Talk:Wrexham & Shropshire

Route

Okay... how is it possible to go from Wolverhampton station to Snow Hill/Moor Street stations then?? It's impossible (without having to do a few shunting manoeuvres, which they're not going to do on a "high speed rail service")!!

Anyway, surely they will try and miss out Birmingham if they can? Go from Wolverhampton to London direct and without stopping. If you look at what Hull Trains do, they go straight from the East Riding of Yorkshire area to London. David 16:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It's been confirmed it's missing stops at Birmingham altogether, and is rather stopping at Banbury after Wolverhampton. Born Acorn 23:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff. Will be great if all this happens! David 11:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Are people sure about the order of the stations called? Tame Bridge Parkway is south east of Wolverhampton, whilst Cosford is to the north west of the city. It seems extremely unlikely to me that any train would pass through Wolverhampton High Level, then reverse back to the station. Fingerpuppet 16:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. -- tariqabjotu 01:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Wrexham Shropshire and Marylebone Railway → Wrexham, Shropshire and Marylebone Railway – Name as it appears officially on the website. The new destination already exists, but as a redirect - just to note. Simply south 15:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support - should have been that way round in the first place. Change it as soon as you wish. David 17:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lead image

I have changed the picture to a 67 for the following reasons:

• They have announced using these would be a possibility
• You can see Midland Mainline in the old picture and you can't see any brand here.
• It was this exact formation which performed the test run.
• It has nect to it a 165 which will probably be the case at Marylebone, even though this is Paddington

Fine by me. David 17:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've taken it out again:

• Image is of the EWS Company Train, which clearly will not be operating the actual service.
• Image is taken at Paddington, service will operate (supposedly) out of Marylebone.

As a result, the image is somewhat misleading. The image in the TOC summary box should be representative of the operator. The above reasons do not make a strong enough case for the image, and seem like a convenience measure more than anything, which is contrary to the Wikipedia:image use policy. Chris cheese whine 15:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there needs to be an image of some sort there, and the 67 was pretty good. Okay, it's in EWS livery but what else could it be in, otherwise how about putting three images on the page (67, 156, 170) to show the different options. Roger.

I've got no objection to there being some image there to illustrate the article, my objection is purely with potentially misleading images in the infobox. In general, though, I'm not convinced that there's a case to be made for putting those images in. Images should be relevant to the article, and if we included a picture of a 170 in every article that contains a passing mention of them, things would start to become cluttered. That said, a map of the proposed routes might be useful. Chris cheese whine 22:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that an image of a 67 in EWS isn't entirely inappropriate as some of the locomotives WSMR are using are in EWS livery. 7severn7 (talk) 10:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Trains

Having read the site, they claim that the trains they use will be 100mph - I'm guessing this would mean Turbostars rather than the 67, yes? The 67 does 125, IIRC. This is reading into things a little too much probably, just a thought Worley-d 01:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I know it's an old topic but as far as I'm aware the only direct way to get to Snow Hill from Wolverhampton is if they were to relay the track that now forms some of the Midland Metro route. I can't remember what it's called - probably Snow Hill-Wolverhampton or something simple. Anyway... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worley-d (talk • contribs)

Its no longer going through Snow Hill be will be rerouted through Coventry, I think. Simply south 12:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Class 170s are expected, but they've announced their intentions for a Buffet, which I don't think would fit on a 170. Their Class 67 test trains and announcement that they could "cater for 67s" in the timetable have only confused things. Born Acorn 00:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The thing I can't wait to see now is if any 67 they do bring in is reliveried. Similarly with 170s. Wouldn't that be fun! Can't wait... Worley-d 23:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, so, their options are:

• Class 170 Turbostar
• Class 158
• Class 67 locomotive and Mk2 or Mk3 coaching stock

Apparently, 170s are hard to come by, and the 158 is currently only cleared as far as Aynho Junction. The 67 is all cleared for the entire route apart from an MK2 DVT they may use. Born Acorn 02:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

