Talk:List of companies operating trains in the United Kingdom

Trains: in UK Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).

This article is a former featured list candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.

Links to One

The links to One appear to need some work, as they currently link to number. However, I can't find an apropriate page to link them too, and so I think a new article is needed on 'one' the train operating company. (The One disambiguation page is no help either, as it links to a non exist page with called 'Train Operating Company'. John 14:29, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

? by BAA and FGW Link

Split

Proposal: Split into an article covering Great Britain and an article covering Ireland.

Discussion: I don't feel there is a need, the introduction explains the difference between GB and Ireland adequately. Depending how you classify things there are at most 3 operators on the Ireland of Ireland (NIR, IE and Cross-border), so I don't see there is a need for more than a top-level section on this article. Thryduulf 14:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the whole thing is a mess. In particular;

There should be an article on train operating company. That currently redirects here.
This article, despite its title is not a list, but half a list and half an article and generally a mismash of awfulness.
The British network is different to the Irish network. It is regulated differently, it has a different gauge, it needs to be discussed seperately.

— Dunc|☺ 20:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO this article is fine as it is, it is basically a list but with in intro to explain why the setup is like it is. Ultimatly the whole situation with all the articles relating to the rail system in whole of the UK is a mess, such as there being no obvious starting page hence various different ones (like this) having/trying to act as one. Maybe there should be a working group created to completely redo ALL the articles about railways in the UK to produce a much better and clearer structure instead of this constant fiddling around with what we've already got, which I'll put my hand up and admit being very guilty of meself. --Achmelvic 08:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds distinctly like a WikiProject for UK railways. Portal:Trains would seem to be a good place to organsise it. Thryduulf 13:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might be like opening a can of worms but a WikiProject for UK rail does seem a good idea, when I get the time next week (unless someone else wants to start it over the weekend) I'll try and start something and see how much support there is for it.--Achmelvic 19:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I have reverted the moving of the images to galleries becuase in line the pictures serve a purpose - they illustrate the list. This adds colour to the page, adding to the list by illustrating entries on it, preventing it being just dry text, and preventing large white space on the page. The only problem is the moving of the [edit] section links - but this has been overcome on several other pages by neat use of <div> tags. I'd add them myself if I knew how.

In a gallery the images add nothing other than - here are some pretty pictures we've inlcuded because we can. Add to that the placement of the first gallery - immediately below the short paragraph about heritage railways was a gallery showing some of the newest trains in the country! Just because we have the <gallery> function doesn't mean it is right for all situations. In fact, on Wikipedia - which is not a collection of images - a gallery is rarely the best way to present images. On Commons on the other hand the gallery format suits the project down to the ground. Thryduulf 21:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case then, reduce the number of images, because there's far too many - you think that having a gallery means "here are some pretty pictures we've inlcuded because we can". So does having too many images in a straight line. And add your name when you make a comment in a discussion. Hammersfan 22.55 BST, 01/04/06

I disagree there are too many images. The images fill the unused space to the right and illustrate different items in the list - if we coudl illustrate all of them we would. Appologies for not putting my name above, I made the dreaded "five-tilde typo" (~~~~~ instead of ~~~~) and got just the tiem and date without my username. Thryduulf 23:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London Overground

Apologies for putting this here, but I couldn't think of anywhere else to put it. Regarding London Overground, a template has appeared on the new stations under construction, and lately on the East London Line stations also, similar to that of the National Rail route descriptors, but as a seperate LO one (if you see what I mean). However, although London Overground will be run be TfL rather than the Dept of Transport, it will still be part of the National Rail network in the same way as Merseyrail is. Shouldn't it therefore be included as such on this sort of template? Hammersfan 30/10/06, 12.40 GMT

Template Samples

Should every train company article shall have a sample of a rail bar and colour code for when other users contribute for each train station, ect? User:Jonjoe

Preceding station	National Rail			Following station
Sample		First North Western Sample		Sample

Thought this was already being done - consider Glasgow Central station. Stewart 18:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance Trains

This is the company that originally proposed Hull Trains and is now proposing three: WSMR, HC&C and Glasgow Trains. Where should this be placed? Simply south 22:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NYMRE

