Talk:Great Western Railway (train operating company)

Route Map Typo

In the route map at the bottom of the blue panel on the right, there is a typo. It shows the station "Paington". Should be "Paignton". Any chance you could correct it ?

Link to route map...... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fgw_intercity_map.svg.2010_10_31_16_01_45.0.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.12.210 (talk • contribs)

@92.25.12.210:, that would be difficult as the file was uploaded in 2010, and the author has since left Wikipedia. Feel free to try yourself however. Nightfury 14:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Tanyalee Davis incident

I reverted an IP edit that removed this section because I believe some discussion is called for, first. The IP may have a point that the incident is not sufficiently notable to belong in the article, even though it is supported by sources. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the IP that the incident is not notable enough for the article. It seems to be one guard, rather than company policy and didn't have any lasting effects. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the section is appropriate or necessary for a Wikipedia article. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

What is needed is to track down and out the selfish cow who asked Tanyalee Davis to move her scooter, not to suppress the incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.248.79.119 (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. This is an encylopedia article, not somewhere to further a cause no matter if it's good or bad. SK2242 (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Infobox image (again)

Can we add a hidden comment saying something like "this isn't a place to display your latest image of a GWR train, do not change the image with consulting the talk page first"? The infobox image changing constantly is getting slightly ridiculous, now we've finally settled on an image for the best part of half a year, can we keep to it? jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Class 43

Could someone take a look at the Class 43 Castle section? I tried to bring it up to date but all my work has been reverted so it still has statements such as

"the class is due to be replaced on some routes as part of the Intercity Express Programme by the Class 800 and Class 802 from 2017"

Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Past Fleet: Classes 101/117

Exeter 1999

Judging by this photo Class 101 and 117 sets were still use up until 1997, after Great Western Holdings had taken over the franchise. Should this be mentioned in the past fleet section? Tom walker (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

My recollection is that they were still active on certain Cornish branches until at least 1996. Wiki Commons has two pictures from Geograph that claim to be taken at Exeter in 1999. However they were never Great Western Trains units - they were operated by Wales & West. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Renaming

The following is a closed discussion of a suggested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a formal move request after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. WP:SNOW closure - this ain't gonna fly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

---

I propose renaming Great Western Railway to Great Western Railway (established 1833) and Great Western Railway (train operating company) to Great Western Railway. The extant company is the most likely search target for someone typing Great Western Railway, per WP:PLA.

I will post a link to this discussion at Talk:Great Western Railway and Talk:Great Western Railway (disambiguation). Stifle (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I have also posted a link at WT:UKRAIL. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose on the grounds that the original GWR was around for about 100 years and indeed is still talked about today, whereas the modern GWR has been around for two years and will likely disappear again as soon as the DfT decides that trying to harken back to the "glory days" is not actually improving rail transport. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, recentism, there'll be another TOC along in a minute. DuncanHill (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, As said, the modern company is likely to change its name again before long. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, as above, plus in any case, I disagree that the most likely search target is the modern TOC, GWR had a 113 year history as a vertically integrated operator, achieving very significant firsts and operating over a much wider geographical area compared to the current GWR. Ian3055 (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, as above. Bazza (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ian3055. Perhaps revisit this iff the TOC makes 114 years. Mjroots (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Mattbuck; the historic GWR is primary topic. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 11:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Matt and Alex above. Nightfury 20:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The original GWR was in business for well over 100 years and has much more literature written about it which has enabled its article to be developed to GA status. The new GWR is a brand name invented less than five years ago and a lot of the article (other than the long lists of rolling stock) actually refers to the old "First Great Western". The GWR name may or may not survive the change to a new franchise holder, whenever that might be. Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page display on tablets

For some reason this article doesn’t display properly when viewed on my iPad, appearing about half size whether displayed vertically or horizontally. This is the only page I’ve come across that does this. Note: this talk page displays properly. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

What are you using to view the page? The Wikipedia app, or a browser? If the latter, which one, and are you viewing in mobile or desktop mode? Bazza (talk) 10:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Safari on iPad, I assume in desktop mode. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I get the same with Chrome on Android in desktop mode. Scroll down to "Current Fleet" and you may see the reason: the overlong rolling stock images force the browser to shrink the page in order to accommodate the resulting wide table. The same happens on my laptop, except that its browser (in this case Chrome on Windows 10) keeps the page normal but adds a horizontal scroll bar so that the wide table can be scrolled left and right. I never see the point of the rolling stock diagram images on this and other pages showing an entire train formation, and this negative reader experience might add to a reason to stop using them in their current form. Bazza (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, so it does. I agree the rolling stock images are somewhat pointless, there are usually enough real photos to display the liveries. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The "Past fleet" section does it too. Can we just get rid of the diagrams or will that upset somebody? DuncanHill (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

See WT:UKRAIL § Removal of diagrams?. Bazza (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Fleet tables

