Talk:Transport for West Midlands/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

I have read the 20 year plan, and I see nothing about 'Centro' being phased out and replaced with 'Network West Midlands' as far as I can tell this is merely a branding exercise for transport information. I see nothing about Centro being renamed. Can someone please verify this claim. G-Man * 21:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell you are correct in your assumption. It is about a new corporate logo as it was felt the the Centro logo was not an easily recognised symbol for travel in the West Midlands. The names West Midlands Travel and Central were already being used by the National Express Group. I have received correspondence this week on Centro notepaper. There is a programme to role out the new logo on all the railway stations and bus stops in the West Midland Metropolitan area over the next six months. All the local railway timetables issued in June 2006 carried the new "n" logo. It is the DfT's intentention that Centro will have less powers under the Transport Act 2005 than formerly - particularly in respect of rail franchise specification and standards are concerned, eg when is a train overcrowded? - where Centro had a lower threshold than the DfT as to when a train is overcrowded and could insist that Central take remedial action.DonBarton 22:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the article to change this. Even the Network West Midlands website says it is a partnership between Centro and transport operators. G-Man * 21:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Network re-branding

I believe the first MAJOR re-branding program was when Coventry Bus Station was fully refitted to Network standard in time for it's "reopening" on 2nd April 2006. The first MINOR signs of re-branding being new bus stop flags which appeared in and around Birmingham before the end of 2005. Curran1980 18:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Network WestMids logo.gif

Image:Network WestMids logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could try using your brain, and working it out for yourself. G-Man * 18:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Network West Midlands

Does anyone apart from me think that the Network West Midlands brand of the WMPTE should be a seperate wikipedia page as it is a seperate activity of the WMPTE and it is a partnership between all the bus companies, train and metro companies also so surley it should go on a separate page with more information. Thanks...Dudleybus (Spake to me!!) ♣♠♣♠♣♠♣♠♣♠♣♠ (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I think there used to be one but someone redirected it here. G-Man ^? 20:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Maintaining article quality

I removed some vague, irrelevant, and inaccurate statements which had been reinserted from an earlier version.

"Operations initially covered the Birmingham/Black Country area and some surrounding towns such as Redditch and Bromsgrove."

What operations?

"In 1973 the PTE consolidated its control when it acquired from the Birmingham and Midland Motor Omnibus Company (commonly known as "Midland Red")those operations which lay within the conurbation. The transfer included all the staff and vehicles within the area, with the exception of Bearwood Garage and Digbeth Coach Station, which were retained by BMMO. BMMO officially changed its name to the Midland Red Omnibus Company the following year, dropping the reference to Birmingham."

Consolidated its control of what?

The transfer of assets between WMPTE and Midland Red is already covered in the article, in a more concise form. This article is about WMPTE and WMPTA, not Midland Red.

Haskanik (talk) 22:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes known as...

Wouldn't "branded as Centro" be more accurate than "sometimes known as Centro"? --Jza84 |  Talk  01:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Advertorial

Some leaden advertorial has just been randomly dropped into the article, impacting its readability. Furthermore, there could be copyright issues.

"Transforming Bus Travel sets out our proposals for modernising bus travel in the West Midlands as well as our aspirations for improving the quality of bus travel by putting the needs of passengers first."

This sentence appears at http://www.centro.org.uk/bus/transformingbustravel.asp so it would appear to be copyvio, unless author(is)ed by Centro.

Haskanik (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Category: Municipal owned companies of England

WMPTE isn't a company, municipal(ly) owned or otherwise. So I would suggest its removal from that Category.
Haskanik (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Smartcard project

Someone replaced

'Chris Perry, Centro's Customer Services Assistant Director, announced that Centro's awkwardly named nnetwork and nbus commercial tickets would "go Smart from April 2009". However, this did not happen, and there is no timescale for full bus and rail implementation.'

with

'Chris Perry, Centro's Customer Services Assistant Director, announced that Centro's nnetwork and nbus commercial tickets would "go Smart from April 2009". However, this did not happen according to schedule, and implementation issues have led to delays for full bus and rail implementation.'

Mr Perry announced the tickets would "go Smart" from April 2009.
That didn't happen.
Changing the wording to "this did not happen according to schedule", adds nothing.
The timing is implicit in the original sentence.

"implementation issues have led to delays for full bus and rail implementation"
So, implementation issues have delayed full implementation?
That would seem to be an infinitesimally incrementing implementation issues implementation spiral.
However, at the time of writing, there doesn't appear to be a timescale for full bus and rail smartcard provision. That may be incorrect, in which case it would be good to leave a reference to an official timeline. Pending the arrival of that, I think the original version is more accurate.