All of the 170s are currently in use with various TOCs, and they can't build any new DMUs or Diesel Locos at present thanks to a new European Directive on engine emissions coming into force. So that basically leaves 158s (which should be okay by virtue of them being narrower than 165s, but that would limit catering provision to a trolley) or 67s + Mk 3s (though DVTs aren't cleared between Marylebone and South Ruislip yet). Barry Salter 12:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

How about 168s or 175s? Simply south 15:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Map

I've tried designing a map of the WSMR route as seen here:

However, i am not totally sure it is geographically perfect. Simply south 11:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a good map, except Cosford and Wellington aren't "possible" stations but "occasional" stations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worley-d (talk • contribs)

Yes, however, i think the souces for these are actually local media and not the train website itself. It is still possible however that they may be served.

Simply south 22:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point... I'll just, er... Stop interfering :P Worley-d 23:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Found some sources - both BBC.

• Townspeople hopin for London rail link

• BBC Shropshire Travel - New rail between Shropshire and London

Simply south 23:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It has now much later been confirmed that the above stops are going to be normal stops with most services calling there. I am going to further update the image and then maybe readd it. Simply south (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Latest submission

Shropshire Star 12 March

David 13:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup of article

I've made some substantial changes to the article, giving it a comprehensive rewrite. Some comments:

• I felt that a link was needed to explain the term "open access", but couldn't really find a sensible place to go. I opted for Train operating company; if my proposal in this discussion is carried forward, then hopefully the expanded article will have a section on open-access operators which can be linked to.

• I removed information about things that were clearly never going to happen (e.g. serving Birmingham Moor Street), as well as information about Saturday and Sunday timetables (this can be added once they've been finalised).

• Some of the more recent edits were rather informal in style.

• Overall, the was lots of repetition and out-of-date in the article. Hopefully it's more organised now!--RFBailey 04:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not create an Open Access Operator article and then create a link? 7severn7 (talk) 11:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

IMO it would just be better to create open-access operator as a subsection of TOC. Simply south (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That's an even better idea. Congrats 7severn7 (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tidied up the route information (Ruabon comes before Chirk) and the route round Birmingham. I think travel through New Street is now very rare. I have also given an explanation of why two 67s were used before the arrival of the DVTs.DigbyJames (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Wolverhampton

Does anyone know if it will it be possible to board a Wrexham & Shropshire train at Wolverhampton if NOT travelling as far as London?7severn7 (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

For trains travelling towards London you will not be able to board at wolves, as you will not be allowed to leave the train when travelling towards Wrexham. This is because of VWC Moderation of Competition. --Fuelboy (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we know about VWC's moderation of competition. The question is, does this apply just to London-Wolverhampton passengers? What about (hypothetical) Wolverhampton-Tame Bridge Parkway or Wolverhampton-Banbury passengers? --RFBailey (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Never though about that sorry. Unsure. Would be very diffcult to sort one set of passengers from another. --Fuelboy (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hence the "NOT travelling as far as London" in my original question. I cannot see such new direct journey opportunities conflicting with "moderation of competition" rules. Although certain present trains may make Wolverhampton-Banbury possible; what alternate route must you use from Wolverhampton-Tame Bridge Parkway?7severn7 (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Change at Walsall. --RFBailey (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Would a direct Wolverhampton-Tame Bridge Parkway journey contravine any "moderation of competition" rule instead of the via Walsall route?7severn7 (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if the other franchise holders (London Midland, CrossCountry) have such clauses built into their franchise agreements--I don't think so. However, if passengers were to be allowed to board at Wolverhampton to travel to Tame Bridge or Banbury, it would be difficult to separate them from those wishing to travel to London, so maybe there will be no boarding permitted at Wolverhampton at all. Who knows....? --RFBailey (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps interesting http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/ returns direct Cosford to Tame Bridge timings and fares but no Wolves to Tame Bridge without a change. So Virgin's MOC messes things up for the travelling punter yet again. Maybe board at Wolves with a Cosford to Tame Bridge ticket. 7severn7 (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Although the MOC talks only of London passengers being barred at Wolves, in practice W&S are unable to allow anyone to get on there in the southbound direction. Although in theory a Banbury bound passenger might wish to board, VT could challenge this and argue that W&S would be culpable in the event that the Banbury passenger failed to detrain there (enjoying the dinner? or the view?) and continued, by default, into London, in defiance of the MOC restriction. There's currently no way around this view. The only safe course is to deny any southbound boarding at Wolves. Songhouse (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't the recent purchase of Arriva by DB change the MOC landscape? 7severn7 (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No. Arriva and W&S may be owned by the same company but it is Virgin West Coast who have the MOC clause, not Arriva TW. --CrossHouses (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Now what if DB/W&S/Chiltern/ATW et all decide to run the Aberystwyth - Birmingham International service coupling (purely to save paths) with the Wrexham - Marlebone at Shrewsbury? 37 & Mk 3s to Salop - Aberystwyth perhaps? Hasn't ATW's rights to pick-up in the up direction at Wolverhampton been transfered? 7severn7 (talk) 07:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, unfortunately, no. ATW are allowed to pick-up at WVH for the sake of carrying passengers to and from New Street and International. However if Arriva were to run to London then the MOC would take effect. VWC's MOC clause is mainly to protect its core routes to London e.g. Manchester Picc-Stockport-Crewe-Stoke/Stafford/Wolverhampton-Birmingham NS-Watford-Euston. Away from London, they don't seem to care however. CrossHouses (talk) 11:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Ownership

