Talk:List of companies operating trains in the United Kingdom

message: 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)
thread_title: Links to One

message: 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
:Thought this was already being done - consider Glasgow Central station. Stewart 18:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template Samples 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Renaissance Trains 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Why not add them then? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: NYMRE

message: 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)
replies: text: How about a rename to "train operating companies in the United Kingdom" or something similar? Pickle 01:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  List? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: ===Tbo 157's proposals:===
Proposal 1
Merge List of companies operating trains in the United Kingdom and Summary of Train Operating Companies in the United Kingdom into Train operating company.Tbo 157(talk) (review) 21:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Hopefully we'll get more input. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 22:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

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

text: Excellent work!  --RFBailey 02:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposals (revised)

message: Proposal 1
Merge List of companies operating trains in the United Kingdom and Summary of Train Operating Companies in the United Kingdom into Train operating company.Tbo 157(talk) (review) 21:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tbo 157's proposals:

message: Keep Train operating company. 
Merge both List of companies operating trains in the United Kingdom#Great Britain and List of companies operating trains in the United Kingdom#Northern Ireland or at least parts of these into Train operating company
====Proposal discussion====
Btw, good idea on the refresh. Simply south 22:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Hopefully we'll get more input. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 22:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Simply south's proposals:

message: Btw, good idea on the refresh. Simply south 22:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Hopefully we'll get more input. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 22:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Proposal discussion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Other articles do contain lists e.g. Midland Main Line. Simply south 10:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Excellent work!  --RFBailey 02:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further suggestion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Defunct TOC's

message: I have warned the anon user who keeps changing FTPE to TPE. Btline (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: It's First

message: 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)
thread_title:  WCRC and NYMR 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Logos 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Franchise list 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120124052255/http://www.aslef.org.uk/information/102222/102407/franchise_information/ to http://www.aslef.org.uk/information/102222/102407/franchise_information/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929175540/http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/system/galleries/download/print_maps/Nat_Rail_Passenger_Operators.pdf to http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/system/galleries/download/print_maps/Nat_Rail_Passenger_Operators.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Franchise / contract end dates