Jump to content

Talk:London Midland

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

Questions

[edit]
Its rural ... (don't know)
No (i don't know)
Pickle 22:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

express. city is only for the West Midland routes Mattdickinson 11:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LM sub-brands

[edit]

Pages have been created for the LM Sub-brands (express and City). Please help and get these pages up to scratch. Thanks, Dewarw 17:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These articles now redirect to this one. --RFBailey 13:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliability

[edit]

Didn't think I'd ever be defending Silverlink but Govia/London Midland have had a load of delays/cancellations etc. since they took over a few weeks ago. If there are any online groups who are covering this please follow up below for me. Richard W.M. Jones (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think that I'd ever defend Central Trains, but since LM took over, the service on the "Snow Hill Lines" has been relatively poor. The trains had just started (within the last year or two) to be very punctual- with the help of a better timetable; now they are prone to delays, even in the morning, when my train is making its first service of the day!
However, it is likely to take time for them to settle down. Govia have a good reputation (e.g. Southern, Southeastern), and I am sure that the blip in the service is just the transformation of a couple of very different companies into one integrated one.

:PS This section is a bit off topic- we should really keep to other forums for such discussions! Dewarw (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's weird to see someone say that Southern and Southeastern have a good reputation, I guess they weren't so bad back in 2007? Yamhamdan (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PPM

[edit]

The PPM in the images is, I believe, the PPM 50. London Midland have placed an order with Parry People Movers for two PPM 60s. Not sure what the difference is but I'm assuming it is slightly bigger?

Worley-d (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of future fleet

[edit]

Is it necessary to have the photo column for future fleet? As Worley-d points out above, the PPM is not the one that will run the Stourbridge service. Also there is no freely available photo of the clas 172s, and the picture of the 350 is actually a 350/1, which appears above and also at the top. I suggest removing this column. Any thoughts? – Tivedshambo (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leave them in, they can be slightly inaccurate- no-one should care (if they want accuracy, then they won't come to Wikipedia!). THe new image of the 172 is actually a 172/1 not /2 or /3, this again does not matter.
Once more images become available, they can be uploaded! Btline 17:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't think that "who cares about accuracy" is a good argument here. The photographs are wrong, and until the stock beomes "current fleet", it will be difficult to get hold of free photographs anyway. As there seems to be a lack of reasonable objections, I'll remove the column.  Tivedshambo (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tivedshambo: if the objects in question don't yet exist, we can't take photographs of them. Also, we should remember that photographs, while useful if available, are not mandatory. Finally, regarding the artist's impression if the Class 172 taken from the Bombardier website, I can see there's a valid fair use rationale for the British Rail Class 172 article, but not for this one. --RFBailey (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
THe pics are back again! I'm not going to edit war and remove then yet. Btline (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed them again, and added a warning message and a note on the user's talk page. (Looking up the IP addresses suggests that it is the same anonymous editor who keeps posting them- this was first suggested by User:Btline, on my talk page.) --RFBailey (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, update, I have removed the pics, and added more "stop" messages. I gave the user a unofficial warning. They deleted it, so they are the anon IP!!! Good, this nonsense should stop. Next time, it will be an official one (prob level 4!). Thanks for your help, Btline (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: RFBailey, thanks for your explanation about the image! Btline (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That said, gents, there's now an image for the correct PPM 60 (aka 139) on British Rail Class 139, so what's the idea now? Worley-d (talk) 02:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an image of 350/2 now they're actually here - this is my image. Worley-d (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. Adambro (talk) 13:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for changing 10 to 15... Hadn't realised this new timetable had changed things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worley-d (talk • contribs) 22:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edit - Line missing in table

[edit]

Hi,

The line's in the code but not appearing between class 170 and class 321/4 on the rolling stock table. Can someone sort? cheers

user:Simonalexander2005 —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Desiro Stock

[edit]

