Jump to content

Talk:First ScotRail

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

Branding

[edit]

The use of "Scotland's national" in the first sentence does not seem quite right. Please see Strategic Rail Authority. The fact that ScotRail is in the brand name does not make the fanchise Scotland's national fanchise. And there are other service operators using lines in Scotland. Laurel Bush 13:04, 4 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with it. It seems fine to me. The other operators' services are mostly south of the border. ScotRail operate the only intra-Scotland services, and have only two minor cross border services. It would seem to me that they are the national operator within Scotland. --Colin Angus Mackay 13:31, 4 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"However, the company has now been renamed ScotRail - Scotland's Railways." This is wrong. Scotrail is the brand name introduced by Transport Scotland last year under which the majority of services are operated, but the operating company remains as First Scotrail, owned by First Group. --Donnan Strachan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnan Strachan (talk • contribs) 23:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that the wording was inaccurate. I have reworded the sentence to read, "The service was initially operated as First ScotRail but was renamed..." --Jolin (talk) 12:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split article?

[edit]

It might be an idea to split the NEG ScotRail part of the article away from the First ScotRail bulk. They are separate companies so they should have their own pages. Our Phellap 12:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. Ultimately, it's the same franchise, with the same trains, network, timetable and staff. All that's changed is the managers and the colour of the trains and the uniforms. Maccoinnich 13:13, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
The article seems to be primarily about a franchise issued by the Strategic Rail Authority, not about any particular company with a lease of the fanchise. Also the article seems to include clear references to articles about relevant companies. Laurel Bush. 17:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of Class 334

[edit]

The caption indicates that the train is approaching Cardonald Station. Looking at the trackwork, it not Cardonald Junction. Can anyone please identify?

Stewart 16:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger with ScotRail?

[edit]

Following the rebranding of the franchise, should this be linked with the ScotRail page with historical information on the brand and past franchises along with information on the company today. Discuss (Jacqueline2008 (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

personal opinion is that the line at the top of the old scotrail page is enough - maybe a similar line should be added to the top of this one directing people to the old one lordmwa (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Status Quo. As I posted in the NEG article. To combine the articles is not the way forward. Take other now defunct TOCS, like GNER whose services are still largely the same, with just a different company operating it. They still have an separate entry. How would this fit in with the Template:Defunct_UK_TOCs? It's just because the names are similar that confusion happens. This is not good enough reason to merge.--86.155.186.118 (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

agreed lordmwa (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something needs to be done to sort the names of the articles. When looking for the present-day company name, ScotRail, you first come to the page about the old company before being redirected via the link at the top of the page to First ScotRail, which is now an old name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.74.19 (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a former rail operator, the only link with ScotRail is the franchise, so it should not be merged. Danski454 (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also a single paragraph is not a substitute for a full article. Danski454 (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Article?

[edit]

As noted in the section Merger with ScotRail, the service is now called "ScotRail" and not "First ScotRail". I propose that a new article is created titled "ScotRail (FirstGroup)" and the contents of this "First ScotRail" article are transfered to the new article. This article can then be set to automatically redirect to the new "ScotRail (FirstGroup)" article. This will also be useful in the future, because if someone else wins the next franchise, it will still be called ScotRail and so an article on the new franchise can simply be created as "ScotRail (New Operator)". --Jolin (talk) 12:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Convert logo into SVG?

[edit]

Hi railway buffs (or whatever you call them! )

I was just wondering, since the new ScotRail livery is going to be around for a long time, I was thinking that the logo should be converted to SVG.

-calvinps- (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really compatible with free use of a non-free logo; see: Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. Thanks/wangi (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SVG logo uploaded, Philphos (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cut-back quantity of performance information on page

[edit]

Since this section of the article has been market for clean-up I suggest that the performance information is trimmed to only show the following:

Last National Express figures First First Scotrail figures (for comparison) Current First Scotrail figures

I have tried to make this change before in order to clean-up the article but the changes have been reversed, if anyone has any objections to this then raise them here.

I won't charge the article unless people agree on how much information should be pruned out.

I agree that there is too much here at present. waltonkbbl (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about removing some, if any, of the information. I would like to see this historical information. However it is not well presented and would be better in tabular (or graphically) format. A complete reformatting is required. It will then be possible to see the the trends in performance change of the National Express and First Group franchise periods. Even better if there is any BR Scotrail information available. --Stewart (talk | edits) 19:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why you would like to keep some of the historical data, however, might I suggest that the frequency is reduced to yearly instead of quarterly for the historical data (as it is on the Virgin Trains article)? That way the trends are still visible but the list/table won't be too long? Full historical data for punctuality is freely available from ORR, I don't think Wikipedia needs duplicate this, a summary should suffice. Will annual records suffice - plus the last 4 quarterly reports? waltonkbbl (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The tabular format is easier to read - like it. Maybe the quarterly and annual comparisons for a particular quarter could be on the same line. --Stewart (talk | edits) 17:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you find it looks better now. But yes, it could do with some more condensing, this is the best I could do though. -=vyruss=- (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have reformatted the table to put the annual and quarterly results in different columns. I think it is now easier to read. --Stewart (talk | edits) 20:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to those who have updated this, it's a lot more easy to read, although perhaps still too much data here. waltonkbbl (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Class 156 - DMU - (2).jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Class 156 - DMU - (2).jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

I feel this article really benefits from a map - it had one but it was obliterated about 3 years ago because it had a simple spelling mistake. I have inserted a new map graphic now - if there are any errors, just drop me a line and I'll do my best to fix it, but it would preferable for it not to be deleted. Cnbrb (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does First ScotRail own freight lines? I'm just wondering about the odd lines around Ayr. Also, the Borders line shouldn't be on there yet as its not due to open for another three years. Simply south ...... sitting on fans for just 8 years 13:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I could take them off I guess. It was really a general map of railway lines in the country. It's useful to keep the EC/WCML but they aren't technically Scotrail either - maybe I'll just grey them a bit to distinguish them. I somehow thought Borders Line was opening sooner - I will have to remember to come back and re-instate it if I take it off. Cnbrb (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. The website says it will open late next year. Simply south ...... sitting on fans for just 8 years 20:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How exciting! The map I have updated to distinguish ScotRail passenger services in red; the Borders/Waverley line is now shown dotted in this version, to be updated after it opens in 2015. 17:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This page needs a lot of work done to it, new ref:s

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on First ScotRail. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 23:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on First ScotRail. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:First_ScotRail&oldid=1202020988"