Jump to content

Talk:Grand Central (train operating company)

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

ORCATS

[edit]

What is the ORCATS scheme? I have never heard of this. Simply south 19:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It’s simply the way in which the proceeds from ticket sales are divided for routes that are served by multiple companies (for example, if you buy an open ticket from Newcastle to Edinburgh, you might end up travelling with either GNER or Virgin). It’s the reason they prefer to sell tickets specific to an individual journey, because then they get the entire fare rather than having to share it with their competitors. It appears to stand for ‘Operational Research Computerised Allocation of Tickets to Services’. David Arthur 19:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed this as POV in the absence of proper ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed]

The York stop is controversial as it appears to be an ORCATS raid. Under the ORCATS scheme the proceeds of a ticket are divided between all the operators on a route based on the number of seats available between the two points. This would mean Grand Central would receive an income for every non-TOC specific ticket sold between London and York. It is likely that this would provide a large portion of Grand Central's revenue.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] ORCATS would appear to be an acronym for Operational Research Allocation of Tickets to Services. leaky_caldron 21:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Central Railway

[edit]

I propose changing the name of this article to Grand Central Railway, as the company never styles itself Grand Central Trains, but as (formally) the Grand Central Railway Company and (informally) Great Central. -- Picapica 11:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There is already two Grand Central Railways, both near Loughborough. They are not related to this. Also Grand Central was the old name for Marylebone station. Finally this is about an upcoming TOC and Grand Central Trains is the official and commonly used name. Simply south 14:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was Great Central. Not sure about Marylebone now though. Simply south 14:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for changing your mind in the end, Ss. -- Picapica 09:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the website and it is Grand Central Railway Ltd. Marylebone is Great Central. Easy mistake. Simply south 11:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

[edit]

Why is there a picutre of a GNER HST at Edinburgh as the lead image? Yes, they are proposiing to use HSTs (and/or 222s) but they are not GNER and they have (afaik) never even expressed an interest in running services anywhere near Edinburgh?! Thryduulf 09:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I suggest removal of the GNER HST in Scotland and with the Grand Central HST (Or even Meridian). GNER aren't happy with GC with the recent High Court appeal been rejected. Chaz247 18:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced it with Image:Grand Central Train.PNG, which was the lead image back in June (it isn't clear from edit summries when or who changed it). Although it shows a 222 it is still better than a GNER HST. Thryduulf 23:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, but it is even confirmed on Grand Central's website that they are now own some HSTs. So couldn't say a GNER train (or similar) in York be used as they are also a Yorkshire-based company? Simply south 00:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. A train for any other operator is not apropriate for an article about Grand Central, just as an MML train would be inapropriate on the GNER article. If you can find a picture of a GC HST then we'll use that (assuming its OK license-wise), but in the mean time this is all we have AFAIK. Thryduulf 08:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the main image to one taken this morning - the inaugural Sunderland to London arrived at KingX, I guess. It shows the logo. I could re-crop it to take out the Grand Central bods posing for publicity photos, if anyone would like. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that the main image before you changed it was from this morning, it showed the train arriving at King's Cross with the first service just before 1030 UTC. I presume I must have seen you as I was very much about during the whole time the train was in. The problem with the angle of this photo is the annoying sign in the way, I took a few similar photos but discounted them for this reason. I'll have a close look through my collection and see if I can find anything to improve on this. Adambro (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GU

[edit]

There are now proposals for a seperate company, which i have created an article on. It is called Grand Union and is either a sister company or a child company. I'm sure there must be better terminology than this!

Anyway, the article is under Grand Union Railway.

Simply south 20:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

open access

[edit]

Putting this phrase in inverted commas isn't enough. That does not explain it. Indeed, it implies that the term is being used in an idiosyncratic way which is, itself, not clear to the reader. There needs to be an explanation. There is an oblique reference to it on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_operating_trains_in_the_United_Kingdom#Railtours

The second sentence of the article is an explanation of what ‘open access’ means, but I’ll re-phrase it so that this is clearer. David Arthur 22:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metric/imperial

[edit]