Having spent some time redoing the fleet tables so that they display properly, it occurrs to me that they are totally unnecessary. The classes are already described in detail in the body of the article, the routes similarly and which stock is used where. I would propose that the whole section is just deleted. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. We only need one section or the other, and the class numbers also appear in the tables of the Route section. While the tables have some use, the prose section is more comprehensive and has some citations. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Right, I'm boldly going etc… Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. Every UK TOC page has a Rolling Stock section, and fleet tables (Current, Past and Future). They are a useful reference, and more easy to read than the detailed paragraphs of text in which the same information may be contained. I think they should remain. Spookster67 (talk) 00:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I concur with Spookster67 - having a table is a nice summary. Is it redundant to the prose, probably, but it's a lot easier to quickly get a summary than reading through several paragraphs of history of which classes worked where to find out just how many the TOC have now. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

North Downs Line Services Pattern

I have reverted the edit by user 67.244.143.174, for the fact they only said that it was the refences so I have think it a nit strage. Unexplained content removal because the reference verify this. If you disagree please uses my talk page.--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Could the timetable service pattern include peak service frequency in brackets?

Could the timetable service pattern include Peaks service frequency in brackets? e.g. Reading to Redhill 1 (2) T.P.H.--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

There is already too much detailed information about services on this page. Wikipedia is neither a timetable nor a travel guide: WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTTRAVEL. If readers want detailed travel information, this is not the place to use. Bazza (talk) 09:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

This isn't a timetable so I would happily see no tables of train frequencies or routes. It is fine on a metro service in London with clockface departures and calling patterns, but the GWR network is too complex to describe in any simple way. If a service is notable then the place for that information is in the article on the line or station, not the article about the train operating company. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Not the stations, please. This will lead to unnecessary multiplication, not to mention the maintenance nightmare every six months. There was a discussion a few years back that concluded that service patterns should be described at the article for the line or the TOC, but not the stations. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Non-GWR stock

One or more IP editors have repeatedly inserted images of non-GWR stock in this article — specifically, photographs and diagrams of c2c, Gatwick Express, and Thameslink Electrostars. Are these reasonable, or off-topic? Bazza (talk) 09:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

They shouldn't go into the main table, but on a table of hired-in stock. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I think there is only a need for a single photograph of each class in the table, and this should show the current livery used by the majority of the class that are operated by GWR. The livery drawings can justify additional images to show different formations (5-car and 9-car IETs, for example) but again should only be GWR liveries. If additional stock is hired from other operators or strange liveries are carried then let's just put that as a note or explain it in prose entry for that class.Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Would question the need for these self generated images all together. There are plenty of images in the article, and being self generated, these probably are original research, given that the creator acknowledges them as their own work rather than having drawn them from official sources. There is no need for every length and livery combination, one per item is sufficient. Pleatrox (talk) 03:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Secretary of State?

I see that @Bazza 7 initially reverted an edit that named the then secretary of state for transport Ruth Kelly. I just wanted to say that I support this move. Personally I think government ministers are ten-a-penny. I don't G.A.F. (care much) about who they were at the time unless they were outstanding or notorious in that role (e.g. like David Blunkett & Theresay May were in turn as Home Secretary). From 2006 to 2016 there were nine different transport ministers equally split between the two parties who have been in power. Who really cares which of those nine actually made the 2008 decision? Not me. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

My original reversion was mainly because it was a lazy edit, with no attention to word order or punctuation. The originator ignored WP:BRD and restored the laziness; I'm not as fussed about having a name as 10mmsocket but glad to see offending item seems to have been removed and the section's wording improved. Bazza (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Routes table

This evening @Geof Sheppard: edited the routes table - see revision 1111369552 for details. I wanted to request comments on how other users find this different style (which, inevitably, would mean work to synchronise the styles of route tables of all TOCs for consistency, work which I cannot begin to describe the challenge of). Please reply what you think. Thanks Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The new multi-column table is confusing and unnecessary. What does it add to the article? It's not at all usable on mobile. Bazza (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, the multi-column version is unreadable. Apparently, there were also citations added in the revision, which are unfortunately not usable as redundant (the existing source already links the PDFs cited). Jalen Folf (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I find that breaking the previous table across four sections makes it less useful - a single table for the whole network works much better. The headings are also "made up" as GWR does not use the terms 'Inter City' nor ' Wessex' that I can see. The version that I tried also moved a lot of the less important information to footnotes rather than have bullet points nested within table cells. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