Have removed the term "very cramped" as a description of the Class 350 Desiros as this is POV. I have travelled on them and find them far more spacious than other types of rolling stock on the network. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.157.92 (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Map out of date

[edit]

Can we update the green SVG route map we have in the infobox on this page to reflect the fact services now use the fast lines avoiding Northampton? I have no idea how to edit an SVG file. Thanks. Tom walker (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The best person to ask is Nilfanion (talk · contribs), who created it. I have a feeling that this particular map was created by taking one that shows the routes of all the TOCs, and removing all except the London Midland routes. So, I suspect that if Nilfanion updates the master copy, a new version should be forthcoming.
SVG files are editable using a plain text editor (not a word processor, unless that can be configured to save as plain text), or you can use vector graphics software such as Inkscape or Adobe Illustrator. If you look at this image in a text editor, you'll find that it resembles HTML; the part that actually draws the London Midland routes is the block <source enclose=div lang=xml> <g
    transform="matrix(1,0,0,1.6,0.63245553,0.63245553)"
    id="LondonMid">
   <path
      d="m 954.20535,630.11665 c -1.21816,-0.48944 -2.4241,-0.99449 -3.35988,-2.1604 m -18.95931,0.96017 c -2.09105,0.12655 -4.01469,0.85521 -5.99978,0.96018 m 10.55961,-2.1604 ... M 55.198,31.44582 c 0.194932,0.113706 0.916711,-0.252723 0.71997,0.24005 m -0.95997,-0.24005 0.24,0"
      id="path7728"
      style="fill:none;stroke:#76b41f;stroke-width:4;stroke-linecap:round;stroke-linejoin:round;stroke-miterlimit:10" />
 </g></syntaxhighlight> In the <path /> element, the letters M, L and C (upper or lowercase) are instructions (m = move to a point, l = draw line, c = draw curve), and they are followed by the coordinates to move or draw to (I've used an ellipsis "..." to represent a long list of move and draw instructions that I've omitted). More at The ‘path’ element. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't have a master version at present (I lost it due to technical issues), so fastest way for me to update is to do what Redrose describes above. That leads to a question though: Do London Midland services still go to Northampton? If so, from both London and Birmingham - if so only change is to add the fast line as part of the network.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant services from Euston (both via and avoiding Northampton) are covered on National Rail Table 67 and Table 68; the relationship between the routes is shown on the Network Diagram for Tables 67, 68, 69, 70. According to these, of the services operated by London Midland (code LM at the top of the column), the xx:13 and xx:49 services from Euston to Birmingham run via Northampton, and the xx:46 services from Euston to Crewe avoid Northampton. So both routes are in use. Those links are for the current editions: in a couple of weeks time, the new editions will be available at Table 67, Table 68, and Network Diagram for Tables 67, 68, 69, 70. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Let me know if there are any other updates required.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by anonymous IP regarding a Euston-Liverpool service

[edit]

I've noticed an anonymous IP has changed the Services part of the page to add a 'supposed' London Euston - Liverpool Lime Street service, however there is no such service on public timetables that I can see. Is it better to change it to remove that reference or leave it as-is? Shane (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaneturner12: This particular person, currently using the IP address 151.224.250.139 (talk), has for well over a year now been adding obscure service information like this to a variety of articles, and then a few days later they alter it again. Some of their subsequent alterations effectively negate their original edits, so it's hard to understand the agenda. Some of it is correct, some is not. If we block them, they change IP address and resume within a day or two. They usually give up after a few weeks, but a few weeks later, they start up again. From what I can work out, they want to describe every single service, even those that only run once a day, in the early morning or very late at night. Since it's unsourced, you could revert, and I won't object. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou RedRose64 - as I cannot find any evidence to support that particular edit, I will look into reverting the change. Shaneturner12 (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RedRose64: I have now reverted the change as I could not find any evidence to support it. Shaneturner12 (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Services

[edit]

