Talk:Great Western Railway (train operating company)/Archive 2

Peak

For the love of God I cannot find out when peak hours and off peak hours are.

The terms and conditions on the website mention peak but do not mention when the hours are.

Doing a Google search for "firstgreatwestern" and "peak" do not reveal the hours.

Can someone please discover and document this magic number? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.215.57 (talk) 14:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that you'll find that the definition will change from one journey to another, so there isn't a simple answer. (And for some journeys there may be the additional complication of Super Off-Peak.) You may find the details in the timetable for your journey, for excample on page 4 of the Reading to Basingstoke timetable. Otherwise if you look up tickets on-line it will show you which tickets are available for a particular train; for example Reading to Paddington shows Anytime Day Single up to the 0927 train, but Off-Peak Day Single for the 0934. The details are in the National Fares Manual. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Greater Western Rail Franchise

I think some content should be split off into a new article called Greater Western Rail Franchise, as strictly speaking this article is about the train operator and not the franchise. As well as this article being on the large side. Mark999 (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

First Great Western became First Greater Western when Great Western merged with LTV unless the franchise is seperated again when First relinquish the contract then there is no need for a split unless you wish to add significant amounts of information to either the Great Western part or the LTV part. LongRobin79(talk) 23:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Just as significant changes may be made when the new franchise starts, especially if there is a new operator. Mark999 (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

At this moment in time First can still re-tender a bid for the franchise and there is no sugestion that they wish to let it go they were unhappy with the governments demands on them and see this as a chance to force the DfT's hand. If a new operator appears and splits the two companies again then yes have two separate pages but for now there is no need for a split. Splitting the two companys will not just happen if First lose the contract since LTV and GW drivers have become so merged that the unions would fight the re-seperation to the ends of the earth given the changes that had to make when the two companies merged LongRobin79(talk) 23:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to split this article into two. First Great Western is the franchise (at least currently), so what would you write about in the separate article? If First Great Western lost the franchise, then of course this article would remain, with an article about the new franchise holder/TOC created.

I am not aware of any other train companies where the TOC and Franchise articles are split into two. There has also been little discussion about this, so I have removed the notice. Beeshoney - Don't Google it, Woogle it! (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Is not the proper distinction between the TOC and the route? I am not sure if the route is necessarily the same thing as the franchise. East Coast (train operating company) is a different article from East Coast Main Line. Virgin Trains is a different article from West Coast Main Line. We already have an article called Great Western Main Line. Let us avoid unnecessary duplication. -- Alarics (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Head Office

I have no wish to start any sort of edit war but yet again User:pdiddyjr changed the head office location back to Plymouth, FGW are based in Swindon, at Milford House Unless user:Pdiddyjr can provide alternative proof that they are in fact based in Plymouth, please can he leave it alone. LongRobin79(talk) 17:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Bristol Wiki Meetup

You are invited to the Bristol Wiki Meetup which will take place at The Commercial Rooms, 43-45 Corn Street, Bristol BS1 1HT on Sunday 28 July 2013 from 1.00 pm. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Bristol topics. Bring your laptop if you like and use the free Wifi or just bring yourself. Even better, bring a friend! Click the link for full details. Looking forward to seeing you. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Train times

In the First Great Western#Routes section, there is an awful lot of detail, including times of certain trains - I think these are chosen because they vary from the normal stopping pattern. Is all this necessary? Wikipedia is not a railway timetable; and such times are subject to periodic variation. People wanting to know where trains call, and what time they run, would be far better off by using one of the many online services provided by specialists like First Great western and National Rail Enquiries. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree that there is excessive detail here. In my view it is good to provide a general overview of the general _pattern_ of regular services, perhaps even including some brief historical comparisons where relevant and available, and maybe some mention of principal end-to-end journey times both now and in the past. But individual train departure times are surely not required. -- Alarics (talk) 13:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Has it ever occurred?

Has it ever occurred to you guys that the name doesn't actually make sense? I mean, they call themselves the "First Great Western," but there's already been a Great Western Railway before this one. I know it apart of the First Group, but still, they should've at least called it "First Western Railway" or something. You don't have to add it to the article, I just wanted to point this out. Dinoboyaz (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

They deliberately chose the words "Great Western" because of the 1835-1947 company, as did their predecessor TOC Great Western Trains and the latter's owner Great Western Holdings. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Operating Area should not include South-East England.