GWR, in explaining the timetable prefixes, say that their routes are split up into different areas - why can't we do the same? The only differences we have vs them is that we've separated out the Intercity trains into their own section, and combined the Devon and Cornwall ones into one section as there's overlap. Anyway, I've changed the terms used in the route table to match those in the rolling stock section, and provided a description under each heading explaining the section, including the timetable prefixes. 81.111.168.160 (talk) 09:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with this notion. The timetable letters are not of interest to the general reader, see WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE. Jalen Folf (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I agree with that WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE justification for removing the timetable letters (we'll leave aside the helpful section descriptions that you reverted without justification. I'm easy either way on them, but a bit miffed that they get thrown out without any reason given). I added the timetable prefixes as it seemed to be relevant information, which people objected to merely the hamfisted implementation, rather than the inclusion of that information itself. I will however point out that in your revert of my edits (which you yourself decided went too far and partially undid) you falsely said it was unsourced (the source is literally at the top of the section - with the precedent being that later references to that source inside that section being considered OTT - cf the edit history of the page), rather than this legitimate reasoning. Please cite proper reasoning for reverts in the future to avoid hostility. Thankfully I found you had posted here with a legitimate reason, and we avoided an acrimonious edit war. 81.111.168.160 (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Trial not future fleet

The British Rail Class 230 is not a committed addition to the company's fleet, so I removed it from that table in the article. However, it may still be worth mentioning elsewhere in the article in the context of the proof of concept trial that GWR is undertaking. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Great Western Railways TOC length

Moved from User talk:Bazza 7

Note: this conversation refers to [1].

The Sectional Appendix reference was not just for length it was also for the electrification. Also it is a reference for GWR TOC it is just that it requires adding up of all of the mileage and chainage. I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 10:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@I Like The british Rail Class 483 The map at the start of the 1050-page document covers a network which includes services provided by operators other than GWR (e.g. Heart of Wales line), and omits networks which include services provided by GWR (e.g. North Downs Line. You have not given any indication of what calculations you did with the reference's content to come up with the figures given. You will need to include some clues in your citation about how you came to the figure you did, and which parts of the document you used to do so; remember that citations are used to give readers access to the references which support Wikipedia's content, and enable them to satisfy themselves that what is being claimed is correct. You might want to read WP:INFOBOXREF and consider adding a more detailed section to the main article showing how the total length has been arrived at, or using an existing section (such as "Routes") to do so. Bazza (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@Bazza 7 I was not the one who did the calculations I was the one who posted it as a reference. I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@I Like The british Rail Class 483 Thanks. As a reference, then, it is not useful because I can't tell from its content how the figure it is supporting has been arrived at. The same goes for the second usage you mentioned for electrification, which I have removed. Bazza (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@Bazza 7It tells you what voltage and also it is usful. I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 13:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@I Like The british Rail Class 483: Does it tell you the electrification of all of the network which GWR uses? Bazza (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@Bazza 7Yes it does because non of GWRs stock can use or access the third rail which means that the Western on has all of the electrification which GWR units can use. The Kent, Sussex and Wessex one only has electrification which non of GWR stock can use becuase ether they can't access it or they just can't use it. Kent Sussex Wessex Sectional Appendix March 2023 (windows.net) I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

What is the title of the publication referenced? What is its publication date? What pages are you referring to within it? Who is the actual publisher/author? We can't tell any of this if you only post a bare URL as a reference. And finally, most importantly, is it being legally hosted at that site, or is it a pirated copy? Wikipedia takes a very dim view of copyright violation. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Named trains

The whole 'named trains' section is covered by citing a document dated 2015. Apart from the Night Riviera, I don't think any train names have appeared in GWR timetables for the last three or four years. Can we clarify the situation, or should we just delete the section? Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The eNRT used to give train names, but since COVID-19 it's lost a lot of its reliability. I've not downloaded it since the December 2019 edition. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Current Fleet table

I would suggest that this table is superfluous to this article as it merely repeats the prose description immediately preceding it. User:Mattdaviesfsic points out that most TOC articles have such a table but they generally don't have such an exhaustive prose version. Further opinions are invited. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Quoting from thge Manual of Style:

Tables... should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a table may be better presented as prose paragraphs or as an embedded list.

Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Future fleet

The future fleet section should reflect rolling stock that based on what reliable cites state will, as opposed to may, join the fleet. The order for bi-mode locomotives was to be tagged onto the order that FirstGroup was planning for TransPennine Express. With FirstGroup's involvement with TPE ceasing without a tender issued, that plan is dead. Any bi-modes purchased by GWR will have nothing to do with what TPE does.

Likewise the proposed acquisition of 30 x 4 110mph sets is unlikely to come to fruition given that GWR has admitted it already has a bigger fleet than it requires thus not taking on the class 769s and withdrawing HSTs. Airpopg (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Performance

This whole section is quite out of date and out of proportion to the article as a whole. Seems very like it was written by someone with an axe to grind. Can it be drastically trimmed? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Named Trains section

GWR no longer does named routes (the source directs you to the named IET sets), and even ignoring that, its doesn't seem important enough to have its own section. Any qualms on removing or significantly restructuring it? Ludus56 (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Totally agreed; I had been thinking the same myself. The 'Night Riviera' is the only named train that has been operated for many years now. If someone wants to keep the list as an historic list then I think it needs a better citation and the dates each one operated. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)