In the English language, words beginning with two instances of the letter 'n' are uncommon.
In print, many people would regard it as a typing or spelling error.
In speech, there are also difficulties.
How do you pronounce 'nnetwork'? Like in Paul Hardcastle's 'Nineteen'?
Definitions of awkward include: Difficult to handle or manage; Not graceful; ungainly.
So I like the wording, as-was.
But if anyone thinks 'nnetwork' is a graceful word, it would be good to know their reasoning.
Haskanik (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the schedule based on the latest timetable. I've not touched the nnetwork thing - whether it is awkward or not is a point of debate and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia so should stick to citing referenced material (both sides or independent) about the name if its even relevant. 81.2.110.250 (talk) 13:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Spelling

Can we make sure that "bus" is spelled with only one "s"?

If you find an error in a Wikipedia article, just correct it! Have actioned this now, anyway. jdan (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

"Maintaining article quality"? The quality of this article is woeful

For almost two decades, this body was the UKs largest bus operator outside of London. Yet the article makes no mention of its origins (except in the most fleeting of paragraphs), its vehicles, its liveries, its infrastructure, its operations, its policies (2p flat fares for children, first operator to introduce travelcards), its route network etc. etc. None of this is deemed worthy of inclusion, yet there is, for example, a long, out-of-date list of bus companies (themselves nothing to do with the PTE) that aparently is? Years and years' of noteworthy and interesting history on a major operator during a time of crucial importance and upheaval in the history of public transport in the UK - information that I came here to find - has been reduced to little more than "founded in 1969, deregulated in 1986".

Of course the article needs to cover the PTEs current role and responsibilities, and cover them well, but why on earth would the first half of its history, when it was a very different thing, be dismissed with barely a mention?

It seems from the talk page that someone has been way to harsh in the pruning of this article:

I removed some vague, irrelevant, and inaccurate statements which had been reinserted from an earlier version.

"Operations initially covered the Birmingham/Black Country area and some surrounding towns such as Redditch and Bromsgrove."

What operations?

Well, at a guess, I would say its operation of the UK's largest bus fleet outside of London, the local rail network in Europe's largest local authority area, and so on. In what way can such a massive undertaking, the very reason the PTE was created inthe first place, be considered irrelevant?

That one concise sentence also describes precisely where PTE operated (ah ha! See? Operations!) when it was first established. Birmingham. Black Country. Redditch. Bromsgrove. Very clearly defined geographical areas. How is that vague?

And while I cannot put it in the article, as I do not have a reference to hand that I can cite, I can tell you from first hand knowledge that that is EXACTLY where the PTE operated until the West Midlands county was created in 1974 and it pulled out of north Worcestershire but expanded into Coventry - The information was most definitely NOT inaccurate.

"In 1973 the PTE consolidated its control when it acquired from the Birmingham and Midland Motor Omnibus Company (commonly known as "Midland Red")those operations which lay within the conurbation. The transfer included all the staff and vehicles within the area, with the exception of Bearwood Garage and Digbeth Coach Station, which were retained by BMMO. BMMO officially changed its name to the Midland Red Omnibus Company the following year, dropping the reference to Birmingham."

Consolidated its control of what?

Consolidated its control of what... Well, let's see. It's raison d'etre was to control public transport within its area. It bought out a privately owned competitor. It's just a stab in the dark, but I would hazard a guess that it consolidated its control of public transport. Or, you might say, of those aforementioned mysterious operations.

The transfer of assets between WMPTE and Midland Red is already covered in the article, in a more concise form. This article is about WMPTE and WMPTA, not Midland Red.

Well, if the '73 transfer was covered, it isn't anymore. But as a key event in the organisation's history, it should be!

P M C 22:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Article name and organisation status

Shouldn't this article be called "Centro" (with appropriate disambiguation) as the common name of the organisation, including the name it uses itself [1], as per WP:COMMONNAME? The description of the organisation's status in the intro to this article also conflicts with its own description of its status on its own homepage, on which it describes itself as "becoming an ITA". JimmyGuano (talk) 05:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I would oppose that on a few grounds 1) That would make it inconsistent with the other passenger transport executive articles. 2) The namespace Centro is already taken, so it would have to be disambiguated as something like Centro (West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive). 3) It has only been called Centro since about the late-1980s, it was WMPTE for about 20 years before that. And 4) It is still a passenger transport executive the ita is the governing body. G-13114 (talk)

TfWM

Following today's changes, I've been bold. Redirects to the old page name have also been changed. I've changed the page as little as possible; some sections may therefore benfit from a rethink in the coming weeks. I've left the website link pointing to Centro for the time being, until TfWM have something a little more substantial as I am sure they eventually will. P M C 17:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

TfWM formation date

I've changed the formation date for TfWM back to 2016 (it had been reverted to 1969, which was the formation date for the PTE).

