Talk:Rail transport in Great Britain

message: It's getting a little hard to follow who supports what, and exactly what the issues are. So could I invite you all to add plans to, comments on, and votes for, a range of naming plans found at:
Talk:Rail transport in the United Kingdom/Alternate naming schemes
thanks, --Tagishsimon 08:28, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposals

message: Earlier debate under the title Naming'
:Shouldent this be moved to Rail transport in the United Kingdom as that is which country this is talking about. There is no such a country as 'Great Britain'. Great Britain is an island not a country. G-Man 18:40, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be happy with that change; I don't have a strong preference either way & am willing to be led, but I deplore the fact that we seem to use GB and UK interchangably. --Tagishsimon 18:44, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: I moved it - there are some redirects to fix if you want to help! Thanks, The Trolls of Navarone 18:51, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Previous Discussion

message: :, but underground city- centre running suggested for new lines)
Why was this removed? Mr. Jones 12:37, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birmingham Metro query 

message: I've renamed the "Underground Railways" paragraph "Local Metro systems" as only a small amount of the named systems is actually underground (except the Glasgow Underground). Much of the London Underground is actually above ground, only the Loop and Link of Liverpool's Merseyrail is underground, none of Manchester Metrolink, and not much of Tyne and Wear Metro. -- Arwel 19:06, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Local Metros 

message: I hacked the page a bit yesterday, since it looked very messy to me; in particular I brought the history section up to the top so we start with a decent article; then dive into the various sections, many of which are pointers to other places.
I'm tend to think we should be looking at getting rid of the list of Major Stations, and the list of Companies. There is a page on (I forget) Francheses, or companies ... ideally this page should be structured to list Franchises; Company running the franchise; ultimate owning company; and length of franchise ... sadly the SRA website is fairly useless and this data is not easily available from there (given that a load of franchises changed owner / were renewed at the start of April) --Tagishsimon 18:49, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Easter hack - Major Stations, and Companies

message: Can't understand why the official regulator is the "Office of the Rail Regulator" - in keeping with the naming of other regulators, surely they should call it Offtrack! Would be a lot more apt... GRAHAMUK 12:09, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Other

message: ===Are the Descriptions of British Political Parties Neutral?===
moved as this debate is thought to refer to content which has since been edit out of existence --Tagishsimon
Is the first major paragraph (with the 'post-Thatcherite' and 'New Labour' stuff really an unbiased view of things?  Also, should this really be almost the first thing a reader finds out about the railway? dmp
Good point, its fixed now G-Man 00:23, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Older debates

message: moved as this debate is thought to refer to content which has since been edit out of existence --Tagishsimon
Is the first major paragraph (with the 'post-Thatcherite' and 'New Labour' stuff really an unbiased view of things?  Also, should this really be almost the first thing a reader finds out about the railway? dmp
Good point, its fixed now G-Man 00:23, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Are the Descriptions of British Political Parties Neutral?

message: Shouldn't the Cross-Country Route be more clearly brought out in the listings. It's only just behind the big 4/5 in importance and is a 'cinderalla route' only because it goes through 5 control areas :-) Linuxlad 11:31, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cross-Country Route

message: Now here's a pretty mess! Here's a pretty how-de-do! (Gilbert & Sullivan, in case anyone thinks I'm going up the wall). This article is almost exactly the same in much of its content as History of rail transport in Great Britain, especially as far as the lists of early, pre-grouping railways are concerned. In fact the history article is more verbose and less list-like, and does refer to this one - it also ignores much of what isn't GWR! - but it can mean that changes are not included in both. Does anyone have any comments to make?
Peter Shearan 14:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplicate article?

message: Do we need a section in here on the proposals or a page on the proposals themselves? JamesVilla44 (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Could feasibly go into History of rail transport in Great Britain 1995 to date. However, it's only a proposal, so until anything is actually announced, it might be WP:TOOSOON to put into station articles. If RDG back down at some point, then we could say - with a reliable source - that: ; if not then we can cover the closure on individual stations with reliable sources when it happens. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

text: As @Mattdaviesfsic said, a mention in the history article is reasonable, as is a mentioned (already existing) in Rail Delivery Group. However nothing more needed as yet. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if it's a national proposal or not: but one thing is certain, it's not just a few stations. Great Western Railway, for example, intend to close all ticket offices, including Paddington. So I don't think that adding a paragraph to hundreds of individual station articles is appropriate. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  2023 Ticket offices closure proposals