The article states in various places that 'First Great Western' operates in the south-east of England. This is not true and should be amended.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.200.54 (talk) 13:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what definition of South East England you are using, but in my book (& in the definition in the article) it includes Gatwick & Brighton to name just 2 examples. Also Reading, Maidenhead, and numerous other places solidly served by FGW. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

FGW serves most of Oxfordshire and Berkshire, also portions of: Buckinghamshire (Bourne End, Iver, Marlow, Taplow); East Sussex (Brighton, Hove); Hampshire (Basingstoke, Blackwater, Bramley, Cosham, Fareham, Farnborough North, Fratton, Havant, Portsmouth and Southsea, Portsmouth Harbour, Romsey, Southampton Central); Surrey (Ash, Betchworth, Chilworth, Dorking Deepdene, Dorking West, Gomshall, Guildford, North Camp, Redhill, Reigate, Shalford, Wanborough); and West Sussex (Barnham, Chichester, Gatwick Airport, Shoreham-by-Sea, Worthing). All of these are South East England. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Also Portsmouth and Brighton. aycliffe^talk 18:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed thanks. I've updated. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Routes - Main Line Route Map

Good morning - on the "map showing First Great Western's Intercity routes from London", the station at Liskeard is spelled incorrectly. Haynesta (talk) 08:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@Haynesta: True; and that's not the only one, I count nine stations misspelt or mishyphenated. The full list of errors is: Liskerd (for Liskeard); Cambourne (for Camborne); Moreton In Marsh (for Moreton-in-Marsh); Worcester Forgate Street (for Worcester Foregate Street); Colwell (for Colwall); Pembray and Burry Port (for Pembrey and Burry Port); Camarthen (for Carmarthen); Weston Super Mare (for Weston-super-Mare); Paington (for Paignton). The image was prepared using Inkscape, and there are also errors which mean that the fonts don't render correctly on all browsers. Unfortunately, Tgtrains (talk · contribs), who prepared the image, has done no editing since then. I could look at redrawing it. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2015

Under High Speed Trains stock, 'Swansea' needs linking to its railway station page found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swansea_railway_station 2.24.237.223 (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: It's already linked earlier in the article, and doesn't need to be linked more. Kharkiv07^Talk 22:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Merge suggestion

As the upcoming rebranding of the franchise is just that and not a separate or franchise, suggest the GWR (First Group) article be merged into this article with the article moved to the new name when the change occurs. In a similar manner to the way the One (railway) article was moved when the franchise was rebranded as National Express East Anglia, likewise when Greater Anglia became Abellio Greater Anglia. D47817 (talk) 08:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support. I'd already commented to that effect regarding the new article (which also seems to include material copied without attribution). --David Biddulph (talk) 09:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Disagreement. Considering that the GWR brand is part of a new franchise form September 2014, I do not see a problem with this. Naturally most of the information from FGW will be the same.(Devonexpressbus (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC))
• Support Clearly the same organisation with a new name. Move the article when the trading name officially changes, and not before. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support what Redrose64 said -mattbuck (Talk) 17:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support what Redrose64 said Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Article name post September 2015

Discussion

With First Great Western to be renamed GWR Great Western Railway in September 2015, and a consensus reached to rename the existing article, to allow the article to be moved hopefully only once when (and not before) the new name is introduced, a consensus should be arrived at on the article name post the rebranding. Suggestions are, please free to add more:

• 1) Great Western Railway (First Group)
• 2) Great Western Railway by First
• 3) Great Western Railway (Great Western Railway) based on information that the full rather than abbreviated name will be adopted in full, think we can strike this one
• 4) Great Western Railway (train operating company)
• 5) Great Western Railway (TOC) D47817 (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Voting