I propose that most or all of the information within the Services section be removed and replaced with a service pattern table (similar to those that can be found on other articles like Southern or Virgin Trains). I think that such tables are easier to read and more feasible, as well as being easier to edit, should there be a timetable change. As of writing this, there is a table which I have created, available at my sandbox for review.
Any thoughts? Mvpo666 (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one objected, I went ahead. Mvpo666 (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on London Midland. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 12:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

London Midland Class 150

[edit]

Hello, Class 150s have always been part of the London Midland fleet, and it was removed without a source. I am restoring this information to the page after it was randomly removed. Even the Class 150 page has London Midland listed as an operator of the Class 150/1.

Please stop vandalising the page with your mis-edits, information should be as accurate as it possibly can be, so please cease.

Thank you.

Superalbs (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have discovered that an IP had originally removed it, without giving a reason why on Sept 16th [1]. This went undetected, otherwise it would've been reverted back as that was vandalism. I have restored the Class 150. Hopefully this clears it up. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 17:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is appreciated that you have locked it, but you have locked it whilst it is incorrect as user Charlesdrakew has once again removed Class 150 from the fleet list even after it was mentioned above that it was an IP who removed it without a source. Thanks. Superalbs (talk) 06:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I get it that this is WP:WRONGVERSION, but seriously, this is the wrong version. LM still operates a few 150s and we all know this. The article even says it does below the table! -mattbuck (Talk) 06:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a well known fact that admins always protect The Wrong Version™. I merely protected the version that happened to be current at the time that I noticed edit-warring break out again (I was off-line until about 18:50 (UTC) yesterday). It's coincidence that it happened to be the one that you didn't like.
What is not so well known is that the ones who believe it to be the right version do not complain, and so may be the silent majority. This is why discussion, not argument, is desirable here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know Superalbs it is adding material without it being verifiable that is problematic rather than "IP who removed it without a source" - whatever removing without a source may mean. It looks like there is more in the 'current fleet' section that is unsourced and may have to be removed if citations are not forthcoming.SovalValtos (talk) 08:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was restoring material that was removed for no reason, the original removal of the Class 150 was vandalism, and there was no reason or source given for removing it, it was just done by an IP for no reason. Superalbs (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No source is needed to remove: indeed, the absence of a source may be sufficient grounds for removal. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well in that case we might as well remove the entire fleet table, because none of it is sourced. Superalbs (talk) 08:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As seemingly most are aware, 3 x Class 150s remain in service with London Midland and will do so into 2018 when replaced by 6 x 153s from GWR. This was originally scheduled to be happening around now, but has been delayed until GWR is able to spare sufficient HSTs to trigger to transfers. For anybody after published confirmation [2] confirms. When the franchise changes hands in December, likely that there will be lists of the stock transferred published in the trade magazines then, so this should be enough to satisfy those in doubt. Huawenx (talk) 05:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the lack of sources we have now, the title of the section by including "current" is not favourable to good encyclopedic content. The fleet seems to change frequently. The source mentioned by Huawenx looks to be promising as not self published, but nevertheless refers to a state a year or more old as it was published in October 2016. The table also has detail such as speeds and built dates which would be better left to be found in linked articles. Perhaps a prose section would be more easily maintained as notable changes could then be sourced when included? I see further under the table the text "The franchise agreement included the option of replacing the three remaining Class 150/1 in the fleet with six Class 153 units in June 2017.