TfWM has assumed responsibility for areas that had been the responsibility of the PTE, but TwFM is not a continuation of the PTE under a new name. Although it is not the pattern that has been/will be followed in every metro county, in the case of the West Midlands, the Combined Authority has replaced and dissolved the PTE, not just the ITA (PTA).

To my mind, to say that TfWM was founded in 1969 (the year the PTE was founded) makes no more sense than to say it was established in 1904 (the year of Birmingham City Transport's creation). TfWM is not the PTE, it replaced the PTE; in the same way as the PTE replaced the municipal undertakings in Birmingham, Coventry, Walsall, West Bromwich, and Wolverhampton. P M C 11:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't make that change, but I see the logic to it. I'm not sure that analogy is entirely sound, as the former municipal organisations ran within completely different boundaries. It's fair to say the TFWM is the successor organisation to the PTE, as it covers the same area, and has inherited all of the assets and staff etc of the PTE, even if it is now technically a different organisation. If we follow your logic then surely this needs a new article, and all of the history from the 1970s etc belongs in a different article? Would it not be sound to have a compromise and include both dates with an explanation? G-13114 (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

My own thought would be that, insofar as possible, this article needs to concern itself only with TfWM. That said, I left this article on the whole as it had been for Centro when I moved it to its current page (bar the minimum changes necessary to the introduction, and the odd word here and there such as "Centro" > "TfWM"). I did this because it struck me that a lot of the information - functions and what have you - overlapped, so it should probably be kept in some form and a consensus needed to be reached on that. If I had immediately pruned the article to cover TfWM only, it would be very short indeed at the moment, and I'm sure a lot of toes would have been trodden on in the process! Better, I thought, to keep the changes to a minimum for the moment and see what emerges as the various editors work on it.

Ideally, I think there needs to be a good, stand-alone article on the WMPTE as an historical organisation (1969-2016), rather than just have WMPTE redirect to this page. This TfWM article could then summarise its origins in the lede with a link to the separate WMPTE page, and, moving forwards, restrict itself exclusively to the new body. Ultimately, this TfWM article should say nothing about Centro other than "TfWM was established in 2016, replacing the PTE that had existed previously."

I have toyed with the idea of starting a new, separate article on WMPTE myself. To be honest though, my interest in it waned when it ceased to be an operator in its own right, so my in-depth knowledge only goes up to 1986. I had begun to put a lot of information on the early years of the PTE and its operations into this article some years ago (when it was still the PTE article), only to have some upstart TWM-fanboy delete anything pre-deregulation as "irrelevant", replacing it with nonsense like an out-of-date list of TWM bus routes. I am in no rush to spend hours writing the beginnings of a separate WMPTE article only to have that happen again!

I've had a 3/4-written, detailed BCT article sitting in my sandbox for two or three years for the same reason. I'm all for collective editing, but it's very hard to summon the will to spend hours researching and writing, if someone else decides to delete it all on a whim. That's why I didn't hack away at the Centro article when I moved the page to TfWM. P M C 14:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

If it was a straight renaming would advocate retaining the status quo. But as it appears TfWM is significantly different from Centro in terms of its structure and future responsibilities, then agree the article should be split; WMPTE up until June 2016 and TfWM for post. As it is more or less in chronological order, shouldn't be too onerous. Est8286 (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, but other similar organisations have undergone a similar transformations and not had their articles split. Look at Strathclyde Partnership for Transport or Transport for Greater Manchester for example. G-13114 (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe the situation in G. Manchester is different - GMPTE was not dissolved, it was simply renamed to TfGM. In the West Midlands by contrast, TfWM replaces the PTE and the PTE ceases to exist. In Manchester GMPTE and TfGM are one and the same. In the West Midlands, WMPTE and TfWM are different bodies. On that basis, I think the introduction to the article as it currently stands has become focussed much too heavily on WMPTE/Centro once again. I'm going to see if I can word it a little better. P M C 07:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)