Talk:South Western Railway

Article name

The names of franchises are now specified by the Department for Transport, and thus company brands are no longer included, hence why Abellio Greater Anglia became Greater Anglia and First TransPennine Express became TransPennine Express despite being retained by the incumbents. While we cannot be 100% sure that the new franchise will trade as South Western Trains, but as precedent is for the name of the franchise to become the trading name, suggest it be left as South Western Trains as the most likely title until such time as it is confirmed to the contrary. Whatever it becomes, it won't be First MTR South Western Trains Limited. Bvillage (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bvillage I don't believe franchise trading names are specified by the DfT, merely that they are encouraging franchisees to use company neutral names, unless you can provide a source to contrary. I'm pretty sure that its going to branded Southwestern Railway not Southwestern Trains but either way I'm not gonna revert again immediately and start an edit war, but we cannot have an article named based off a guess of what the trading name might be. That's contrary to Wikipedia policy. Mainline421 (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It may be SWR, SWT or something else, but as none of us have anything concrete to back this up, suggest the status quo remain as a working title and should another name eventuate, everything can be renamed in one go rather than creating a series of redirects in the interim. Bvillage (talk) 02:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

First/MTR refer to it as South Western Railway so that is surely more likely [1]   JaJaWa |say hello  22:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Well spotted, does appear it will be South Western Railway. Bvillage (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Quote from Today's Railways cite used as justification to rename the article: "the exact name and livery is not yet known", so actually doesn't confirm the trading name and thus the name the article should take. We won't know for certain until the launch date, but from FirstGroup's website appears that SWR is most likely, so have renamed back.[2] 797green (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks like the "South Western Railway" name is correct. See latest staff update from MD. 2A00:23C1:479A:D300:C8DD:EF13:54E1:AF8B (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Class 707s

There is some uncertainty as to what role (if any) the Class 707s will play after the franchise change.[3] So probably best to exclude from the fleet table until this has been confirmed. Bvillage (talk) 04:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. The trains will be there on the last day of the Stagecoach franchise, and it's not as if they're going to be sent away or timetables changed overnight. They'll be operated by SWR for some amount of time. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Unless there is an increase in service levels in the May timetable, then the current fleet will be able to operate the timetable, as the 707s are extra rather then replacement stock. There is doubt as to whether SWR will take on the 707s at all. It has been suggested that the 707s are leased by SWT until 2019, but that may mean Stagecoach ends up picking up the tab, should a deal not be done for SWR to take them on.

Nothing will be confirmed until the contract is signed after the 10 day cooling off period expires, but don’t think we should be including while there is reasonable doubt. Lease termination dates usually coincide with franchise end dates, and thus stock not being taken on by the new franchisee being withdrawn on the handover day and removed shortly after is common, e.g. Wessex Trains 153s and 158s not taken on by First Great Western in 2006, First ScotRail 170s not taken by Abellio ScotRail in 2015. Bvillage (talk) 07:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

All Class 707s are being Sent to Southeastern to boost capacity on all routes. Four have already been moved as of January 2021. Nethertown station (talk) 11:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nethertown station: Please make sure your edits are accompanied with reliable sources. SK2242 (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Branding

Perhaps its worth mentioning that the branding was kept under wraps for a long time and was a surprise reveal a few days from launch. The fact that many facets of the service are still branded as South West Trains (as of 4th Sept 2017) may also be noteworthy, but with mention of the fact that Waterloo is mostly branded, as is the Wimbledon train care depot. Other areas are yet to be rebranded, including the train liveries and interiors.

Perhaps noteworthy in this regard too is that the corporate typeface used by South Western Railway is Weissenhof Grotesk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.63.25.146 (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Could you provide any sources confirming this? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Service pattern tables?

Why does this article not have a table listing the services, like most other TOC wiki pages? (see GWR, Virgin E and W, Transpennine, etc.) I feel this is an excellent way to represent the services, and very useful 49.206.124.242 (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, but unlike other TOCs' tables, I think this table should not include details of stock used on each route. This is because SWR is very good at mixing up their stock; as a result, some of their routes are operated by two, three or even four different classes of trains. For example, most of their London Suburban routes can be operated by a Class 450, 455, 456, 458 or 707. The London-Portsmouth services can be run by a 444 or a 450. The worst offender has to be the Lymington branch, which uses either a diesel 158 or an electric 450.

Aside from stock, though, it's a good idea. 86.153.193.120 (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit dispute

I am trying to get a consensus for this edit. @Davey2010: is adamantly opposed to the “detailed” version (although as of yet, he hasn’t specified a reason) while I am not only for it, but I also disapprove of the bullet-point list (it’s duplicated by the table below anyway, and it does not include a single reference).

Which edit should be used? 86.153.193.120 (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• Quick note apologies I'm currently writing an Arbcom statement - Personally I disagree with the amount of info removed and personally I believe the list is encycloepdic and all that but if others disahee i'll rv l8r cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 00:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

  Arbcom? For a content dispute? They'll throw it out and tell you to discuss it here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the bullet point list is great. "Here's a list of towns which have been chosen for some arbitrary reason." Text is better. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Redrose64 - No it was for something else entirely!, Do you really think I'd go to Arbcom over this ? ,

mattbuck - Okie dokie i'll see what others think and if consensus is to have this i'll obviously self rv, Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davey2010 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010: I should probably point out that I didn't intend to remove any of the info. Like I said earlier, most of the info I'd deleted is already there in the article (either in the table directly below it, or somewhere else) so it's more like I'm "un-duplicating" the information, if that makes sense. My main intention of the edit, though, was to add more detail about the lines that the company operates on, and to throw in a couple of references from SWR's official website to back it up. From what you've said here, I'm presuming that you're not actually against any of the stuff I added, it's just about the stuff I deleted.