[46] The Northern franchise agreement indicates this option has been taken up". This cannot be the case if 150s are current. Is it WP:OR? Is it verifiable?SovalValtos (talk) 11:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As published work is an annual publication that came out in October 2016, an updated version may appear imminently. The LM fleet is fairly stable, only change in recent years has been 7 x 319s replacing 7 x 321s. The West Midlands ITT did state that the 150s would be gone by the handover date (at that stage October 2017). But since then, the whole rolling stock cascade timetable has gone out the window when the Great Western electrification program was scaled back, so what is in published franchise agreements may be dated. Long and the short is that the 150s remain with LM as many above with a working knowledge have attested. If others seek not to believe so be it. Huawenx (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we've referred to both published and online sources now. What else could you possibly want? A signed affidavit from London Midland? Mordac (talk) 09:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AbRail [3] is not a reliable source being a personal self-published website which could be of use to rail fans but not to an encyclopedia.SovalValtos (talk) 10:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're setting up an impossible hurdle. Published sources aren't good enough because they don't update often enough (even though the platform 5 books come out every six months, and updates are published monthly on Today's Railways). Online sources aren't good enough because they're self published. At this point, again, I have to ask what is good enough. I could go to Bletchley tomorrow and take a photo of a London Midland Class 150, but that's not good enough either!!! So please tell me, what is a good enough source? Mordac (talk) 22:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So what's the problem with citing Today's Railways? Or one of the other specialist magazines published 12 or more times a year, such as Modern Railways, Rail or The Railway Magazine? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mordac. Mattbuck hits the nail on the head here- at the end of the day, we're all here to create an accurate encyclopedia and quite simply no amount of wikilawyering can defend against the fact that the claim that London Midland hasn't got any class 150 trains (added by an vandalistic IP no less!) is wrong, no two ways about it. It is disappointing that in the fact of such unanimous opposition this situation was allowed to persist for so long. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
jcc I have found noone that has claimed that London Midland hasn't got any class 150 trains, rather that citations are wanted for the assertion.
A self-published source AbRail [4] was suggested but there is no consensus for it being reliable.
The magazines that have been suggested by Redrose64, Today's Railways, Modern Railways, Rail or The Railway Magazine have not been used to provide citations since they were suggested. Another possible good source, not readily available to all editors, Diesel Multiple Units (British Railways Pocket Book) has been put forward but not used.
There have been no objections to changing the sub-section titled 'Current fleet' from a table to text. I propose that it should be renamed 'Fleet' so that changes can be sourced starting from a referrenced fleet. Excess images and off topic material that can be provided by linked articles such as details of speeds can be ommited when it is re-written.
Until such time as the material is sourced I intend to remove it as Superalbs has suggested. I do not think that an impossible hurdle is set for sourcing if the details of the subject have attracted enough attention to make it sufficiently notable. Has it?SovalValtos (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SovalValtos: I am not sure what you are proposing to remove. If you are proposing to remove the fact that London Midland has class 150s, obviously I object, my reasoning is quite clear above as doing so would simply be a falsehood. If you are planning to remove the table altogether then you'll have to gain consensus for such a move. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus here is not needed for removing unsourced material. WP:V is a much bigger consensus. I support SV's proposal to improve the article per WP:PROSE.Charles (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with using the Platform 5 cite and stating as at October 2016 the fleet comprised..... It doesn't need to be up to the minute accurate. Anyway the franchise will be changing hands in 6 weeks, so there will be a list of the stock transferred in the trade magazines shortly after I imagine. Huawenx (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
November's edition of Today's Railways lists the LM fleet. States that 3 x 150s remain with LM and will transfer to the new operator in December. Hopefully will put this drawn out nonsense to bed for once and for all. Huawenx (talk) 05:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of kicking it all off again, the 150s are also used on the line from Birmingham New Street to Worcester via Bromsgrove. GBev1987 (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on London Midland. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 15:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling stock

[edit]

Please can the following section be updated as it is out of date due to it now being 2020 and London midland no longer existing.

“The franchise agreement included the option of replacing the three remaining Class 150/1 in the fleet with six Class 153 units in June 2017.[54] The Northern franchise agreement indicates this option has been taken up, as the London Midland Class 150 units will transfer to Northern in 2017. The Northern franchise agreement also rules out the option of any additional Class 323 units being leased from Porterbrook to London Midland before 1 January 2019“ Maurice Oly (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:London_Midland&oldid=1200029549"