Talk:First Great Western

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First Great Western was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: April 6, 2008

	Trains Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance within the Trains WikiProject.
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Railways. Mid Importance: mid within UK Railways WikiProject.

Contents 1 Name 2 Update 3 Accidents 4 Things the article requires 5 "not all used" 6 Performance section 7 Possible Franchise Strip 8 Error in Article 9 "National Rail" 10 Named trains 11 GA Review 12 HST Formation 13 GA Review again 14 Clean-Up 15 Franchise Strip Again 16 Track layout

[edit] Name

http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/franchise/en/AdynamicNewBrand.php

The new company will be named "First Great Western" so may as well add the Greater Western section here.

[edit] Update

Hi, i'm currently updating the article as it is very poor, biased and unencyclopedic. Any help apprecaited. FGWQPR (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I have put the article up for re-assesment. --FGWQPR (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The article has received a B-class. This is brilliant.

[edit] Accidents

I've removed the seperate accidents section. No other TOC article has one (GNER, WAGN) so for consistancy I've taken it out. --Enotayokel 16:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Update

East Midlands Trains currently has an 'incidents' and 'accidents' section so why not FGW? And I think so does Virgin Trains, so I'm going to reinstate it. Britishrailclass91 (talk) 08:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Sorry, ignore the fact that I said I would reinstate it. Britishrailclass91 (talk) 08:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Things the article requires

• Wikiable Photo of one of the MTU Powercars and/or a Mark 3 in current livery in the latest livery
• Wikiable Photo of Great Western Merlin/Roadrunner livery and of 'Fag Packet' (possibly the sleeper)
• References
• The history of the franchise being put into chronological order
• Photos of each type of stock operated, with a bit about what FGW use them for

More to come (this is partially my todo list, though any help would be apreciated feel free to ignore too) --Enotayokel 18:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "not all used"

Can someone clarify what we mean when we say that not all coaches on a HST are "used"? They can't usually divide, and I've not seen a FGW HST run with only seven cars for quite a while. Last time I was on a late-night service (depart Cardiff 0128, arrive Swansea 0221) none of the train was off-limits (first class was empty, but I just assume the lack of any first-class ticket holders at that time). I'm not entirely sure that the guard office in the power cars not having been used for years (if ever) counts as a coach not in use. 81.104.170.167 21:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I know where this may have come from, in Summer 2006 (I note the previous comment is October 2006) GNER were mainly running HSTs in 2+9 formations (and sometimes still do), so maybe the person thought that as FWG were running 2+8, they were not using all coaches?? Even though the HST was designed as 2+8? Here are other references to GNER and 2+9 running: GNER 2+9 running and Wikipeida article on GNER including rolling stock infoBut yes, going on their design, the statment that not all coaches on a HST are used by FGW, appears incorrect, as I can not remember the last time I was on a short 7 coach rake either, its been several years. (Jrhilton (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC))Jrhilton 13:39:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Performance section

This section is very biased and surely forms no part of a factual entry on Wikipedia. I suggest it is removed or heavily edited.

But it is all factual and referenced, anyone who uses FGW on a regular basis will agree it sums up their performance very well, I don't think it should just be removed. It would only be fair to edit/remove it if they did perform very well, yet only the bad points were picked up on, and not any good points, and this is not the case. Previous comment is not signed, FGW employee?Jrhilton 13:19:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Franchise Strip

I have heard rumours/ read that First could be stripped of the FGW services. This is because of many reasons, including:

• Stock cuts causing overcrowding in Bristol and no service on branch lines.
• Severe service cuts, esp. on Cornish branch lines and evening commuter services.
• HST refurbishment (see main article for negative comments).

Should this be included in the article? it could become even more important in the future! Dewarw 16:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

These rumours often go around. Until the franchise is actually stripped i'd rather leave it out. --FGWQPR (talk) 08:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven’t seen what you have, but mere rumours aren’t enough to merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia article, and I don’t think complaints about seating layouts would be enough to lose them their franchise. Remember, it was only the financial problems that ultimately got Connex, not the unpopular toiletless stock or the botched promise of longer trains. David Arthur (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There are rumours about it due to the regular cancellation of local trains and basically the appalling way they run there trains.--FGWQPR (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Error in Article

The article mentions a former service from Portsmouth Harbour to Penzance using an HST set. This is not correct. Class 158 DMUs were used travelling via Taunton with a reversal at Westbury. In fact it is probably impossible to work an IC125 HST set to Portsmouth Harbour as the route is not cleared for IC125 stock. 87.114.140.45 11:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "National Rail"

Under Class 146 there is a reference to "National Rail objections". I don't understand this. Deipnosophista 21:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If you mean Class 142. National Rail do nto want to have them used on Devon branchlines because they damage the track. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FGWQPR (talk • contribs) 18:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Named trains

According to Book A, both The Saint David (page 1) and the Red Dragon (page 23) have Swansea, and not Cardiff, as endpoints. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

Review of First Great Western

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

The problems with the article are as follows:

1. "First Great Western (1998 - 2006)" and "The expanded First Greater Western (2006 - present)" should probably be merged as "History". And, the history probably needs to be expanded.
2. All the "XXX Routes" section are bascially long lists, which is not really pleasing to the eye, and bogs down the article.
3. The "Rolling stock" section is again very long, and there are long swathes of text that are unreferenced. The table at the end of the article is long, and again, the article gets bogged down.
4. The "Livery" section is too short, and should be combined with the Livery section at the beginning of the article.
5. Some of the links in the "External links" section seem rather dubious (blogs, and a forum?).

