Talk:CrossCountry

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

Scotland[edit]

On their website is says they will carry on going to scotland. Mark999 16:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the ECML bit is being kept under the remapping (ie via Newcastle to access Scotland). The WCML portion is too go with Tran Pennie somehow filling the void (the rumour mill don offer any explanation of where they get will 125mph diesel or electric rolling stock). Pickle 15:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aparently First great Western wants to keep the units that were goin to be transferes to trans pennie Mark999 16:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Current Fleet[edit]

How can they be a current fleet when the franchise has yet to commence? --Stewart (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well in 58 or so days it will, does it honestly matter Mark999 23:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Its a fair point, it implies the stock is sitting and waiting for the franchise to start. How does my nuanced change sound to you all ??? Could also say something like inherited stock?Pickle 04:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Pickle, much better - is the there a reference to the specific units that are to be leased, specifically the Class 221 which Virgin are retaining, and the Class 170 which are coming from elsewhere. --Stewart (talk) 06:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
a) ;)
b) they are inheriting the virgin XC stock
c) how that spilt will work has been doucmented in various places. try looking at the railwayherald.com from a few weeks ago for the spercific anoucment of arriva's franchise.
d) the current issue (no 100), on p6 says all Class 220, and all *but* 16 class 221's (nos 221101 to 221113 and 222142 to 221144). 5 more go to virgin west coast (from arriva) in december when the timtebale changes (221144 to 221118) so west coast will have 21 class 221s.
Pickle 07:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - Stewart (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fleet (upon commencement of franchise)[edit]

The above discussion concluded in the title being applied to the section (as of 15 September 2007). The current issue of Railway Magazine indicates that there is likely to be interchange between Virgin West Coast and the new Cross Country franchise during the first few weeks, with unlikely for the new fleet allocations to settle down until the takeover of the Birmingham to Scotland routes by Virgin West Coast in December 2007. --Stewart (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs[edit]

There is now one Class 220 in service with the new CrossCountry livery. The being the case, there is no longer a valid rationale for the use of one of Arriva's photos. The other photos of the trains in their new livery are valid for the time being, although as vehicles are repainted, they will need to be deleted and replaced with free photos too. Nick 08:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, the image can be classified as "fair use" because it is the only image available- no other units have been re-painted yet= non replaceable. Arriva have also released the image online. I do not see any harm in using the image. Obviously, when more units become available.... I have therefore used the image. Dewarw 21:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I've explained to User:Dewarw on a number of occasions before, just because it's on the website doesn't mean we have carte blanche to use it on Wikipedia. However, in this case, there's a problem: while a train with that livery apparently does exist (the photo doesn't look like a mock-up), if there is only one such train we don't know where it is. So while it is in theory possible to photograph it, it is very difficult. (In comparison, London Midland actually posted on their website the rosters of the trains in their new livery for Monday 12th.) With time, this should resolve itself, as the new livery becomes more widespread. I don't know what the best course of action is here, but it seems like we may have to wait a while before a photo appears. --RFBailey 22:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was certainly my view - only one unit has been repainted, thus we have no real way of knowing where it'll be and how to photograph it, thus the uploaded picture does come under fair use. TheIslander 00:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a grey area as to whether this is "fair use" or not: it is replaceable in theory, just very hard in practice. As I said, we'll just have to wait a while for a free photo. --RFBailey 00:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I was stating is was what The Islander is saying. It is free at the moment. I didn't know it had been deleted before- I have not been a bad User at all. User RFBailey misunderstood- I am sorry if my language was ambiguous. As soon as a replacement is availiable, I will the support the change to the new picture! In the meantime..... Dewarw 15:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not free: a free image is one with no copyright restrictions on its use, that there is never any problem with using. That is not the case here. Instead, this image is claimed to be fair use--that is, one that is copyrighted, but there is a compelling reason for including it (a fair use rationale), including why it is not possible to obtain a free replacement. In this instance, as I have said, it's a grey area as to whether it qualifies as fair use or not.--RFBailey 17:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another user has now listed Image:Arrivavoyager.png as replaceable (see Image talk:Arrivavoyager.png), so don't say I didn't warn you. --RFBailey 19:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up - have now contested :). TheIslander 19:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Nonreplaceable" doesn't mean "sorta hard to replace". ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
J.S. is correct. And Wikipedia's image use policy would therefore rule it out. --Yamla (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that we continue all discussion on this matter here - currently the debate seems to be fragmented over both these locations. TheIslander 16:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the fleet pictures?[edit]