I note you've added some distances to the route map but I'm not sure that km is the most appropriate unit. Miles are in most common usage in the railway industry and the UK in general so I'd suggest that this article should use miles as the primary unit. Where did you get the figures from? Adambro (talk) 12:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello Adam, it's good to have some feedback and rewarding to know that other people keep track of changes. Thank you for querying about metric/imperial, although thankfully these discussions are coming up less and less frequently. The distances column in km is standard for the Wikipedia:Route diagram templates.
Rail-industry: metric/imperial
I'm unsure whether to agree with you about the usage level of imperial with the railway industry. Certainly any procurements and specifications (just as within Electrical Engineering) are done entirely in metric. The Grand Central HSTs are going to be travelling on track maintained to a gauge of 1,435mm and being powered by engines with a maintenance service-rating delivered in kilowatts—although they will be keeping clock to a base-60 time system!
You asked about the source of the measurements; the first ones are from my Thomas Cook European Rail Timetable; the remaining distances are from Ken Butler's list—as noted in the edit summary. Where I needed to convert, the original miles:chains value are in a <!-- comment --> in the page; the result is to within 1km over the total distance, owing to rounding at Northallerton railway station.
Replacement image
Finally, thanks for picking up the copyrighted images. Looking for a replacement, I came across a picture on Flickr of a vinyled-up genuine Grand Central carriage. Currently the license is too strict for Wikipedia, but it maybe worth contacting the photographer.
Thank you again for the comments! —Sladen (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the route diagram template was orignally developed in German and in Europe km is certainly used more than miles but in the UK most distances are quoted in miles so I still feel this is most appropriate as this will be the unit most readers of the article will be most familiar with. Whilst metric is popular for smaller distances where greater distances are involved these are quoted in miles and these are used on the rail network. Distance are measured in miles and chains and speeds are in mph.
Regarding the image, I'm certainly looking around for suitable images and will be contacting the photographers as appropriate as I've done on a number of occasions and been able to obtain permission. The flickr image you've highlighted would add little to the article and there is the possibility of problems with copyright as the image is mainly of the company's logo so it is a derivative work but I am continuing to search. Adambro (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think one of the aims on WP is to strive for consistency, something I'd prefer to do over making the Grand Central Railway route diagram template an exception. Perhaps, it could be worth bringing this up centrally via Wikiproject:Trains or the Manual Of Style?
Perhaps, the main article could be expanded to include the total length of the route served, in miles. I think this might be preferable over achieving consistency by re-deleting the km column—which might not count as improvement. —Sladen (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency is great but this shouldn't be at the expense of making article less accessible to readers. I'm not particularly sure of the value of mentioning this within the article itself, if this information is to be included the best way of presenting it is through the route diagram. I would most definitely consider changing to miles, a unit which most readers to this article will be more familiar, an improvement. Adambro (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I've previously discussed with Sladen, imperial is more appropriate for UK rail articles regardless of any "standard". Consistency is great between articles as it aids before editors and readers but articles are supposed to be optimised for readers and as such should use the most appropriate units on an article by article basis. Adambro (talk) 07:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst this is under discussion, I've left the conversion in the Route Diagram and restored the source-units. —Sladen (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, the figures in km are a result of conversions from miles. As such miles offer the best unit in terms of removing conversion errors as this matches the sources. I used the Network Rail timetable and a few other sources to clarify, all of which are in miles so better to use this if we are concerned about conversion errors. Adambro (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic note: Conversion errors can never be removed, only amplified with each further conversion. For the avoidance of doubt, the source information for ascertaining the original values was in kilometres and has been published for about a century. Two minor station distances were from another source and in Chains (and here the full source value has been recorded in a <!-- comment --> in the article source.
The topic that is open here for discussion is whether Grand Central Railway is important enough to be an exception to the rest of Wikipedia. —Sladen (talk) 12:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic note: I've now used up my three reverts. Which probably means other people have too. —Sladen (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your first point, as you've previously told me, most of the data comes from the Thomas Cook European Rail Timetable. There's a clue in the title there that it perhaps isn't primarily aimed at the UK and as such the units it quotes are probably converted from miles since that is what is used within the rail industry. I'd suggest that a better source would be the Network Rail timetable from which I obtained my data as they are of course the organisation which owns the network. This is quoted in miles. I didn't simply convert your values to miles which would be likely to introduce errors. Anyway, regardless of what sources is used I don't feel this really has anything to do with what units we should use but it's just something to be aware of when using the data.
I would strongly dismiss your suggestion that the question is "whether Grand Central Railway is important enough to be an exception to the rest of Wikipedia". The importance or otherwise in no way dictates what units should be used nor does what is used elsewhere. There would be advantages to having a consistent format of railway articles but this cannot be at the expense of the usefulness of an article. Articles are supposed to be optimised for readers and in this in the context of UK rail articles, miles are most appropriate. What is used elsewhere is decided on the same basis. Adambro (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If after wider discussion a consensus is reached to make a long term exception for the units used in the route diagram on the Grand Central Railway article—then it is good that a reliable source of units in that base has been found. Thank you for your continued research. —Sladen (talk) 10:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Directly Operated Railways, the company set up by the Department for Transport to operate the East Coast franchise, has stated its unhappiness with the Class 180 units obtained by National Express East Coast for the planned additional services specified in the franchise agreement, and has indicated that it wishes to return to the original proposal of using locomotive hauled trains instead. The original plan was for 175 km/h (109 mph) trains pulled by Class 90 locomotives. However, DOR has raised the possibility of obtaining Grand Central's three 200 km/h (124 mph) capable HSTs for these services, for which it would transfer the Class 180s under lease to NXEC, giving Grand Central a single, uniform fleet.