Because the changes that would have to be made to get this to GA status are numerous, my ultimate decision is fail. Noble Story (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HST Formation

There was a good section of this article about HST formation. It provided interesting and useful information and was sourced. Why was it deleted? Btline (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Although it was deleted I may still bring it back. But following comments from the GA reviewer I tried to break down the Rolling Stock section, which meant I mainly left the HST section and moved the refurbishment section to a new refurbishment section and the formation section was deleted. I may re word the HST section sometime soon, to incoporate the main parts of the Formation section, it must be noted that this is the only Company that has this much detail on Rolling Stock. If I bring it back I can copy and paste it from the edit history which is built in to wikipedia, I will probably incoporate the most useful parts. --FGWQPR (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review again

OK, there have been improvements as I directed above, but there's still a lot (a lot, a lot) to be done. I'll just do the major problems now, the biggest of which is referencing. These are all the sections that need referencing.

• The second paragraph of "First Great Western (1998-2006)"
• "First Great Western Link (2004-2006)", "Wessex Trains (2001-2006)", and "First Greater Western (Present Day)"
• The whole "Routes" section
• Paragraphs no. 2-4 of the "Controversy" section
• From "In 2004-2005" of the same section to "until the end of the year" (second-to-last paragraph)
• "Class 57/6" section
• All of "Commuter Routes" section
• "Local Routes" section
• "HST Refurbishment" section

When I said there was a lot to be done, I wasn't joking. There are more, but those are the ones that stick out immediately. Really, referencing is not excedingly complicated. Check out When to cite for more info. Put the citation after punctuation or at the end of the paragraph, but just have it there. Noble Story (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for spending your time to review again. I am now in the process of referencing un refernced work and should complete by this evening. --FGWQPR (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you take a little more time over it? You appear to be attempting to hard-push this article through the GA process - not a good idea. Take your time, do it properly, and only when it's good and ready re-nominate it. Also, you might like to take a look at WP:COI - I only say this because, with the name FGWQPR, containing essentially the company name and 'PR', it would appear to apply here. _TalkIslander 13:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well may i suggest something. You keep your nose out of other peoples business. For your infomation the second part of my name my name is QPR as this is the football team is support. I think you should not make assupmtions and look what I have edited and generally go away. It is none of your business --FGWQPR (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the matter in hand, I agree with the Islander that the article was re nominated too soon. As the judge said, a lot needs doing. Btline (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Resetting the indent. I have this evening performed minor clean-ups on the Class 165,Class 166 and Class 180 sections of the article, re-writing some of the prose and adding appropriate wikilinks to relevant articles. ColourSarge (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

After the above wikidrama, I'll be glad of some focus on the actualy article. Noble Story (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• For references on the various name changes etc. would the Companies House website be a suitable source (if the information is there that is - I haven't checked yet)? Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

After a week, I think that I'm going to fail this article. The changes to be made are simply too big, and progress really isn't being made. But, here are some pointers that you have to do before renominating:

• The history section should just be merged into one section.
• The routes section is still unreferenced.
• The gallery of livery shots need to be incorporated into the text.
• Intercity Routes is also unreferenced.
• The article is also simply a long list in many place

Improve on these things first before coming back to GAN, if at all. Noble Story (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-Up

I feel that a clean-up is needed for this article before any other Good Article nominations are made Britishrailclass91 (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Franchise Strip Again

Well, FGW is good enough for both Gordon Brown and David Cameron to travel on the same train in adjacent carraiges, so I see no reason why FGW would be stripped of their franchise Britishrailclass91 (talk) 08:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Track layout

(Sorry couldn't think of a better title), Some time ago there was talk of trying to fix delays on FGW by changing the tracks that the trains on. At the moment the up/down fast and slow lines are on opposite sides, but I recall FGW proposed to change it (between Paddington and Reading I think), to change it to the format that lines out of waterloo (after wimbledon) have, e.g. up slow, up fast, down fast, down slow......does anyone have any more info on this, and think of a good place to add it? I'm sure it was a FGW idea, and was a formal idea as they even had lists of stations between london and reading that needed platforms on the fast tracks being rebuilt. So maybe it could be mentioned here if anyone knows more details, e.g. a section on how they have proposed to change/improve performance? Jrhilton (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that this is too much of speculation to include. If you can find a source go ahead. BUT - due to Crossrail, this won't happen anytime soon (TfL will take over slow lines for Crossrail services). Btline (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)