Option 4 inline with similar articles Southeastern (train operating company) & Southern (train operating company), D47817 (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Option 4 if it is indeed called GWR, but the latest material I've seen from them suggests they're going with Great Western Railway (in which case Great Western Railway (train operating company) would be appropriate).   JaJaWa |talk  15:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Option 4 or a variant thereof. Apparently the company is rebranding to Great Western Railway, so Great Western Railway (TOC) might be a better title. Mjroots (talk) 12:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Apparently using TOC as the disambiguator isn't the way we do things, so sticking with Option 4 as proposed. Mjroots (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Option 4, however we should wait until the name is definitive. A few days of being at FGW won't matter. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Option 4 with redirects from 1 and 5. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Option 4 & much better to write "train operating company" in full rather than using an acronym. Robevans123 (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Option 4 with JaJaWa's reasoning. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 08:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose all changes – First of all, the First website still uses the old branding. Let's not jump the gun. Second of all, the proposed Great Western Railway (train operating company) is ambiguous, as the old one (Great Western Railway) could equally be described in that manner. All of the proposed titles are very long, and unnatural. I propose sticking with First Great Western, regardless of branding, which is unambiguous, and which was what was done with First Scotrail when that was rebranded as simply Scotrail. It also isn't exorbitantly long, per WP:CONCISE and WP:NATURAL. RGloucester — ☎ 01:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

  The old Great Western Railway could not equally be described in that manner, since it did so much more than operate trains. It owned them too (FGW's trains are mostly leased from Angel or Porterbrook); and it also owned the tracks, stations, signalling etc. - it was a true railway company. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

  The website has changed it's branding in the past 9 hours, and it's now located at gwr.com. 143.167.113.212 (talk) 09:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The old railway operated trains, so it was a train operating company. That's very simple. This change must be reverted. There has been no RM, and no consensus. I will take strong action here. RGloucester — ☎ 16:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 20 September 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Result: Closing as clearly disruptive nonsense. oknazevad (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Great Western Railway (train operating company) → First Great Western – A move was made without an RM. I reverted the move. Then an administrator moved the article back, and protected the article. He is involved, and should not've done this. The article needs to be moved back to the stable title to allow for an RM, so that consensus can be attained. RGloucester — ☎ 16:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC) – RGloucester — ☎ 16:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• @RGloucester: The company has been rebranded/renamed as of today. Therefore, your revert in good faith was incorrect. The issue is being discussed at WT:UKT#FGW to GWR. The move protection is to stop the article being constantly shunted back and forth between two titles. Discussion re categorization is the more pressing issue at the moment. Mjroots (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• Whether the company was rebranded or not has no relevance to the title of the Wikipedia article. No RM has been held, no demonstration has been made that the common name has changed. You moved an articled you were involved in and then protected it. That's a sanctionable behaviour. Revert the move, and start an RM, as the usual process dictates. RGloucester — ☎ 16:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Great Western Railway vs GWR

There has been a bit of conjecture as to whether the full or abreviated name should be used. The operator is using the full name on its station and on-board announcements. Even if it were using the abreviation, the precedent at Great North Eastern Railway seems to be to use the full name, even though it referred to itself in the abbrevaited form. Geeuuare (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This talkpage should not be speedily deleted because... should be renamed Great Western Railway (train operating company) to align with article. Geeuuare (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I've tagged it for CSD because it can't be moved back at this point in time, a redirect exists on the talk page where it should be that needs to be deleted. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 18:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, it seems that with all the recent renamings of the article, it hasn't been picked up. Geeuuare (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem guys, I sorted it. Mjroots (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

FGW Diagram Drawings

Is it still necessary to keep the FGW diagram drawings as show in the fleet table, since they are no longer relevant I think it would be more appropriate to remove them.

Thoughts please!

Devonexpressbus (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• So let me get this straight .... You go around calling everyone morons and idiots and telling everyone to F Off ... and now you want our thoughts? ..... Well unfortunately my thoughts are only on you and they're not very pleasant!. –Davey2010^Talk 22:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Personally I'd prefer it if they could be updated rather than removed. I can't edit svg files but if anyone can, feel free! Cloudbound (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Cloudbound: SVG files may be edited using any plain text editor (don't use Microsoft Word, it'll b*lls it up). The SVG code looks very much like HTML, and there is documentation at Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) 1.1 (Second Edition). --Redrose64 (talk) 09:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Thanks, I'll try that out. Cloudbound (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