Laing Rail ceased to exist on 2008-04-01, with its purchase by DB Regio. The company has been renamed DB Regio UK Ltd, and is registered in England and Wales with Company Number 03076782. Barry Salter (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"Waiting time in the Midlands"

Such doesn't exist... I studied the WSMR timetable and a Live Departure Board system in detail and came to the conclusion that a WSMR service from Coventry to Wolverhampton North Junction/Bushbury Junction takes only 11 minutes longer than a Pendolino does at the weekend - that time includes the stop at Tame Bridge and the slower traversal between Bescot and Wolverhampton (via Portobello Junction and stop at Wolves station, instead of Bescot-Bushbury, which - IIRC - has a fairly constant linespeed of over 50 mph).

The results of said study can be found here http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=37365&p=686578#p686578

I think it is pretty compelling evidence that the WSMR services aren't hurt by travelling through the Midlands as much as this article makes out, and that said article should be changed. Worley-d (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Route Diagram

I have created a route diagram for the Wrexham and Shropshire route and, to the best of my knowledge, it is accurate. I have omitted most of the stations that trains pass through but do not call at except the major ones. I have called the route the London to Wrexham via Telford Line. It has its own page and I aim to describe the route in more detail on that page when I get the time.Mpvide65 (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have called it a 'line'. I know it isn't a proper railway line but I don't know what else to call it. 'What about Wrexham & Shropshire route'?Mpvide65 (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest it was fine as it was before. I appreciate that you've put in a lot of work to create it, but the map is far too detailed to be of use to this article. This ia an article about a TOC and it's only service, it's not a 'line' or a 'route' and should not be described as such. If you compare the maps on the National Express East Coast article with the one on the East Coast Main Line article, then you will see what I mean. The former shows the services provided by the TOC and the other (more detailed) describes the line. The WSMR map had the right level of detail already. Route level information (as in the ECML article) should be detailed in the articles associated with each of the lines the service travels over; e.g. Shrewsbury to Chester Line, Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury Line and so on - not here. DrFrench (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think its doing that much harm on the page and it does summarise the info on all the separate route pages onto one route diagram, which does make it easier to understand.Mpvide65 (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, can't agree with you there. It's far too much detail for this article. Too much information can be worse than too little. Remember, Wikipedia is for everyone and not just rail enthusiasts. Having different levels of detail makes it more accessible to more people. A high-level 'tube map' style diagram for the service pages (like NXEC and this one) makes it useful for he casual browser who is interested in the service. A more detailed level of information for each of the lines (like ECML)provides information that's useful to people with more of an interest in railways. DrFrench (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have what I feel to be a better, and clearer, WSMR system map available, and one which was forwarded to me by the Sales Manager of WSMR. However the process of posting it up on Wikipedia defeats me completely, but I'll be very pleased to email it to anyone else who has a better grasp of the tortuous process than I do. Songhouse (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Wrexham & Shropshire Route should be merged into Wrexham & Shropshire, or maybe just deleted altogether. As far as I can see, it isn't very accurate. For example:

