Template talk:Current UK TOCs/Archive 2

I've removed Glasgow Trains, Humber & City and Grand Union Railway from the "Future Operators" box, as they are little more than pipedreams. The former two are particularly so: all that seems to exist is a couple of press releases from Renaissance Trains suggesting the idea, and some news articles reporting on the contents of them. --RFBailey 17:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

:Although I would contest the idea that they are merely "pipedreams", as I have seen evidence of some small progress, I certainly have no objection to these three being removed from the template, although I think some mention of the proposals should be left on the list page. Hammersfan 14/05/07, 18.15 BST

::By all means leave them on the list page, but the template needs to be kept to a manageable size. With all the subsections and footnotes it's already quite a mess. --RFBailey 17:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

:::I've edited the second oprators link to go to the Future Operators list. Simply south 18:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This page has be renamed (as above) and so I have changed the link on the template. Dewarw 18:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think adding footnotes to say which franchises are taking over from other franchises is a bit too much, given that it should be done for all of them. Also, I've altered the Silverlink listing slightly so that it matches the one for Virgin Trains Hammersfan 15/05/07, 10.18 BST

Silverlink is different from Virgin Trains. The listing in brackets was added to show that there are 2 franchises operated by one operator. With Silverlink is just sub branding. Similar thing with Central Trains. It may seem confusing for some who arn't familiar with this. Wouldn't it be better so separate them out into a septate group as it has already happened with sleepers.

91.64.2.137 15:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

:I don't think so, because the sleepers are specific services, as opposed to general operators. I understand that Virgin operates two seperate franchises, but don't forget that they are run under the same brand name. The converse is a single franchise operating two brand names (as Silverlink does) Hammersfan 15/05/07, 18.05 BST

So if the brackets are also used for different brands operated by a single franchise then Central citylink and island line should be put in brackets as well

91.64.2.137 18:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

:I would recommend that the different brands (Citylink, Island Line, the two different Silverlink entries) are not included at all, so that the table doesn't get too big and confusing. --RFBailey 18:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right adding all that is going to be to much. I suggest just keeping the operator and not list any sub brands

91.64.2.137 19:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

:I would say Island Line is a bit of an anomaly. It is under the same South Western franchise, and yet it is classed as a separate company, i think. Simply south 20:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

::I've cut out some of the excessive detail from the template, by removing some of the separate sub-brands, the two separate Virgin operators, and some of the footnotes (such as the ending dates). I've left Island Line in for now. --RFBailey 07:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

:::I don't have a problem with most of it, but I think that a footnote needs to be included about NIR and Enterprise being operated on the Irish network, to avoid any of the "ructions" that have occured in the past. Hammersfan 16/05/07, 12.34 BST

I have re-added this link. This is because many other sub-brands (e.g. Island Line, Sleeper etc.) are included. Dewarw 21:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

:: How about adding another section on the table called "Sub-brands." This could take Island Line and Central Citylink. Either this or both should not be on the table. It is clear- Island Line is a sub-brand and therefore, like Citylink, should not be where it is on the table. Dewarw 14:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

:: e.g. like this:

As two franchises have now become train operating companies, I think they should be placed in a new section titled "Franchised Operators", as they currently do not fit under "New Franchises". --Jorvik 17:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

:London Midland and Stagecoach Midland Rail are the holders of new franchises, and so fit perfectly well under ‘New franchises’; it’s certainly preferable to creating yet another category on this once-simple template. David Arthur 13:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Can I suggest that a line break i.e.
is added at the end of the template. This will provide a blank line between this and any following boxes. A
is inserted between the two boxes in this template. --Stewart 18:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. However, several pages will now have two line breaks, with any line break on the actual page to be removed. --Jorvik 19:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

{{talkarchive}}