To Dave2010, well you wanted me to do it this way, so I've listened. Its not my fault that you are moron who can't listen to other peoples opinion and think your right on everything. User Cloudbound, I to would like to see them updated but until they are I think the best thing would be for them to be removed. Devonexpressbus (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Devonexpressbus - You do realize the whole talkpage thing is the norm around here . .... ?, If you wanna make big controversial changes you visit the talkpage first like everyone else on the project, I listen to everyones opinions and "You think your right on everything" is a complete baseless lie - I know for a fact I'm not right on everything and I've made a few mistakes in my time (like we all do) so I've never gone with that idea .... Instead of making enemies and making it easy for yourself to be indeffed here it may be a wiser choice to start making a few friends and well doing things differently as like it or not we're a collaborative project ..... –Davey2010^Talk 00:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I reverted Devonexpressbus's removal of those images, partly because it was done without waiting for discussion here to conclude, and partly because it broke the table layout. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64 well its not like the talk is actually getting anywhere is it, we have Davey2010 decided to launch an attack at me because I had a go at him, you seem to think your above everyone else so its pretty damn pointless. Devonexpressbus (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

If the only problem is the colour, it should stay. We're making do with the fleet photos in the old livery until the fleet is updated, so there's really no rush with the route map. Cloudbound (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure quite when the intercity route map was removed, but I've produced a version of it using the GWR (TOC) colour:

Is this a useful alternative view of the information in the service table? If so, I'll do some more work on improving the graphic. My initial thoughts are that some of the station names are a bit squashed up, the train frequency figures could be removed, the layout could be improved (using 45° routes), and changes of direction would be better using curves.

If people think the graphic is useful, I'll improved it, and any comments on accuracy are welcome. Robevans123 (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks for making it! -- Alarics (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks great buddy, Can't wait to see it. thanksbutnothanks 20:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devonexpressbus (talk • contribs)

It makes better sense to keep diagrams out of fleet tables, even though in my personal opinion there not needed in the first place, tis just a very nice piece of art. I have moved them down to where the links are, but will move them back if support is great enough. If needed a third opinion can be requested.Devonexpressbus 21:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The fleet diagrams are still relevant, as the fleet operate nearly every service in that livery at present. There's no need nor haste to remove them yet. We have more pressing things to contend with like unsourced statements. Cloudbound (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Per [1] I do not appreciate the suggestion of vandalism. I explain all my edits, which are in the best interests of the article. Cloudbound (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Cornish Seafood Trail with Intercity Railfreight

Is it worth having a section in the page about a trail to transport Cornish seafood from Penzance on the 17:37 to London Paddington which began on December 1st 2015. Devonexpressbus (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Carrying seafood by train is not a new concept, nor is carrying seafood by passenger train. Some DMUs based at Norwich were equipped with a galvanised steel tray in the guard's van, in order to catch the spillage from crates of whelks which would otherwise damage the floor. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Since when did I say it was a new concept, I said it was trial being undertaken by GWR/Intercity Railfreight as part of its Building a Greater West concept. Devonexpressbus (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

According to the latest RAIL magazine this is only a three-month experiment. I don't think it justifies inclusion in the article. -- Alarics (talk) 10:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk) I thought it was longer than that, so actually it doesn't make sense to put anything about it yet. thanksbutnothanks 17:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devonexpressbus (talk • contribs)

My Actions/ Fresh Start

I would like to apologize for my actions recently, and if possible would like to start fresh.

I hope you can accept this.thanksbutnothanks 17:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devonexpressbus (talk • contribs)

West Of England Services

There seems to be an ongoing conflict on the fleet table, for the 150/9, where it currently states "Former Wessex Trains Services" and the rest of the table says "West Of England Services or Thames Valley" I have tried to change this multiple times to match what GWR have in the Christmas 2015 leaflet about the local services. However it keeps being reverted. It has now got to the point where some people say im vandalizing this page so therefore I want a discussion.

Since Wessex Trains has now been gone for almost 10 years isn't it about time that we kept this page relevant and to the point? I am more than happy to upload a photo to prove that GWR call the branch line fleet outside of London the "West Of England" fleet.User:Devonexpressbus 16:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

For some reason I assumed "West of England Services" was wrong but the rest do say WOES so it seems odd to just have one that says "Former Wessex Trains services" whilst the rest say "West of England Services" After I was reverted by an IP I then left it assuming DXB & the IP were correct ... but someone then reverted the IP. –Davey2010^Talk 17:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Davey2010 I agree, lets see what others think. 17:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devonexpressbus (talk • contribs)

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested. The question appears to be why the 150/9 is called "Former Wessex Trains services" while the rest say "West of England Services". I don't see any argument in favor of the Former Wessex Train Services anomaly, so my opinion is to change it to "West of England Services". If someone can give me a reason for the difference, rather than just edit-warring, state the reason, but that is the third opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon Considering I've been saying that for over a week its nice to see I was right all along. Thank you very much for that much needed third opinion, I just wish i'd requested it earlier. God Bless Devonexpressbus 23:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Wessex Trains has been gone for so long that we really don't need the mention in the table. Cloudbound (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

While technically correct, I think west of england is the more accessible term. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Problems with this wiki page.