This section should definitely use mph rather than km/h, since the maximum speed figures are inaccurate. The correct figures are 110 mph (177 km/h) for the Class 90s and 125 mph (201 km/h) for the HSTs. I would have changed it immediately, but the edit page shows some complicated formula which I do not understand, and I do not want to make a hash of it.--128.240.229.68 (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple edits

[edit]

Sorry for the multiple edits, I was working on my laptop with no power supply, and didn't want to get nearly to the end of one mammoth edit for the battery to go! I hope the article seems a bit tidier now. Talltim (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stock

[edit]

User:Talltim has edited the rolling stock section to state the buffer fitted Power Cars were used with British Rail Mark 4 rolling stock as DVTs before the Mark 4 DVTs were ready. This is not the case. The Class 91 locos were used with a full Mark 3 rake, with buffer fitted TGS vehicles, and buffer fitted Power Cars. They did not operate with Mark 4 vehicles. --86.132.166.0 (talk) 10:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The reason I removed the previous edit was that the wording of the sentence didn't make sense, rather than that I though the info was wrong. Talltim (talk) 12:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no problems.--86.132.166.0 (talk) 19:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AsparagusTips (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Isn't the top speed of the class 143 actually 148mph but the line maximum speed 125mph? Which would be the correct data?[reply]

The "Standard Class interior" image

[edit]

I have noticed the photo within the article of the standard class interior seating with "Route 26" branding stitched into the seat material cover thing. Route 26 is Grand Central's restaurant / dining brand. To that end, the photo is actually taken from within the buffet car (i.e: half buffet counter, half standard class seating) of the train and not a normal standard class carriage (i.e: all seating), yet the image describes it as if it were a normal standard class carriage.

Could someone please edit the image description as appropriate based on this information? I have tried to do this myself however I fear that I may get something wrong somewhere.


Many Thanks,

TXC (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I replaced the image with an interior shot of a Mark III TS Standard Class vehicle.

--Peter Skuce (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Class 180

[edit]

GC press cites state 2 Class 180s were leased in 2009 for Sunderland services + 3 in 2010 for Bradford services. Modern Railways and Rail cites indicate 3 were leased in 2009 and 2 in 2010. Can we clarify?D47817 (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Clift

[edit]

Deleted reference to Tom Clift's departure as managing director. He was in the employ of First Hull Trains at the time of his death. http://www.firstgroup.com/corporate/latest_news/?id=008701 D47817 (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsche Bahn section at the bottom? Why?

[edit]

Why is there a DB Deutsche Bahn section at the bottom of this article?

I see no reference in the rest of the article except obliquely in a reference of DB's takeover of Arriva trains.

Needs clarification in the body of the article

--78.105.232.132 (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

78.105.232.132.I think you've mostly answered it (Grand Central Railway→Arriva UK Trains→DB). I have rejigged the WP:LEAD with the following changes[1]. Are you able to suggest any additional changes? —Sladen (talk) 09:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Grand Central Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grand Central Railway. 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: 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) 01:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Grand Central Railway. 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) 05:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Change name to Grand Central Rail (or even just Grand Central)

[edit]

The company trademark is just "Grand Central". The website uses "Grand Central Rail". Since it is a train company, not a railway line, and they seem to have dropped the "Railway" moniker, surely we should do likewise? I haven't done any great research on this and there may be an instance of the word Railway somewhere on their website but, per WP:COMMONNAME, it seems to me that we should lead with the name they mainly use. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Although it's official name is Grand Central Railway, I would suggest Grand Central (train operating company) as we can't just call it "Grand Central".

Mark999 (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:36, 21 February 2020 (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) 05:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Routemap is a mirror image?

[edit]

I know it is only a schematic but the Routemap Grand Central (E) Services looks odd, it has the east branch on the left and the west branch on the right. Have I missed something? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grand_Central_(train_operating_company)&oldid=1205315556"