The North Yorkshire Moors Railway, through its operating subsidiary NYMR Enterprises Plc now has an Open Access licence to operate trains over Network Rail between Whitby and Battersby (on the Esk Valley Line) and is now operating a timetabled, steam hauled, service between Pickering or Goathland (on the NYMR) and Whitby (on Network Rail). They also work passenger trains to Battersby but not as part of their published day to day timetable. I would suggest that this entitles them to an entry on this page. I believe the NYMR is the first (and so far only) heritage railway that has powers to operate regular, timetabled trains over a part of the national network and operates those trains with both paid and volunteer staff. XTOV 21:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If its timetabled, then i guess it makes it open access operator like Hull Trains, et al. Pickle 14:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WWell I have left more than enough time for any objections, so I will add in the NYMR —Preceding unsigned comment added by XTOV (talk • contribs) 22:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think we can be justified in including a heritage railway on a list of TOCs. Just because it uses network rail track does not make it a National Rail operator. The railway's own Wikipedia page and Website mentions nothing of it being part of the National Rail network. It's a tourist attraction, not a means of getting from A to B which is what the railway network is for. Most heritage railways operate a timetabled service but that does not make them TOCs. One quick look on Google and Wikipedia shows that Goathland, Pickering, Newton Dale Halt and Levisham stations are not on the National Rail enquiries website but are managed by the NYMRE. By contrast, Whitby, Ruswarp, Sleights and Grosmont stations are on Rail Enquiries because they are managed and served by Northern Rail. For the reasons outlined above, I would suggest that the NYMRE be removed from this article. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the NYMR are very much considered to be an open-access TOC, as seen here on an official government document - http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN04128.pdf see page 3 for their inclusion on a list of open-access operators. Skarloey (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, my mistake. As weird as it might sound, I do like being proven wrong occasionally, especially if it's about steam trains! Although I still affirm it's a tourist railway and nothing more, it is still pretty cool to know that a very small slice of the UK rail network is still steam-powered. The next time I'm "up't'north" I'll have to pay it a visit. Do you know if whoever runs the Orient Express is a TOC as well? (they come down my local line a lot) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "British Pullman", using original Pullman coaches (usually hauled by 35028 Clan Line from Victoria) is operated by DB Schenker. The "Northern Belle", also owned by Venice-Simplon Orient Express, uses more modern coaches, refurbished in Pullman style, hauled by Direct Rail Services' Class 47 diesels. Technically, DB Schenker, DRS and GB Railfreight all have passenger-carrying licences, so they are also train operating companies (though come under the sub-umbrella of freight operating companies). Technically, the Ffestiniog Railway/Welsh Highland Railway are also now classed as a TOC, due to the flat crossing of the Cambrian Coast Line (Network Rail infrastructure) near Minffordd. Skarloey (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not add them then? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List?

Does this count as a proper list? It talks about the train operating companies and their situation in the UK and Ireland and then lists the rest. Simply south 17:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about a rename to "train operating companies in the United Kingdom" or something similar? Pickle 01:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merege with Train operating company and Summary of Train Operating Companies in the United Kingdom maybe - they all overlap each other. Pickle 18:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

The text 'Neil's Trains | Neil's Company of awesome things | Today | Hooray, Hooray, Tomorrow, Today!!!' in the list of train operating companies looks like it's vandalism. I'm pretty sure there is no such thing. I won't remove it, but can someone else do soon. Thank You. I belive this is the doing of User 172.200.151.63. Pafcool2 18:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposals

It has been proposed that two other lists should be merged with this one. The following has been moved from Talk:Summary of Train Operating Companies in the United Kingdom. Geof Sheppard 07:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should this page be merged with List of companies operating trains in the United Kingdom and Train operating company ??? Thoughts people. Pickle 18:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this should be merged into List of companies operating trains in the United Kingdom (if there is any information here which is not already in that list). We should also sweep up the new Railway liveries of the UK while we are at it. Geof Sheppard 07:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. List of companies operating trains in the United Kingdom, Train operating company and Summary of Train Operating Companies in the United Kingdom should all be merged as they are all articles on the same subject and alot of content is duplicated in the multiple articles. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 16:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first merger of Summary and List, i would agree with a merger as they seem effectively the same.

However, TOC and List i would say definitely not merge. More of the info could be moved from List to TOC. Also, there are many countries with different train companies so i think all it actually needs is a cleanup and possibly a more worldwide view. Simply south 16:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think many companies refer to private rail companies as "TOC"s or have the same franchising system as Britain. The TOC article is quite short and it would be more convenient to have everything on the same page. The list of TOCs article has more content to do with TOCs than a list. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 19:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is okay to have the same information, if one article summarises it and the other expands it. Looking at it further, there is a lot of different information in the two articles. Also, not everyone will know what a train operating company is. Maybe merge some of List into TOC as per what i have said and your comment. Simply south 21:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought it may be more convenient for people who don't know what TOCs are. It just seems to make more sense when the list and the accompanying content is in the TOC article but that might just be me. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 21:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have put tags suggesting the move of sects GB and NI to TOC. Simply south 16:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tags suggest a proposal to merge everything into List of companies operating trains in the United Kingdom. Is this correct? If so, would it make more sense if everything was merged into Train operating company. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 18:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ones we discussed were the top tags. Look at the Great Britain and Northern Ireland sections, which i have put to propose to mege those with TOC. Simply south 18:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section tags you placed propose for the sections to be merged into TOC but a separate tag proposes for the TOC article to be merged with this article. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 19:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the first TOC merge with tag here as you put it on the TOC page. Simply south 20:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay if i remove the first tag from here and there, literally? Simply south 17:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the tags are fine as they are. They make sense. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 19:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From TOC to list (mergeto and mergefrom, respectively) but leave the others. Or should these stay? Simply south 19:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about we both outline our proposals below so that it is easier to discuss and the tags can be updated in however way necessary.

