Talk:Wrexham & Shropshire

message: Okay... how is it possible to go from Wolverhampton station to Snow Hill/Moor Street stations then?? It's impossible (without having to do a few shunting manoeuvres, which they're not going to do on a "high speed rail service")!!
Anyway, surely they will try and miss out Birmingham if they can? Go from Wolverhampton to London direct and without stopping. If you look at what Hull Trains do, they go straight from the East Riding of Yorkshire area to London. David 16:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good stuff. Will be great if all this happens! David 11:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are people sure about the order of the stations called?  Tame Bridge Parkway is south east of Wolverhampton, whilst Cosford is to the north west of the city.  It seems extremely unlikely to me that any train would pass through Wolverhampton High Level, then reverse back to the station. Fingerpuppet 16:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move. -- tariqabjotu 01:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Route

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
* Support - should have been that way round in the first place. Change it as soon as you wish. David 17:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I have changed the picture to a 67 for the following reasons:
*They have announced using these would be a possibility
*You can see Midland Mainline in the old picture and you can't see any brand here.
*It was this exact formation which performed the test run.
*It has nect to it a 165 which will probably be the case at Marylebone, even though this is Paddington
:Fine by me. David 17:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got no objection to there being some image there to illustrate the article, my objection is purely with potentially misleading images in the infobox.  In general, though, I'm not convinced that there's a case to be made for putting those images in.  Images should be relevant to the article, and if we included a picture of a 170 in every article that contains a passing mention of them, things would start to become cluttered.  That said, a map of the proposed routes might be useful.  Chris cheese whine 22:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead image

message: Having read the site, they claim that the trains they use will be 100mph - I'm guessing this would mean Turbostars rather than the 67, yes? The 67 does 125, IIRC. This is reading into things a little too much probably, just a thought Worley-d 01:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trains

message: I've tried designing a map of the WSMR route as seen here:
However, i am not totally sure it is geographically perfect. Simply south 11:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: Shropshire Star 12 March
David 13:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest submission 

message: I've made some substantial changes to the article, giving it a comprehensive rewrite.  Some comments:
*I felt that a link was needed to explain the term "open access", but couldn't really find a sensible place to go.  I opted for Train operating company; if my proposal in this discussion is carried forward, then hopefully the expanded article will have a section on open-access operators which can be linked to.
*I removed information about things that were clearly never going to happen (e.g. serving Birmingham Moor Street), as well as information about Saturday and Sunday timetables (this can be added once they've been finalised).
*Some of the more recent edits were rather informal in style.
*Overall, the was lots of repetition and out-of-date in the article.  Hopefully it's more organised now!--RFBailey 04:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO it would just be better to create open-access operator as a subsection of TOC. Simply south (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup of article 

message: Does anyone know if it will it be possible to board a Wrexham & Shropshire train at Wolverhampton if NOT travelling as far as London?7severn7 (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For trains travelling towards London you will not be able to board at wolves, as you will not be allowed to leave the train when travelling towards Wrexham. This is because of VWC Moderation of Competition. --Fuelboy (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we know about VWC's moderation of competition.  The question is, does this apply just to London-Wolverhampton passengers?  What about (hypothetical) Wolverhampton-Tame Bridge Parkway or Wolverhampton-Banbury passengers?  --RFBailey (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never though about that sorry. Unsure. Would be very diffcult to sort one set of passengers from another. --Fuelboy (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Change at Walsall.  --RFBailey (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would a direct Wolverhampton-Tame Bridge Parkway journey contravine any "moderation of competition" rule instead of the via Walsall route?7severn7 (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if the other franchise holders (London Midland, CrossCountry) have such clauses built into their franchise agreements--I don't think so.  However, if passengers were to be allowed to board at Wolverhampton to travel to Tame Bridge or Banbury, it would be difficult to separate them from those wishing to travel to London, so maybe there will be no boarding permitted at Wolverhampton at all.  Who knows....?  --RFBailey (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: No. Arriva and W&S may be owned by the same company but it is Virgin West Coast who have the MOC clause, not Arriva TW. --CrossHouses (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Again, unfortunately, no. ATW are allowed to pick-up at WVH for the sake of carrying passengers to and from New Street and International. However if Arriva were to run to London then the MOC would take effect. VWC's MOC clause is mainly to protect its core routes to London e.g. Manchester Picc-Stockport-Crewe-Stoke/Stafford/Wolverhampton-Birmingham NS-Watford-Euston. Away from London, they don't seem to care however. CrossHouses (talk) 11:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Wolverhampton

message: Laing Rail ceased to exist on 2008-04-01, with its purchase by DB Regio. The company has been renamed DB Regio UK Ltd, and is registered in England and Wales with Company Number 03076782. Barry Salter (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ownership

