Talk:Transport for Wales Rail

Article name post 7 February 2021

Being discussed at Talk:Transport for Wales Rail Services#Article name post 7 February 2021 Shenkdwood (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 28 January 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested 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 move review 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: Procedural close, converted to multi-request at Talk:Transport for Wales Rail Services#Requested move 28 January 2021 (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 11:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Transport for Wales Rail (2021) → Transport for Wales Rail – See discussion at Talk:Transport for Wales Rail Services#Requested move 28 January 2021. Bx16 (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2021 (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.

Requested move 12 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested 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 move review 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: Moved, as per the revised proposal.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

---

• Transport for Wales Rail Limited → Transport for Wales Rail
• Transport for Wales Rail Services → Transport for Wales Rail (train operating company 2018–2021) KeolisAmey Wales

– Transport for Wales Rail Limited is the current train operating company (ToC) for Wales. Transport for Wales Rail Services was the ToC operating from 2018 to 2021. Transport for Wales Rail redirects to the current ToC. It in turn has over 500 links from other articles, and most of them having taken a look are rightly intended to point to the current ToC.

So my first reason is the first page move would help fix around 500 double re-directs.

My second reason is that the second page move would align the name with that chosen for other former ToC's, e.g. Southeastern (train operating company 2006–2021).

My third reason is it's just a whole lot neater - disambiguation isn't currently used or needed for the first page, so the page move isn't going to cause confusion, and the second page move will make things less confusing as it will be more obvious from the name what the article is about. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Partial support Support Transport for Wales Rail Limited → Transport for Wales Rail per WP:NCCORP. Oppose Transport for Wales Rail Services → Transport for Wales Rail (train operating company 2018–2021) as suggested above, support rename to KeolisAmey Wales instead as suggested by Dank · Jay below. Seeshorna (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  I think the second move to KeolisAmey Wales would be perfect. I definitely support that. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Partial support Support Transport for Wales Rail Limited → Transport for Wales Rail, I moved the current article to the current title ((2021) → "Limited") before Transport for Wales Rail redirect was moved from TfWS to this article on 7 July 2021; Oppose moving Transport for Wales Rail Services to name proposed; the current title, or "KeolisAmey ??" would be my preferred. – Dank · Jay (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment on Transport for Wales Rail Services → Transport for Wales Rail (train operating company 2018–2021). The "Rail" in the title already differentiates it from the transport agency, therefore "train operating company" isn't necessary, so Transport for Wales Rail (2018–2021). If we were to follow Southeastern, the brand name "Transport for Wales" should be used, therefore Transport for Wales (train operating company 2018–2021) (for the latter this article may have to be titled Transport for Wales (train operating company)). However the approach to the Northern franchise can also be used, the old operator is titled Arriva Rail North, therefore legal names KeolisAmey Operations, KeolisAmey Wales Cymru (or in previous RM, KeolisAmey Wales), or the current name can be used. I prefer these names over the proposed, although the current Transport for Wales Rail Services is sufficient. Transport for Wales (agency) in their annual report uses "Keolis Amey Wales Cymru" if that helps, although we don't need to follow their usage. – Dank · Jay (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

NOTE I changed the proposal for the second move to KeolisAmey Wales as there is zero support (even from me now) for the original proposal. It looks like there might be consensus on the new name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 10mmsocket (talk • contribs) 08:07, 25 January 2022 (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.

Service table

I brought this subject up on Talk:KeolisAmey Wales a few weeks ago and figured I should bring it up here too: would it be worth it that, instead of displaying the rail lines in the Routes section, that we copy and paste the service table there and adjust according to the current timetable? Obviously we need to use both the TfW timetables and eNRT as cross-referencing, but I believe it could work instead of displaying a mess of "these services continue on X line" across some of the cells. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The service table there does look more organised and easier to read than the route table here, and from a quick glance, this article is one of the few TOCs to have a table organised solely by line (based on a map). So using the service table would probably be more organised. DankJae 11:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I have completed this conversion, however, I am aware that I missed some irregular calling patterns on some services. Please verify these services and add any irregularities as needed. Jalen Folf (talk) 09:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Good job. Not a criticism, just an observation - in the previous version the South Wales valleys (now the very bottom of the new table) included the line name. Would it be useful to work the line name in somehow to the current version, e.g. as an additional column? I'd suggested it's a nice-to-have, not a screaming must do. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to splitting these headers as to how it was before, as long as the correct lines are identified. Jalen Folf (talk) 09:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I much prefer how it is now t.b.h. Neater and more accessible. Like I say, the line names are just a nice-to-have. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of 175s in "Past fleet"