Where are the fleet pictures? i have stopped the nonsense regarding the New Voyager image but the other should still be fine (eg the Turbostar 170 pic is still used in the 170 Wiki page!). I am going to re add the pictures! -- Dewarw (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve noticed that Arrivasupervoyager.png is simply a horizontally flipped version of Arrivavoyager.png. It therefore follows that one of the photographs — probably ‘Arrivasupervoyager’, since as far as I know only a standard Voyager has been repainted — is mislabelled. David Arthur (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the logos on the train in the picture, it seems like 'Arrivavoyager' is the right way round: it has the word "cross" in pink and the word "country" in white. Where did the photo come from anyway? (Surely the "source" field in the fair use template is supposed to be filled with the URL of where it was found?) --RFBailey (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New photo![edit]

At last, a new photo! Rgsao (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Sir! Not only is it a non-non-free picture, but it's actually a very decent quality non-non-free picture! Problem solved, at last... TheIslander 01:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See, I said that being patient would suffice..... --RFBailey (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot RGSAO- I now fully support the deletion of the old image- get rid of it, it has caused enough trouble! Dewarw (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thus proving that the other image was replacable. :) David Arthur (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to spoil the party, but this looks rather a lot like this (the photo on the front page). In fact, suspiciously so. --RFBailey (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! I knew it was too good to be true! Dewarw (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've had to list it at WP:PUI. --RFBailey (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another new photo[edit]

Just happened to catch a semi-rebranded Voyager tonight, so took a picture. Only had my fairly poor qualiy camera phone on me, so the picture is anything but of the best quality. However, it is a completely free-use picture, and will do until a better alternative is taken. TheIslander 22:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank heavens for that! Considering it came from a camera phone, it's not bad at all...... --RFBailey 00:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Network box broken on smaller screens[edit]

On a smaller screen such as 1152×864, the network box is broken -- it overlaps large parts of the page in a very horrible way. Just a tip-off, if anyone here knows how to kick the HTML/CSS back into line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghiraddje (talk • contribs) 01:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The diagram, Template:Cross Country Network, is far too big in my opinion, and dominates the article. Obviously, someone has put a lot of work into it, but it's probably a bit too much!
As for "kicking the HTML/CSS", have you tried bypassing your cache? --RFBailey (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant, kick it into shape, or kick sense into it. As in, make it so that it's not tangled up with everything else on the page when the window isn't large enough. The text from the core routes and current fleet tables overrun it; they're not seeing a correct right margin from the float. Not in Firefox 2.0.0.12 for Windows 2000 anyway. Internet Explorer 6 and Opera 9 break in different ways. I imagine whoever broke the page is using a 1400 px wide monitor or more.
I've looked at the template code but without extensive CSS diagnosis of the whole of Wikipedia, I don't know how it ends up such a total disaster. I'm no CSS expert (especially cross-browser) so I'll leave a message on the talk page of the Railway line header template and point them at this page, the first one to break so far.
Ghiraddje (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is what it looks like BTW Ghiraddje (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yuck. I see what you mean. I'll remove the template until it can be made manageable; besides, other TOC articles don't have such diagrams, so I don't see why this one needs one! --RFBailey (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Website[edit]