It seems that they're is a lot of problems with this wiki page, with users adding content and then other users decided they don't like it and reverting it. Therefore I would like to request if you don't like something a user has added or are unsure of what they are doing/if it is correct. Please us their talk page or this talk page to discuss the issues before reverting. This will stop the about of spam being created in the history of the page section and will stop unnecessary arguments.

Thanks Devonexpressbus 15:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, some of what you have been adding to the article has not been necessary for an encyclopedia article. For example, we don't have timetables. We are discussing changes to the article here. Maybe @Davey2010: and @Redrose64: should have explained why they reverted some of your edits but don't take it personally. They aren't aiming for you - we're all working to get the article up to a good standard. Cloudbound (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't mean to be so rude, but if you take a look at Virgin Trains East Coast I've managed to do loads of things to that page, without people reverting silly stuff, and basically calling my pictures rubbish. On here its like Clapham Junction with a load of busy bodies. And several people fighting it out to see who can make there bit the best, and I for one find it bloody frustrating!Devonexpressbus 21:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Your edits have been reverted only when other users feel they have not added anything to the article. It happens to everyone across Wikipedia. Nobody said your upload was rubbish, just that it didn't add anything to the article.

There's no competition, and we're all here to make the article better. I don't really think I can make that point any clearer. Nobody has it in for you. Nobody looks down on you. Using "there" or their" in the wrong place in an edit summary isn't the end of the world. But you need to step back and look at your approach to editing and discussion. Don't do yourself a disservice and resort to swearing again. If you ever need advice, just ask someone. We all want this to be a good article, whether it's got dynamic lines on it or not. Cloudbound (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Devonexpressbus has been indefinitely blocked from editing. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

HST Future

There seems to be many different postings about the future of the HST's. I think that actual proof should be shown before anymore is added because there will be many different arguments springing up first.

We've already had rumors that some will stay with GWR, other rumors being that they will join from East Midlands trains the only clear link I can find is: http://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/2016/02/25/gwr-and-dft-discuss-revised-plan-after-electrification-delays — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.197.122 (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Great Western Railway (train operating company). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://firstgreatwestern.co.uk/Content.aspx?id=1692

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Class 387 Order / Class 365 Future?

Due to GWR Ordering Class 387's and the possibility of taking on more from Thameslink, it is being said on forums that the Class 365's are not being taken on by GWR, so the Thames Valley fleet can become standardized, has anyone get any evidence to support this, and therefore remove the Class 365 from the future fleet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.240.129 (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I am also on a rail forum but I've never heard anything about this yet. If you can supply a reliable source to back this information up, then please include this as well as what you want to change on the page into an edit request pending approval. This will not be change until you follow these instructions. Class455fan1 (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great Western Railway (train operating company). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081114192850/http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/Content.aspx?id=1984 to http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/Content.aspx?id=1984

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 01:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Great Western Railway (train operating company). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091124030010/http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/Default.aspx to http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/Default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402192557/http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/archive/2015/03/23/11872796.UPDATE__First_Great_Western_extend_franchise_until_2019___largest_train_fleet_upgrade_in_generation/?ref=arc to http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/archive/2015/03/23/11872796.UPDATE__First_Great_Western_extend_franchise_until_2019___largest_train_fleet_upgrade_in_generation/?ref=arc

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Class 158s in the fleet table

