reached that seperate brand names did count, which is why Stansted Express and the sleepers are included. I think it would prove confusing therefore to have seperately branded parts of other franchises lumped into a single category, when the current system of footnotes explains nicely that certain operators are part of other franchises. Hammersfan 19/04/07, 16.32 BST

Grand Central

I've moved Grand Central into the Future operators box, given that its start date has been moved back from May to September 2007. Hammersfan 28/04/07, 15.44 BST