Has anyone else noticed that the website has changed? Now seems to be powered by thetrainline - pity, as cheaper fares used to be available direct from CrossCountry. Any other information like when this happened and if it's a permanent thing would be helpful, and if it's indicative of a merger or takeover then this needs noting in the article. dreamcatcher23 (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to work ok for me - maybe a temp thing while the XC website was undergoing maintenance.  Willsmith3  (Talk) 10:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I've just loaded it up now and when you go in to view fares it says powered by thetrainline and it has thetraline's gui on it rather than the crosscountry one which was on last week.... When you search for tickets it redirects to www.crosscountry.trainsfares.co.uk (where www.trainsfares.co.uk redirects to thetrainline). dreamcatcher23 (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On my server using Mozilla Firefox, The CrossCountry fare finder is just powered by the trainline, it doesn't redirect me to the trainline.com. A bit of a mystery here!?!?!?! Britishrailclass91 (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


HST Fleet[edit]

According to RAIL magazine, the HST fleet will be introduced in May 2008, I will put this in the wikitable, but if anyone needs to contradict that, then tell me, and so be it! Britishrailclass91 (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some users have been adding precise details of exactly which trains will be operated by HSTs. There are several problems with this:
  • No acceptable source is available. This page was provided as one, but internet discussion boards/forums are not reliable sources.
  • The information is an excessive level of detail, and pushing the boundaries of WP:NOT.
  • It's also ephemeral and likely to go out of date.
So please don't add it back again! A simple mention that the HSTs will commence in May is enough, I think. --RFBailey (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree, I just thought it was worth a mention somewhere. Yes I admit the details were excessive. Year1989 (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The First HST to be rolled out in the new livery can be found Here Scroll down until you find Picture of the Day 20th July 2008, sadly this is an un-free image and cannot be used for the project, but it's something to look out for! Britishrailclass91 (talk) 09:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Services York to Newcastle[edit]

In the timetable 8 Sept - 13th December 2008 There is only 1 train per hour between the two cities. Is this temporary or permanent? If is the latter the main page should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.30.124 (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removal of picture[edit]

I have removed the artists impression of one of the trains - to whoever reinstated it please read the edit summary.

As far as I know these drawings have not been shown to be accurate in terms of either colour or dimension - the features they do show are grossly simplified.

It should be obvious that such a drawing is not suitable for an encyclopedia.87.102.43.12 (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't obvious. These illustrations do not need to be accurate in every minute detail to be useful to our readers. I consider them to be useful because they show very clearly the arrangement of a particular train, something which would be more difficult and less effective if a photograph was used. I assume you are FengRail (talk · contribs). Please log in since you have an account rather than editing fromboth as an IP address and a registered user. Adambro (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was me who re-instated the diagram and I have to agree with Adambro. I personally think they are useful, even if they are not totally accurate - for copyright reasons they have to be drawn by users rather than taken from official sources - but they do show what the livery is like better than photographs often do. -- NRTurner (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it should be retained. They feature on other TOCs' pages as well. Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the diagram should remain. However, I think discussions on improving them (i.e. adding more features of the livery etc.) could be started. Some diagrams are better than others, and I think that they should all be brought in line with each other. Btline (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really make sense to have the image in the middle of a table - can you see it just looks a mess there? see CrossCountry#Multiple_Unit_fleet

I still think it should be obvious that the images should be removed as they are innaccurate and misleading - a class 170 crosscountry unit looks nothing like that in reality; in part becuase the image lacks any context.

  • How is it verified as being accurate?
  • Specifically if any of the liveries are copyrighted or trademarked - then the derivative work may be in breach of those copyrights.

