Talk:TransPennine Express

Duplicated effort

This is a duplication of what is being developed at Draft:TransPennine Trains. I suggest we combine efforts. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:TransPennine Express which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Status of the withdrawal of the Nova 3 trains

Use this talk page to discuss the withdrawal of the Nova 3 trains and how the information of the withdrawal should be added to the article and whether this information can be added based on the sources we have. This is related to the teahouse talk here. I am under the impression based on what I've read about verifiable sources that the sources from August and September where TransPennine confirmed the withdrawal of the trains are valid sources that the trains have been withdrawn (I'm happy to be proven wrong). Some editors such as @Danners430 disagree with this stance and believe that a recent source is needed confirming that the withdrawal did go ahead. This is why I have opened this discussion (based on recommendations on the teahouse talk) as the issue seems to just keep going back and forth between edits Alexbrassington (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Just a quick note - since the discussion was brought up, I've been searching anew for sources… I have come across this, that theoretically they are still with TPE, if unused… https://gb.readly.com/magazines/railways-illustrated/2023-12-05/655e0a7e4d4b683b76122bb1

I haven't been able to find anything that says they actually have been withdrawn though Danners430 (talk) 21:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

This is interesting. It does at least confirm that they are no longer in passenger service for the foreseeable future. It does call into question how to convey that on Wikipedia though Alexbrassington (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd argue they're not "out of service" since theoretically they could be brought back at a moment's notice, especially while crews still sign them Danners430 (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that since crews still sign the Nova 3s and they could be brought back into service at any point they are not "out of service".
Given the Nova 3s could be used AD-HOC I feel they should be in the current fleet table and the past fleet table should be removed. Maurice Oly (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. However, it would be amiss to completely ignore what's been happening - a simple note saying that TPE had intended to remove them from service would likely suffice, since that's what we have sources for. Danners430 (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I've updated this article, British Rail Class 68 and British Rail Mark 5A with a variation of the following:

TransPennine Express expressed their intention to withdraw the Nova 3 sets from the December 2023 timetable change; however the sets are still leased by TPE until May 2024, and remain in storage.

Danners430 (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

They are considered withdrawn by TPE, as demonstrated by the TPE webpage I linked to the article, now reverted, they are currently in storage and not operating passenger services Lner12345 (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Withdrawn isn't quite the same as not in regular service though - TPE can call on the sets any time they like should they be needed, especially while driver competency exists... Danners430 (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

What, with the class 68s having gone back to DRS, can you not just admit defeat? Lner12345 (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

"Defeat"? Not entirely sure what you mean by that... This isn't exactly a battle... This is Wikipedia, and we're trying to get a consensus. Language like that isn't helping anyone's cause.

And the 68s have been returned... where's the source for that? Danners430 (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

You're the only one trying to claim they haven't been withdrawn, flying in the face of consensus and fact, consensus but one. Lner12345 (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above was myself discussing with @Maurice Oly and @Alexbrassington about the best way to approach this topic. I'm not about to get into accusations - I'm here for constructive discussions. If you can't bring these, then I see no point in responding. Danners430 (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I have brought citations for their withdrawal, are these not acceptable? Lner12345 (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The source from TPE's website merely confirms what we already know, that they're not in regular passenger service anymore. It does nothing about the discussion we've had above, that they can theoretically be called into service at a moment's notice since they're in warm storage, still leased by TPE, and traction knowledge still exists. Danners430 (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

There's no source anywhere, sadly (I hope one crops up soon!) that explicitly states they've been withdrawn… the TPE website just says what TPE consider them as… it's a bit of a weird one, but I wouldn't be happy using it as the sole evidence to say they were fully withdrawn. Danners430 (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

You wouldn't be happy using the company website to say they've been withdrawn? Lner12345 (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

In fact, I say that… then open the most recent RAIL and find it published there - that they have been withdrawn. So time to make some edits - please hold while I finish my sandwich and open my browser! Danners430 (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Lner12345 (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways

The following discussion 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.

---

I have fully protected the article for a week due to edit warring. Warning: A discussion in a new section on this talk page must occur to establish a consensus for any further edits regarding the disputed content. An editor making another change without such clear consensus is likely to be blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging both @Weshmakui and JuniperChill to this discussion, as it pertains to the hatnote above the article. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 07:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

At first, I was thinking about deleting the disambiguation page for TPE given that there is only one primary topic and two other topics. After that failed (and which I withdrew), I changed the hatnote to lead directly to the two former TOCs so that readers do not have to go thru a disambig page because its only two former TOCs. They can do so in one click and not two and the hatnote is just a single line. That is my proposal.

The user is new, but has also reverted my edits to Class 755 and Class 360 which I (tried) to make a primary topic redirect to the UK rollingstocks but are both under discussion with 755 about to close. This user also didn't provide an edit summary when reverting my latest changes which should be done as its not vandalism.