message: Such doesn't exist... I studied the WSMR timetable and a Live Departure Board system in detail and came to the conclusion that a WSMR service from Coventry to Wolverhampton North Junction/Bushbury Junction takes only 11 minutes longer than a Pendolino does at the weekend - that time includes the stop at Tame Bridge and the slower traversal between Bescot and Wolverhampton (via Portobello Junction and stop at Wolves station, instead of Bescot-Bushbury, which - IIRC - has a fairly constant linespeed of over 50 mph).
The results of said study can be found here http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=37365&p=686578#p686578
I think it is pretty compelling evidence that the WSMR services aren't hurt by travelling through the Midlands as much as this article makes out, and that said article should be changed. Worley-d (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Waiting time in the Midlands"

message: I have created a route diagram for the Wrexham and Shropshire route and, to the best of my knowledge, it is accurate. I have omitted most of the stations that trains pass through but do not call at except the major ones. I have called the route the London to Wrexham via Telford Line. It has its own page and I aim to describe the route in more detail on that page when I get the time.Mpvide65 (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest it was fine as it was before.  I appreciate that you've put in a lot of work to create it, but the map is far too detailed to be of use to this article.  This ia an article about a TOC and it's only service, it's not a 'line' or a 'route' and should not be described as such.  If you compare the maps on the  National Express East Coast article with the one on the East Coast Main Line article, then you will see what I mean.  The former shows the services provided by the TOC and the other (more detailed) describes the line. The WSMR map had the right level of detail already. Route level information (as in the ECML article) should be detailed in the articles associated with each of the lines the service travels over; e.g. Shrewsbury to Chester Line, Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury Line and so on - not here. DrFrench (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think its doing that much harm on the page and it does summarise the info on all the separate route pages onto one route diagram, which does make it easier to understand.Mpvide65 (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, can't agree with you there. It's far too much detail for this article. Too much information can be worse than too little. Remember, Wikipedia is for everyone and not just rail enthusiasts. Having different levels of detail makes it more accessible to more people. A high-level 'tube map' style diagram for the service pages (like NXEC and this one) makes it useful for he casual browser who is interested in the service. A more detailed level of information for each of the lines (like ECML)provides information that's useful to people with more of an interest in railways. DrFrench (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have what I feel to be a better, and clearer, WSMR system map available, and one which was forwarded to me by the Sales Manager of WSMR. However the process of posting it up on Wikipedia defeats me completely, but I'll be very pleased to email it to anyone else who has a better grasp of the tortuous process than I do. Songhouse (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Route Diagram 

message: Wrexham & Shropshire Route should be merged into Wrexham & Shropshire, or maybe just deleted altogether. As far as I can see, it isn't very accurate. For example:
:It is unusual in that line can be thought of as a 'virtual railway', in that it purely exists on other railway lines and does not run on any track of its own.
Surely no train operators run on their own track, as it's all operated by Network Rail. And if all those extra stations aren't called at by W&S trains, why should they be considered part of the route, seeing as it's only a "virtual route" anyway? JRawle (Talk) 22:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comments in the Route Diagram section above.  I don't believe that diagram belongs as part of this article and strongly oppose merging it into this article, as this article is about a TOC and its services - not a route.  Deletion of the other article is another matter for separate discussion.  DrFrench (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the 'offensive' text, and removed the uncalled-at stations from the route guide. I called it a 'virtual route' as it does not run on any exclusive track. Anyway, it should not be merged. The W&S page is about the service. If people want to know about the route, they can click a link and see the route diagram. Mpvide65 (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrexham & Shropshire Route should be deleted. As far as I understand this route is not simply a route that W&S run on, it is their route that they developed. It doesn't exist as a concept beyond W&S. Adambro (talk) 05:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I've nominated this for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrexham & Shropshire Route. Adambro (talk) 11:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: Reason for deletion of this section on 30 January 2011 was after citations request added by user: Beeshoney stating 'If no references are added with (sic) a week or so I'll delete the paragraph', hence after explaining best source was Wrexham & Shropshire's defunct website (not on internet archive either) decided to comply with user's wishes and reverse my post.  Plenty of online pics and videos to substantiate.  Refer to user's nitpicking posts on Wrexham & Shropshire page around 30 January 2011 and largely negative postings since.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wrexham_%26_Shropshire&diff=411019957&oldid=411019564D47817 (talk) 05:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diversionary Routes 

message: Can someone please edit rolling stock so Mark 3 coach and Mark 3 DVT are 2 seperate things on rolling stock diagram? Alfreeedzikuiii (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rolling stock