I hope you can see that there are real issues with using the image - note the issue of accuracy in an encylopedia. I don't think that you can argue that an artists impression can be taken as an accurate repesentation of the subject?FengRail (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an issue with copyright, as the pictures have been drawn separately. And if someone wants accuracy and reliability, they won't (if they have an ounce of common sense) look on Wikipedia! Btline (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be an issue with trademark (or not - it depends on the company). see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(trademarks)#The_use_of_graphic_logos possibly requiring the use of Template:Trademark
The images are derivative works (in a similar way that the text could be described as a derivative work) - as such they really should be verifiable - this would mean references to the livery specifications.
If the images have been created from the livery specifications then the livery specification should be referenced. If not then they may not be reliable information.
Also there already are lots of free actual real world images available to us, which cannot be contested in their accuracy.FengRail (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But these diagrams (of which there are many scattered around now), are simple, plain pictures of train liveries. They are adequately accurate (IMO). Yes, a photograph is more accurate. There are plenty of train sites out there, full of pictures; have a look at them. The text is the most important thing in a Wiki article. Pictures should supplement the text. The diagrams fulfil this requirement well. Btline (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These images were never as far as I am aware intended to be 100% accurate representations of the relevant rolling stock. As I had already suggested, they are useful in showing the arrangement of a particular train much clearer than a photograph could ever do. Part of the whole reason why they are not 100% accurate is the potential copyright issues that FengRail notes. This isn't a problem however because they don't need to show the livery to a high level of detail to be useful for our readers. If there are some serious errors in what these drawings depict then I would invite FengRail to highlight these and raise the issue with the creator. However, my opinion is that anyone looking at these images can compare them to photographs and see that they reasonably portray the same livery.
I am disappointed that Btline feels that "if someone wants accuracy and reliability, they won't (if they have an ounce of common sense) look on Wikipedia". Whilst anyone using Wikipedia needs to be aware of its limitations, we are working to achieve something which is accurate and reliable. The key to this is challenging unsourced information and removing it if an appropriate source cannot be provided. Unsourced content is a massive problem with UK rail articles I would accept and so I would encourage everyone to cast a critical eye over every article and determine whether what is being stated is really backed up by reliable information. Adambro (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you say about the pictures, Adambro. However, some are better than others (with more accurate detail of First Class, and Disabled/bike store areas). Perhaps they could all be brought into line with each other? Starting a removal programme now (i.e. before a major, more centralised discussion) is out of the question, as there are loads on most UK rail Wiki pages! If Fengrail thinks they should be removed; this is the wrong talk page to discuss it.

On the accuracy comment: My main point is that if someone want an accurate picture of the livery - they should look on other websites for photos. But in general, since anybody can edit a Wikipedia page, it can't and never will be sufficiently accurate and reliable, no matter how hard we work. That's just a unavoidable fact. Btline (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy of pictures
  • They have no dimensions
  • The are two dimensional and do not show front/top
  • From a techical point of view they are awfull - the bogies, underfloor gear etc are very badly rendered , for example look at the current images on class 222 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Rail_Class_222&oldid=270555116 , not only are they to different scales (which could be fixed) - but unfortunately don't show the B5005 bogies at all accurately - in fact they are both totally innacurate in this respect.
Other points - the idea of having seating diagrams - with location of toilets, shops etc seems like a good one. Some operators (virgin at least all ready provide them) as do Bombardier in some cases eg http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/products-services/rail-vehicles/intercity-trains/multiple-units/meridian/pioneer---united-kingdom?docID=0901260d800128f6# - however it's still possible to link to them rather than creating them from scratch.
If the purpose is to illustrate the liveries and nothing else then a photograph will always be better as it shows the article as it really is.
To put this in perspective I really think that saying that these images are ok is like saying an image of a Hornby model of a 222 would be and adequate illustration. In fact an image of such a model would make a better illustration by any measure.
So as a rhetorical question - is a Hornby model an acceptable image for illustrating these articles?
I appreciate that it would be a good idea to standardise these images - but as I really honestly don't think they are suitable for the articles (at the present level of quality) I can't really encourage the process.FengRail (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go and suggest their removal (or some better alternative such as improvement/standardisation) at WP:trains/talk. (the link is at the top of the page) - its the project page. Hopefully a thrid opinion and some oversight will be helpful.FengRail (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here for further discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#Drawn_images_of_liverys_-_conflict_over_removal Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 01:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New redirect[edit]

