Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways/TOCs

This is a draft set of criteria intended to serve as a guideline for assessing the notability of train operating companies in Great Britain, both open-access and franchised. It does not apply to operators of trains on heritage railways, industrial railways, tramways, light railways or other metro systems not part of the National Rail network.

It is intended that an organisation is 'scored' at the highest level it ever achieved, even if they no longer meet that criteria. This does not attempt to list every possible scenario or possible state, but to provide a guideline for more common occurrences. The hierarchy is meant to be loose and the criteria have a degree of flexibility to allow for organisations that don't clearly fall at one level or another.

Where the coverage level suggested is a section on a larger article, this will usually be the article about the parent company/organisation and/or the franchise but could be elsewhere depending on the specific circumstances.

Nothing here removes the general requirements detailed at Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and all articles should be assessed on their own merits.

Level	Brief description	Criteria	Typical coverage
1	Operating trains	Currently or formerly operating regularly scheduled or multiple charter or spot hire trains on the National Rail network	Individual article
2a	Confirmed future franchisee	Franchise has been awarded	Individual article in most cases
2b	Confirmed future open-access operator	Formal permission to run trains has been granted and paths are or will be available	Individual article or a section on a larger article depending on scale of operation and amount of information available.
3a	Shortlisted for franchise	Organisation has been shortlisted for one or more franchises	Normally a section in a larger article, occasionally a standalone article if there is lots of encyclopaedic information
3b	Open-access application seriously considered	An application to run open-access train services is being seriously considered by the DfT, or was rejected after serious consideration
4a	Shortlist not reached	An application to run a franchise was made, but the application either did not make the shortlist, or the shortlist has not yet been published	Very rarely more than a section in a larger article. Where little information is known, a list entry will usually suffice.
4b	Open-access application dismissed	An application to run open-access train services was made, but was not seriously considered by the DfT	A section in a larger article or just a list entry, depending on the amount of encyclopaedic information known.
5a	Application made, no response	An application to run open-access train services, or a bid to run a franchise has been made, but the DfT's response is not yet known. Usually this will be because a decision has not yet been made.	Normally just a section in a larger article or a list entry, depending how much information is known and how seriously reliable secondary sources like the railway press are treating it
5b	Application pending	It has been confirmed by reliable, independent secondary sources that an application will be made to run open-access train services or a bid submitted to run a franchise will be made shortly (normally within the next 3-4 months), but this has not yet happened
6	New or active proposal	A proposal to run open-access services is being actively developed and is generally being taken seriously by knowledgeable railway sources	Normally a list entry or small section depending on the level of encyclopaedic information available
7	Stagnant proposal	A proposal to run open-access services was made a while ago but no formal application was made. The proposal does not appear likely to move forward.	Typically just a list entry, unless there is more than average encyclopaedic information available sufficient for a small section
8	Floating an idea	A proposal to run open-access services, but with little detail and is often just "floating an idea" to see how it is received, but is nevertheless plausible	Rarely more than a list entry, sometimes not even that. Coverage might be appropriate on articles about the route, stations, or rolling stock proposed to be used might be appropriate in some cases.
9	Implausible ideas	A proposal to run open-access services that is not being taken seriously, clearly won’t go any further, and/or is completely implausible. This can include ideas that are nothing more than lines on a map, calls by campaign groups, or superficially good ideas that fail to stand up to basic scrutiny.	No entry on a list of proposed companies unless they are perennial proposals. If the proposing person or group are notable then mention might be made on their article.
10	Unverifiable ideas and proposals	An idea or proposal, etc that is not verifiable in reliable, secondary sources; regardless of the merits or otherwise of the proposal.	No coverage on Wikipedia per WP:V and WP:RS.