Merge proposals (revised)

I'm new around here but I would opt for Tbo 175's Proposal 1, for the simple reason that, whilst probably not the most accurate of names it's the one that most none railway employee or enthusiast will understand - especially if the acronym is also used (TOC). The problem with the second is that it would technically include all the preserved lines and charter operators, which will just confuse most people. (SouthernElectric 23:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'm really not sure which option to go for, but orgionally i rasied this issue as i was highlighting the extensive overlap between them all. Pickle 22:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further suggestion

This page, List of companies operating trains in the United Kingdom, isn't a list, it's a mixture of a list and a detailed article. The detailed descriptive material (about Great Britain at least) should be in the article Train operating company, while the material in Summary of Train Operating Companies in the United Kingdom should be moved here, and that article should then redirect here. (I think this is similar to Simply south's suggestion above.) --RFBailey 23:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with this mostly, however this page could be renamed to "Train operating comapnies in the United Kingdom", to allow it to contain some article content relevant to the lists. --Jorvik 14:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)#[reply]

That would defeat the point of what I was trying to achieve: have all the article content in a single article, and have the (annotated) list as a list. The fact that the article Train Operating Company doesn't have "United Kingdom" in the title is down to this being a technical term specific to the UK (in fact, just to GB). --RFBailey 15:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't the list and the content be in the same article? Surely this would be easier to understand. What do other users think? Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 16:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the List... is an article, wheras the Summary... and TOC articles are lists! What I would expect to see is a clear article explaining what a TOC is and how it relates to the UK railway industry, and a link from there to a simple list of past, present and future TOCs, which in turn have links to the more detailed information (liveries, fleets, etc). Geof Sheppard 07:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles do contain lists e.g. Midland Main Line. Simply south 10:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Geof Sheppard's hit the nail on the head: that's exactly what we need. Yes, other articles do contain lists, but that doesn't mean they should. --RFBailey 14:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and merged the information. Train operating company now contains article content, and List of companies operating trains in the United Kingdom is now mostly lists. This is only a rough merger; tidy up work now needs to be done on both articles, particulary citing sources. --Jorvik 15:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work! --RFBailey 02:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct TOC's

The table does not have a column to indicate which franchise the TOC operated? Is this an error or is there a reason for this? Catlows Cat 00:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the majority of cases the names of the franchise and the TOC are/were synonymous, so there is nothing to be gained from this. Furthermore, franchises have tended not to be replaced in a like-for-like manner. The column explaining the successor(s) of each operator is more illustrative. --RFBailey 01:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's First

I have warned the anon user who keeps changing FTPE to TPE. Btline (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WCRC and NYMR

I've added West Coast Railway Company (WCRC) and North Yorkshire Moors Railway (NYMR) to the list of current operators. These two operators run scheduled (seasonal) services on the National Rail network; WCRC since 1998 and NYMR since 2007.

However, it may be worth further tagging them as "Open-Access (heritage)" or some such. —Sladen (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logos

I had to remove the logos that were added recently: as each is a fair use image, there is no justification in the non-free content criteria to include them on this page. Sorry. --RFBailey (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Franchise list

Why does the franchise structure list (the first section) appear to have the OLD list of franchises? AFAICT it lists the franchises as they were when the railway was privatised. Wouldn't it be a few orders of magnitude saner to list the franchises as they currently stand, or even perhaps to instead of having a weird hybrid list of old franchisees and new ones, instead have some diagram showing how the franchise divisions emerged from the British Rail sectors (which it does now) and then proceeded to change over time (which it doesn't now)? It just seems a bit weird and IMHO rather misleading-looking the way it is now. I would follow WP:BB but I have a strange feeling that there is, indeed, some reason for this. Muzer (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. The order seems deliberately intended to be obscure. This

| Sector of British Rail
!Franchise
!Pre-grouping Company
!Original privatised operator
!Current operator(s)

should be changed to

| Sector of British Rail
!Franchise
!Current operator(s)
!Original privatised operator
!Pre-grouping Company

I'd BB but it would take more time than I have at the mo. Anyone? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and I have demoted this section to the end of the article to place the emphasis on the 'list' aspects of this article. The Passenger rail franchising in Great Britain article has plenty of information about the history of the franchises. Personally I think some substantial weeding of duplicate content across these articles would ease the effort needed to keep them up-to-date. PeterEastern (talk) 07:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of companies operating trains in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Franchise / contract end dates

I noticed that an end-date column was added to the table and then quickly reverted. I think that was the right decision. There is already a well-sourced list of all TOCs and their contract / franchise end dates at Passenger_rail_franchising_in_Great_Britain#Franchises_and_concessions. I think it would be wrong to duplicate that information here as it would be yet another page to update when something changes. TBH I think there's a huge overlap between the two articles and some thought should be given to merging them. Anyone want to discuss that further & propose something? 10mmsocket (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree on merging anything sourced from here into said page. Most of the content here is unsourced and serves very little purpose as a duplicate of the PRF page. If anything, I might just be bold and redirect it at some point... Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]