This is just a quick note to let any interested editors know that I've created Cross Country Network as a redirect to CrossCountry network map and changed all the piped references to "Cross Country Network" in the various station rail line info boxes to use the redirect. If the consensus is that Cross Country Network should point to this page rather than the map, then the redirect can be edited appropriately. Tevildo (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do they call at?[edit]

It should say what each service calls at, and what they call at when operating extensions. I've memorised what the journey from Aberdeen to Penzance calls at, but it should still say so. It says what First Great Western and East Midlands Trains intercity services call at, you know! Pdiddyjr (talk) 11:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham New Street[edit]

Opening paragraph statement that All services call or terminate at Birmingham New Street is incorrect. There are services from Bristol to Cardiff, Plymouth to Penzance, Dundee to Aberdeen, Aberdeen to Edinburgh and Cambridge to Stansted that do not go through Birmingham.

http://traintimes.im/rail-service/C08212/2012/10/09/

http://traintimes.im/rail-service/C08003/2012/10/09/

http://traintimes.im/rail-service/C08315/2012/10/09/

http://traintimes.im/rail-service/C08314/2012/10/09/

http://traintimes.im/rail-service/C08000/2012/10/09/

http://traintimes.im/rail-service/C08319/2012/10/09/D47817 (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The user who added that has a history of making unsourced changes - I think I'd treat anything he added with some suspicion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip, have reversed his most recent changes, as he is unlikely to respond. D47817 (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, sounds like a good move -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Route Table problem[edit]

There's a problem with the table of routes and I don't know how to fix it. Captain Cornwall (talk) 10:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

done. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redesignation of quiet coaches[edit]

@Redrose64: thanks for pointing out the ambiguity in my edit. Do you have a suggestion for improved wording? I considered simply swapping "removing" for "redesignating", but that begs the question 'redesignating to what?'. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about "removing the quiet coach designation from"? --Redrose64 (talk) 09:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. See what you think now. Feel free to tweak further if you want. Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 11:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stock Table[edit]

May need to add new heading for Diagrams in table. FuSSionZ (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Electrification of routes[edit]

"CrossCountry services are operated using diesel trains only, since none of the routes it operates is fully electrified." -- a counterexample to this: CrossCountry run the 1C80 service from GLC to EDB on saturdays. This goes via carstairs junction and the route is completely electrified. It is nonetheless serviced by voyagers. Alecjw (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A once-a-week service wouldn't really justify the hiring of an EMU. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, but my point was the "since none of the routes it operates is fully electrified" statement is incorrect. "since the majority of .... are not fully electrified" maybe? Alecjw (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It does say route, not service. There are six XC routes - Cardiff to Nottingham, Birmingham to Stansted, Bristol to Manchester, Penzance to Scotland, Bournemouth to Manchester and Bournemouth to Scotland. None of those is fully electrified. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Future Fleet[edit]

In Section 2.1 there is a table headlined Future Fleet, where, for example Voyagers are said to replace Turbostars on the Cardiff - Nottingham route, and so on, however there is nothing anywhere to say that this is the case and will happen, so, where has this information come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BensterNO1 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BensterNO1: If there are no sources for future developments, it's WP:CRYSTALballing and should be removed. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on CrossCountry. 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, 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on CrossCountry. 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) 22:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Create separate article for CrossCountry Franchise?[edit]

Would it be appropriate to create separate article for CrossCountry Franchise? My proposal would be to have this cover both the 'new' franchise that has operated since 2007 and the original one created on privatisation and would then link to the articles for the TOCs to date (the current Arriva Franchise and the former Virgin one) and also in time to whoever wins the current retender. Without having a separate article it is unclear to be how we can usefully inform people about the progress of the tender and provide a consistent narrative for the franchise over time. Thoughts? PeterEastern (talk) 10:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, yes. The majority of other franchises, if not all, have a separate page from the company actually operating it. I hope to create is soon, ish!--07Alpha55 (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with CrossCountry network map[edit]