@Maurice Oly and @DankJae: even if those three units are permanently withdrawn, I don't believe that the 175s belong in the "Past fleet" section until the whole fleet is withdrawn. It's contradictory for them to be listed simultaneously as current and past, and a bad precedent too – taken to extremes, you'd be listing the 156s at ScotRail as 'past' because they off-leased a single unit earlier this year even though they're planning to hang onto the rest for ages yet. XAM2175 ^(T) 15:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@XAM2175, agree with that too, would be easier to just add a note to the current fleet (with a clearer source stating it's permanent) rather than duplicate the entry, and only move it to past when all have been permanently withdrawn. DankJae 16:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@XAM2175, well actually, why are the 197s and 231s in both current and future? DankJae 16:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

They're not any more. XAM2175 ^(T) 17:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Personally I would just ignore the fact that they're stored at all. It's a transient state and anybody interested in that level of granularity can look at the main article for the class. If they're actually permanently withdrawn, then just alter the number in service. Fundamentally these pages should only be overviews of information that is relatively static – anything more is an unnecessary maintenance burden. XAM2175 ^(T) 17:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image

While this may be pedantic, the recent disputes of the infobox image on this article may be in need of discussing. Two recent edits in good faith, seem to be of two editors trying to insert their own images to be used in the infobox. They're both great images in their own right, but this dispute is better discussed rather than changing them every few days, to prevent a slow edit war, plus seems a good time to discuss it, the image I put months ago that lasted for months is gone (with good reason) and I just prefer stability.

So what would be the best image to represent Transport for Wales Rail, and as it was stated as the reason, what is their "flagship fleet" if they have one, and should that be used as a basis of the infobox image.

The past infobox images used on this article are below, be free to also give suggestions (images post Feb 2021 preferred).

• 
  Restored today; June–July 2023
• 
  July 2023 (cropped version)
• 
  September 2021–June 2023
• 
  July 2021–September 2021
• 
  April 2021–July 2021 (KeolisAmey-run image)

Pinging editors involved @Vanmanyo, @Sootysuerickie, and those on this talk page @XAM2175, @Maurice Oly, @10mmsocket, and @JalenFolf. DankJae 21:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@DankJae thanks for this, I'm not going to vote as mine is in here but maybe I was harsh. I would say TFWs standout fleet sis the Mk4 sets, and we've got to remember that the class 175s are leaving soon so we might as well change it to something that isn't them so we don't have this all again! That's just my thoughts though.

Thank you Vanmanyo (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

While the Mk4 do also stand out greatly, and indeed the 175s are going so that image would need to go at some point, the argument for the 197 and 231 as they're to be a more common fleet does also stand out for me. But I have no strong opinions either way and both are good in their own ways, just prefer there are no image wars, like on many other articles rn, and the image is stable. DankJae 21:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@DankJae I would say the mk4s are better than the 231s and 197s because they are more intercity so perhaps stand out more like you suggested. I'm not trying to start a war but ye I'm just suggesting like you. I would say perhaps we should consider image quality although I'm not too sure how important this is. Vanmanyo (talk) 01:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

“More intercity” is not really an appropriate argument as Transport for Wales is not an intercity operator. The MK4s make up a very small proportion of the company’s services, whereas the vast majority (all services except Borderlands 230, Heart of Wales 153, and limited MK4 sets) of heavy rail services will be operated by 197 or FLIRTS. This is why I believe the image of the 197 and 231 should remain. The MK4 image is also poor quality and not very well lit. Sootysuerickie (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Concur Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

One thing I would say about the 197 image is that the quality is very poor (mobile most likely), if anyone has a better image of 197/231 I'm all for it. Vanmanyo (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The quality of both is tolerable for an infobox image IMO. No clear blurring, while yes one may be taken from mobile and slightly less in resolution, the other one can be also determined to be quite dark and obstructed. But both are minor issues. But a case about the trains represented seems to have @Mattdaviesfsic supporting the two-train image? It is a persuasive argument, if based on the most common trains readers are more likely to have travelled on with the operator.

Ofc, if another image (including of any train) can be found happy to consider any of those. I cannot find another 197/231 image, so the rarity of such image kinda helps it tbh. DankJae 21:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@DankJae Simply agreeing with what @Sootysuerickie said above... Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Class 170s are gone. Source available.

All 170s are gone and this is confirmed in the following source: The Railway Magazine, March 2024 Edition. I dont know how to edit the Current Fleet table correctly to remove it. May someone else please? Sootysuerickie (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I’m not able to edit just now - but as a genuine suggestion, have you tried the visual editor? Danners430 (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)