Talk:First Capital Connect

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Punctuality[edit]

Has anyone got any up to date stats for FCC on the Thameslink route? There's been a considerable dip in service over the last few weeks with lots of delays and cancellations. It's a pretty poor service on the Thameslonk route at the best of times. It's got a lot worse recently.

I don't have figures unfortunately, but the disruptions have been severe, and subject to much discussion, so I've added a short section on them, and the industrial dispute which has caused them. Smells like content (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great Northern Route[edit]

Just to say i have created an article on the Great Northern Route as i keep hearing the line refered to it as this between

Kings Cross and Moorgate

then either

    • Welwyn Garden City

or Hertford North

Destinations:

Stevenage then:

  • Cambridge

or Peterborough

I need some advice as to whether to keep thi article and if so can people make vast improvements to it as though it were a proper article describing the route.

Simply south 22:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ticketing[edit]

IMO the usage figures at each station between PB and Cuffley to Peterborough and Cambridge are going to DECREASE dramatically with these restrictions. They also apply between Radlett and Bedford. Simply south 18:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The restriction in off-peak tickets is surely evil genius by FCC. Firstly it is a stealth price increase for those that must catch these train services, and secondly it will discourage some people from catching these trains making it look like FCC is improving the over crowding situation. Rail commuters lose out on both fronts. --212.159.69.172 19:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Class 319 fleet[edit]

OK I have a slight problem here.

I have a very reliable source who told me, in writing, the following (exactly as writen);

"FCC has a large fleet of electric multiple units, comprising 41 Class 313s, 12 Class 317s, 86 Class 319s and 40 Class 365s. These will be supplemented by a further eight Class 319s from Southern in December. A further five '321s' will arrive next May while in 2010 London Overground's Class 313s will move to FCC, allowing busy inner-suburban services to be strengthened."

That whole bit above totally confused me and I really want to edit this article correctly -- could someone ideally experienced please help me with this.

Thanks.


TXC (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The article is accurate. FCC currently have 78 out of a possible 86 class 319 units. The remaining 8 units are being used by Southern, and will be transferred by December 2008. Thelem (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

facebook[edit]

(copyed from my talk page) As witnessed above your understanding of what to do when you believe you haven't found a reliable source is slightly out of line with Wiki policy. If you do find a section in an article that you come to question, its best to place a note or a cite tag in it, rather than removing the info completely. As such I will be reverting the edits you have made on the First Capital Connect page. Sgreen93 (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Er, no, text in an article needs to be referenced to a reliable source and if not can be removed. Facebook is not such a source, anyone can create a page. However, as requested I have tagged in the hope of "reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Edgepedia (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that WP:ELNO item 10 also WP:SPS both forbid the use of Facebook as a source, unless writing about Facebook itself... --Redrose64 (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the paragraph was indeed about the page on Facebook, thus, IMO, making it apply. Sgreen93 (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No; in order to describe something as having been criticised on facebook, you need to provide an independent source which says that. Considering only the sentence "First Capital Connect received much criticism posted onto its Facebook Page."; to use Facebook itself as a ref source here is WP:PRIMARY. However, if there were an item in The Railway Magazine, Modern Railways, etc. noting such criticism, those are secondary sources, so you could use one of those as a ref source for the sentence. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

I notice a notice has been placed at the top of the page calling the Criticism section into question.. Now, since nothing has actually been posted on the talk page I thought I'd start with the obvious question: Does anyone have any proposals as to what we should do with it? Sgreen93 (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Identify train[edit]

A First Capital Connect train passing behind the Laboratory of Molecular Biology

Could someone please identify the (very short) train in this picture? Thanks! cmɢʟee୯ ͡° ̮د ͡° ੭ 00:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a First Capital Connect train at all; the maroon and grey livery is that of CrossCountry. It is in fact a Class 170, some of which have two cars and the others three, although the unit number is too blurred to make out specifically which one. At the start of 2013, the following Class 170 units had two cars and the CrossCountry livery: 170111-7, 170518-23. But this isn't really the right page for that sort of question - WT:UKRAIL would be a better venue, where questions like this occur there fairly often. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! I just wanted to make sure the caption was correct — guess not... cmɢʟee୯ ͡° ̮د ͡° ੭ 17:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of bits that need sorting.[edit]

This article is lacking in references within a lot of sections - am going to try and clean it up over the next few days. In addition, there are a fair few spelling/grammar corrections to be made. If anyone has a free moment and can help clean up the page, that would be brilliant - thanks! Mike1901 (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article is referenced, so a blanket {{refimprove}} is inappropriate. If you believe that there are a lot of sections which lack refs, please put a {{refimprove|section}} into those particular sections, or a {{citation needed}} onto specific sentences. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the criticism section really accurate?[edit]

Is it just me, or is the criticism section a bit small, considering that there are a lot of unsatisfied customers? Could it be expanded, as I am sure there are a lot of notable points of reference about?31.54.205.221 (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on First Capital Connect. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on First Capital Connect. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on First Capital Connect. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:First_Capital_Connect&oldid=1207233551"