I know that what we got so far isn't enough to call a consensus, but I'd like to propose a compromise. The edit I'd made would be reinstated to the article, and if you think there's something that was actually removed (i.e. not un-duplicated), then you're more than welcome to add it back (wherever it's most relevant) but without removing my edits. Does that sound good? 86.158.19.213 (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

P.S. This is still me, my IP address has just decided to change itself...

Since there were no objections in over three months, I went ahead. If anyone still objects to the table, please discuss it further on this talk page before reverting it. 31.48.64.251 (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Class 444 in swr livery- update.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect use of photographs

I have identified the following photographs as being in need of replacement because they date from before the start of this franchise in August 2017, hence are within the historical time period required:

• 
  2009
• 
  2014, also not a good photo!
• 
  2014
• 
  February 2017
• 
  2009. Not the best picture either.

These should be removed for this reason as they do not illustrate the main subject. Replacement should be straightforward. Tony May (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with any of these photographs seeing as they correctly illustrate the majority of trains as operated by South Western Railway. In spite of SWR having run the franchise for nearly 2+1⁄2 years, the vast majority of the trains still run in South West Trains livery. Very few trains have been repainted in the new livery, and most of those that appear to have been are in fact covered in sticky back plastic (and sighting even these is a comparative rarity). On the line that serves my local station, there are no trains operating in anything other than South West Trains livery. In fact, of all the trains illustrated above, none exist in South Western Railway livery. Only a handful of Class 158/9; Class 442, Class 444 and Class 450 have been reliveried.

It's also worth noting that the livery has changed slightly between the sticky back plastic version and the painted version. The sticky back plastic version is striped, whereas the painted version isn't (though the light grey doors have retained the striping). 86.164.61.113 (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Map

Wkc19, would you like to discuss your problems with the map and help me make it better (remembering it’s only an indicative overview of the franchise), or just revert its addition? Rcsprinter123 (sermonise) 12:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

If this is about the David Rock map in the Services section, then it may need to be removed as inaccurate given timetable updates. Matter of fact, the whole service tables might need to be updated based on this new timetable released 15 May. Jalen Folf (talk) 07:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

However, the infobox map definitely needs to be updated, since SWR no longer offers services to Bristol Temple Meads and in-between stations. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

May 2023 timetable change

Could someone update the services section to the May 23 timetable if there are any changes? I believe its the only TOC left not updated. I would do it myself but I'm quite busy right now Bobster1001 (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if you took notice of something I missed, but from what I saw, the routes here didn't change much. The only thing I would recommend is to remove any mention of off-peak and limited calls, as this is not the purpose of the service tables. Jalen Folf (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

"Overview of The Windsor Lines" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Overview of The Windsor Lines has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 5 § Overview of The Windsor Lines until a consensus is reached. Nightfury 20:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 25 February 2024

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. The consensus appears to support the move as proposed. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

---

• South Western Railway (train operating company) → South Western Railway
• South Western Railway → South Western Railway (disambiguation)

– I feel as though the Primary topic for South Western Railway (SWR) must be the current UK train operating company as shown by the following evidence at SWR (TOC) and SWR (dab) having ~10,000 and ~100 views respectively over the last 30 days. The other SWRs barely get any views and are pretty obscure. JuniperChill (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Natg 19 (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

OP Note/comment 00:20 BST 2024/02/26: This RM is very similar to the Greater Anglia move at Talk:Greater_Anglia#Requested_move_8_June_2023 although funly enough, it was initially at Greater Anglia (train operating company) as shown here. Hatnote updated to main SWR page. JuniperChill (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Unsurprisingly for a rail enthusiast based in London, my google searches are overwhelmingly for the UK TOC. Using DuckDuckGo over TOR I see similar results, in the same TOR session setting DuckDuckGo's region to Australia I see a handful of results related to India intermixed with the results for the UK TOC. In short, all the evidence seems to suggest that this article is the primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  What does TOR mean?

  Yeah, I live in the England too (east of it) and also into railways (hence my edits at this topic) and somewhat into roads as well. It feels tedious to type '(train operating company)' every time you need to search/link to this. Plus, there are only three other articles with the exact name. I think LNER could also be a primary topic for a redirect to London North Eastern Railway but the original GWR will always remain primary. JuniperChill (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  TOR is Tor (network) (I got the capitalisation wrong). Regarding the length of the title, I've just created South Western Railway (TOC) and SWR (TOC) as those appear to be unambiguous (if cryptic). LNER doesn't appear at first glance to have a primary topic between the 1923-1947 company and the contemporary TOC. Thryduulf (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I have notified Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways of this discussion. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment As the only other railway in the disambiguation list with the exact same name is in Australia, shouldn't this page be named South Western Railway (England)? Geof Sheppard (talk) 18:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  In theory yes (although there is also a "South Western Railway" in South Africa), but the naming convention is that when train operating companies need to be at something other than base title, the disambiguator is "(train operating company)". I also feel it would increase the risk of confusion with the London and South Western Railway which does get called "South Western Railway" in sources, e.g. "The line itself was owned by the South Western railway"[4], "Also in 1888 the first 'slip coaches' appeared on the London Brighton and South Coast Railway, the South Western Railway and the Great Western Railway."[5], The South Western Railway: Its Mechanical History and Background 1838-1922[6]. Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Given that (as noted above) the LSWR, arguably a much more significant and notable company than the present-day TOC, is often referred to in sources as simply the "South Western Railway", it seems preferable to retain the disambiguation page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amakuru (talk • contribs) 15:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I've requested closure for this at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Natg 19 (talk) 22:31, 18 April 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.