It is unusual in that line can be thought of as a 'virtual railway', in that it purely exists on other railway lines and does not run on any track of its own.

Surely no train operators run on their own track, as it's all operated by Network Rail. And if all those extra stations aren't called at by W&S trains, why should they be considered part of the route, seeing as it's only a "virtual route" anyway? JRawle (Talk) 22:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

See my comments in the Route Diagram section above. I don't believe that diagram belongs as part of this article and strongly oppose merging it into this article, as this article is about a TOC and its services - not a route. Deletion of the other article is another matter for separate discussion. DrFrench (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the 'offensive' text, and removed the uncalled-at stations from the route guide. I called it a 'virtual route' as it does not run on any exclusive track. Anyway, it should not be merged. The W&S page is about the service. If people want to know about the route, they can click a link and see the route diagram. Mpvide65 (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrexham & Shropshire Route should be deleted. As far as I understand this route is not simply a route that W&S run on, it is their route that they developed. It doesn't exist as a concept beyond W&S. Adambro (talk) 05:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated this for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrexham & Shropshire Route. Adambro (talk) 11:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Rolling Stock

This section is very confusing and needs to be clarified. Are the carriages owned by the company or leased? The article suggests both! My suspicion is that twelve carriages are owned by the company but, while they are being refurbished, a second set has had to be leased. However, I have no proof of this. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Been a while since I last looked, so don't take this as gospel; but, I think Wrexham & Shropshire purchased twelve passengers carriages plus four DVTs. Initially, I think they had nine or twelve carriages on hire from Cargo-D with six Class 67s. This then switched to three Class 67s, nine/twelve hired carriages and three [now available] DVTs. Eventually the hired stock can/will be returned and they'll have three hired Class 67s (from EWS), and four sets of three coaches + one DVT. (Three needed for service, one spare set). Probably they'll be one/two stationed Class 67s on Thunderbird duties somewhere. Probably still not clear... —Sladen (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This PDF from WSMR has good details[1]

• ...three coaches with the potential to increase this to four in the future – this includes two Standard class vehicles (144 seats) and one First class vehicle (30 seats)
• Wrexham & Shropshire has a total of four complete train sets comprising: twelve Inter-City Mark 3 coaches, four Class 67 diesel locomotives and four Mark 3 DVTs. In addition, Deutsche Bahn Regio UK own sufficient vehicles to enable the formation of a fifth complete train and to extend all trains to four coaches
• The coaches and DVTs are owned by parent company Deutsche Bahn Regio UK
• The locomotives are hired for exclusive use by Wrexham & Shropshire from EWS Network (part of DB Schenker)

Hope that's useful! —Sladen (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Diversionary Routes

Reason for deletion of this section on 30 January 2011 was after citations request added by user: Beeshoney stating 'If no references are added with (sic) a week or so I'll delete the paragraph', hence after explaining best source was Wrexham & Shropshire's defunct website (not on internet archive either) decided to comply with user's wishes and reverse my post. Plenty of online pics and videos to substantiate. Refer to user's nitpicking posts on Wrexham & Shropshire page around 30 January 2011 and largely negative postings since.

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wrexham_%26_Shropshire&diff=411019957&oldid=411019564D47817 (talk) 05:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Rolling stock

Can someone please edit rolling stock so Mark 3 coach and Mark 3 DVT are 2 seperate things on rolling stock diagram? Alfreeedzikuiii (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)