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CrossCountry network map. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfD was procedurally closed as speedy keep. My rationale was: "The diagram is not particularly large compared to other diagrams and map images in similar articles and could easily be included in the main article CrossCountry with |collapse=1. Other than the diagram, all of the information is already included in the main article." The only content I am proposing to add to the article is the diagram, which is a transcluded template. Notifying Ansh666, Mangoe, Unscintillating, Doncram. Jc86035 (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the CrossCountry franchise is due to be renewed next year, it needs to be retained on a separate page. It is like the Thameslink operator and the Thameslink route pages, they need to be kept separate. Joshua Marooney (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HST / Voyager cascades[edit]

Does anyone have a verifiable source that someone has actually proposed cascading ex-LNER HST sets or ex-Avanti West Coast Voyagers to CrossCountry? Because these keep being added to the article with no citation, as though it's something that the editor(s) in question want to see rather than anything that's been seriously considered. LostCause231 (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition the current wording ("It is possible that...") seems to fail WP:CRYSTAL with how openly speculative it is, but there's been enough of a back-and-forth on it that I'd rather not get pulled up for an edit war by just removing it as-is without discussion. LostCause231 (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Core services.[edit]

An unregistered editor keeps changing the core. The core in the current time table is Plymouth (trains start as Laira depot) for usual destinations in the North. Two trains at 1015 and 2020 from Paignton; the former to Bristol |and the second to Birmigham. REVUpminster (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Future rolling stock[edit]

Can we please find sources to back this up, as the sources used for this say this would happen in 2020 however it is 2021 and these changes did not happen in 2020.

Six of the existing two-car Class 170/5s will be lengthened to three cars in 2021. This is happening as a result of the Class 170s from West Midlands Trains transferring to East Midlands Railway: the centre cars of the six 170/6s transferred to CrossCountry. Maurice Oly (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Service table[edit]

Can anyone please double-check the December '22 timetable to see if I missed anything and add/remove as needed? It's very typical of someone like me not native to the UK to have some confusion with what's listed. Jalen Folf (talk) 08:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation[edit]

Wikipedia articles should reflect what has happened or likely to happen in the future based on what reliable sources state is planned. But they should not include text on what might happen. Point in case being this cite that states It is understood that one option proposed was for EMR’s 27 Class 222s to move to XC...'. That it uses it is understood means the publication was speculating and not reporting concrete facts. Which it hasn't and with multiple reliable sources now confirming that XC will be downsizing, not upsizing, is unlikey to any time soon. The offending section has been deleted. Hoekiema (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "offending section", for the avoidance of doubt, is shown in this diff.
I don't endorse this as a general principle. Per WP:CRYSTALBALL we may not insert our own speculation or predictions, but [it] is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. ... Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view.
As far as I'm concerned, the article cited – a piece by Richard Clinnick published in Rail Magazine – is clearly within the exception made for reliable, expert sources (or even simply 'recognised entities'), and thus permissible. Even the fact that the speculation is subsequently proven misguided by actual events does not automatically make it problematic, because it still might be of encyclopaedic value to mention that a certain plan was hypothesised or that a notable person or organisation made certain predictions.
I've given thought to reverting you on these grounds, but have decided not to at this point in time on the basis that there is currently not enough material to sustain a whole "future fleet" section. XAM2175 (T) 18:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we go down the path of including everything that is ever hypothesised, then articles will fill up with this sought of speculation pretty quickly, given that this type of reporting is not uncommon, e.g it has also been speculated on at various times that former Avanti West Coast 221s could be moving to XC, and the 222s could be off to GWR and ScotRail. A future fleet section should include what can be confirmed is coming into the fleet, not what has been speulated upon.
If the cite was prepared to state that involved parties, be they the operator or leasing company, were exploring the option, then the case would be stronger, but for all we know this may be just relying social media on internet forum jibber. Hoekiema (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not something is sufficiently notable to include is a different matter, and in general I agree that a future fleet section should have some solid material. I wish simply to note that removing content on the sole grounds of it being speculative is not supported by policy. XAM2175 (T) 09:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:CrossCountry&oldid=1200757865"