And as a side note, maybe TransPennine Express franchise should be created at some point, like with Greater Western franchise, East Anglia franchise and ScotRail (brand). JuniperChill (talk) 09:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Just for the record - I was also involved in the Class 360 discussion... which honestly I disagree with, but haven't really gone anywhere on it. Not relevant here however. Danners430 (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

(To add from my previous comment), I think reverting should only necessary if its to remove vandalism or to remove good faith edits that lower the quality of the article Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. My edit on changing the hatnote so that it links directly to the two rather than via a dab may be an improvement (it definitely is to me) but definitely doesn't lower the quality so its at least neutral. JuniperChill (talk) 12:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

It is however worth taking note of WP:BRD - if a bold change is made, there's nothing wrong with reverting it and starting a discussion so that a consensus can be reached. In my opinion, if there's a content dispute, then the status quo should remain until consensus is reached either way Danners430 (talk) 12:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Please read BRD again. That page, and other discussions, point out the obvious, namely that every edit needs justification. Only revert an edit if you have a reason to disagree with it. Do not revert because you think a discussion should occur. Johnuniq (talk) 04:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with the fact that edits need justification. I am disagreeing with JuniperChill's assertion that reversions should only be for vandalism - there are many other reasons why reversions would be used with good reason. But we're getting away from what this discussion is meant to be about. Danners430 (talk) 07:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I did say 'or to remove good faith edits that lower the quality of the article'. But as others above states, we should move back to stating about which hatnote to use: either the current one (to dab page) or the proposed one (which links to the two former TOCs directly). JuniperChill (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

JuniperChill, you are entitled to make bold edits, but if reverted then the onus is on you to make the case for change. In this case (and the Class 360 and Class 755 redirects as you brought them up) you attempted to make changes to things that had been in place for some years and worked perfectly well. The TransPennine Express (disambiguation) hatnote has been in place on this article for over a year, you launched an AfD and then withdrew it, so please don't restore your version as if the AfD was successful.

The saving clicks argument is not particularly strong. The Virgin Trains article is an example as to why disambiguation hatnotes should be used, as prior to Virgin Trains (disambiguation) being set up, we had this long winded one. Weshmakui (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

But that links to four pages (not including the two erroneous ones(. The Virgin Trains hatnote is far too long but its doable if it only links to two other pages as in this case. Its literally only two other topics. Indeed, take a look at Great Western Railway which has/d a hatnote to the modern TOC, the Great Western Mainline, and the dab page. JuniperChill (talk) 09:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

As the discussion isn't purely regarding TPE, but really about multiple pages and their DABs, should we perhaps up sticks and move to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways so that a broader discussion can be had? Danners430 (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I think me and Weshmakui are using VT and GWR as an example regarding dabs. Maybe the Wikiproject should be notified about this since we still havent had a discussion from uninvolved editors JuniperChill (talk) 09:30, 4 July 2024 (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.

Consensus to update hatnote on TransPennine Express (RfC)

The following discussion 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.

---

Please keep this discussion to changing the hatnotes on the TPE article and not others to prevent this from being closed and moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways as what happened to above. Also, this discussion will only effect the TPE page and not others.

Since the discussion to make Class 360 and class 755 was settled a short while ago (links to 360 and 755 discussion respectively), I think the same needs to be said over here. The hatnote currently says:

This article is about the operator from 2023. For previous franchisees, see TransPennine Express (disambiguation).

I tried to changed it to:

This article is about the 2023 operator. For the former operators, see TransPennine Express (2016–2023) and First TransPennine Express.

before being reverted. I now need to see if I reach an agreement to change it to the proposed hatnote (one that links the former TPE companies directly) from the current one that links to TransPennine Express (disambiguation), like what happened when I tried to make 360 and 755 a redirect to the UK rolling stocks, both were reverted, and both reached an agreement. There was a discussion above but to settle but to no avail. Therefore, I think a request from other users are helpful like in the two other cases. JuniperChill (talk) 10:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Just one thing I forgot to mention. The reason why I am proposing a change is so that readers can skip the disambiguation page if they are looking for the former franchises. JuniperChill (talk) 13:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:BOLD I personally would have made the change first and see what happens. If nobody objects then it's a good call, otherwise start a discussion. However, as you've started the discussion I think it's a good idea and I support your suggestion. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Well this is what I did (see the page history and above discussion) but it then got reverted, hence the need for this RFC. I also stated it in the post JuniperChill (talk) 12:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:TWOOTHER offers guidance on this question. On my screen, it's one line either way, and actually closer in length then you might expect: 114 characters vs 135 characters. "Disambiguation" is rather a long word. Bypassing the disambiguation page seems reasonable in this case. Mackensen (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I would go with your suggested change and avoid the disambiguation page as it is an extra click for users. Keith D (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposal is resonable, but the hatnote should read "this article is about the operator from/since 2023". Mjroots (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

That is one reason why I am changing it (so that users can save the extra click to go via a disambiguaion page) which I forgot to mention in the opening post. I was on holiday so that's why I failed to update it over the last 3 days. JuniperChill (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

It's been over 9 days since discussion has started and 6 days since last discussion form other users. Therefore, it's safe to say that the RfC has now ended and that consensus has been reached in changing the hatnote. JuniperChill (talk) 09:25, 31 July 2024 (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.

• JuniperChill: I don't disagree with the consensus, but RfCs should be closed by uninvolved editors - for future reference. Rcsprinter123 (talk) 09:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't see anywhere in the WP:RFC page that RFCs may only be closed by uninvolved editors and it's been a long time since no further comments were made, which is why I made the close. Maybe it needs to be clear that closing RFCs should only be done by uninvolved users. If that was clear, then I wouldn;t be closing it. That is the case for closing RMs and XFD discussions. However, I noted that I will no longer close RFCs that I am involved in. JuniperChill (talk) 10:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)