The 158s do not feature in the fleet table, is there a reason for this? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to have been a reason. It was removed by Smithdo43172 with this edit. I've restored the entry to the table. Cloudbound (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Great Western Railway (train operating company). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924013326/http://www.firstgroup.com/assets/pdfs/investors/annual_reports/1999_annual_report.pdf to http://www.firstgroup.com/assets/pdfs/investors/annual_reports/1999_annual_report.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081116024110/http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/NewsItem.aspx?id=283 to http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/NewsItem.aspx?id=283
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141229052552/http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/content/detail.aspx?releaseid=4453&newsareaid=2 to http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/content/detail.aspx?releaseid=4453&newsareaid=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090831021143/http://www.travelwatchsouthwest.org/newslog160608.html to http://www.travelwatchsouthwest.org/newslog160608.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080301132805/http://firstgreatwestern.co.uk/Content.aspx?id=95 to http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/Content.aspx?id=95
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.railwaymagazine.co.uk/news/fgw-offers-7million-loco-hauled-contract
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://tony4170.fotopic.net/p34792487.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120201014041/http://assets.dft.gov.uk/consultations/dft-2011-36/great-western-franchise-replacement.pdf to http://assets.dft.gov.uk/consultations/dft-2011-36/great-western-franchise-replacement.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131016121452/http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/MP-takes-drive-better-rail-services/story-13697379-detail/story.html to http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/MP-takes-drive-better-rail-services/story-13697379-detail/story.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Great Western Railway (train operating company). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120904062844/http://www.railmagazine.com/archive/ to http://www.railmagazine.com/archive/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110820215844/http://cardiffnews.coolcardiff.com/great-western-electrification-and-iep-to-go-ahead/ to http://cardiffnews.coolcardiff.com/great-western-electrification-and-iep-to-go-ahead/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 03:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Confusion and thanks.

Hi all.

There seems to be a bit of confusion about certain items which have been added.

For example in the last month I have found one item about future services which should be in Greater Western Franchise and another item about electrification which should have been located in Great Western Main Line. The page is the Train Operating Company page so issues to do with future franchises or improvement works don't really belong here, if you are unsure, please use the reply here and I'm sure someone will be happy to direct you to the right place!

On another note, can I thank everyone who has contributed or helped direct others, it's great to see how this articles has dramatically improved since the rebrand took place in 2015. All the best 146.198.36.224 (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Photography wars?

Hello all

We seem to have issues where people are constantly changing photos for their own personal benefit/interest, this is unhealthy to the article, if you wish to change a picture, please check here first!

We have had an issue where the main photograph was changed on Feb 4th 2018, only to be changed less than 28 day later for no valid reason!

Could I please ask moderators to put tighter restrictions on this page to stop so many conflicts happening, i.e conflight resolutions?

Best wishes

209.93.106.208 (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

If you're dragging me into this then, no, it was not for my benefit at all. I would have been happy enough with your revert. Cloudbound (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Main Photograph

It seems once again their is an argument over the main photo. From looking at the history, one IP user changed it to a very bad quality photograph, another IP user then reverted it back to the photo which to my recall been on for some time. And another user then disagreed with this and placed a different image, which has caused a row with an IP user unknown.

The IP user has suggested that the main image is removed altogether to stop this problem, which I agree is the best solution, alongside a strong measure to stop the constant false editing of the page. (I noted that a few months ago someone removed the Express Cafe name, and now it has had to be placed back, so why was it removed in the first place??)

I am therefore, in favor of removing the main image altogether.Gwrhst (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Well done Gwrhst, somebody who understands WP:BRD. As you may have noticed, I've semi-protected the article for one week, with no preference implied. It would be interesting if somebody could go back through past edits (say, for the last year) to see which images have been used in the infobox, and how long each was up for. I don't have time for this right now, as I have an early start tomorrow. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you'll find I fully understand BRD!, I reinstated an image that was used since March[2] although looking at this history the image has been changed more than even I realised, This time last year a different image was used however I vaguely recall there being an image of 3 trains together which is the image I would support changing too (as I think it showed old and new?). –Davey2010^Talk 21:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I will just add had I known the infobox image was changed so frequently I would've come here to begin with, On my part I do accept fault for not coming here. –Davey2010^Talk 22:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Redrose

From what I remember their was a picture of a HST at Dawlish, which got replaced by one at Paddington, then it was changed to the OOC open day photo, then when the IET's came in a few photos such as the one now on the page, where on for a few days, before things settled down, until this week when someone changed it again to a very bad quality one. Another IP user seem to have reverted it, and then a certain user didn't like that, and sent abuse to the IP user, when the IP user reverted it again, and mentioned it had been on again, that user seems to have sent more abuse via his own talk page(which I have now responded too). Myself I think the two IETs at Swindon should be put back, but it will probably be changed again, so the best thing is to remove it all together! I hope that clears it up.Gwrhst (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The current photo looks nice. I think it's good to have a photo of a train that includes part of the route as well, hence the HST at Dawlish, and save the general rolling stock photos for the fleet table. Cloudbound (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)