Template talk:British TOCs/Archive 3

message: After November, the "future operators" box will become pretty much empty. I propose that the proposed open access operators, such as Grand Union, Glasgow and City etc. are reinstated onto that template. After all, they are now the next expected developments,even if they have not been developed that much. Dewarw 15:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the future operators box should be seperated out into a new template, with Grand Union etc. This is because it could be several years before these ever start operations, so grouping them with the current operators is not appropriate at this time. --Jorvik 17:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, when should this be done? Dewarw 17:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about 11th November, when the new franchises begin and the box would otherwise empty. I've started a draft which can be found below. Feel free to discuss, suggest modifications etc.
--Jorvik 18:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Are companies that merely want to run open-access operators (but have yet to receive permission to do so) notable enough to be described as ‘future’ operators and linked on the page for every train operating company? David Arthur 18:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Under this proposal they wouldn't appear on every train operating comapny page, however I agree with what you are saying. So, the title could be changed to "Proposed train operating companies in the United Kingdom", and Wrexham & Shropshire switched to the main template with a footnote. --Jorvik 18:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That sounds reasonable — I do think Wrexham & Shropshire belong more with the operating train companies than with these speculative ventures. David Arthur 19:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully support this. Looks good! Dewarw 20:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks as though Glasgow Trains is the next one that has a chance of going through now. Although i'm not sure if their application has been approved, it looks as though they are applying for trains and looking into operations according to their parent company. I suppose i should add this to the main Glasgow Trains page unless someone else does. Simply south 22:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: How about calling them prospective operators? David Arthur 13:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pipe Dreams

message: should open acsess operators be split from national?Mark999 16:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've got Grand Central coming soon, Hull Trains and Heathrow Express already - I'm not sure its a useful distinction though. Other peoples thoughts ? Pickle 17:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Open Access

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

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

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