![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On their website is says they will carry on going to scotland. Mark999 16:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Aparently First great Western wants to keep the units that were goin to be transferes to trans pennie Mark999 16:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
How can they be a current fleet when the franchise has yet to commence? -- Stewart (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion concluded in the title being applied to the section (as of 15 September 2007). The current issue of Railway Magazine indicates that there is likely to be interchange between Virgin West Coast and the new Cross Country franchise during the first few weeks, with unlikely for the new fleet allocations to settle down until the takeover of the Birmingham to Scotland routes by Virgin West Coast in December 2007. -- Stewart (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
There is now one Class 220 in service with the new CrossCountry livery. The being the case, there is no longer a valid rationale for the use of one of Arriva's photos. The other photos of the trains in their new livery are valid for the time being, although as vehicles are repainted, they will need to be deleted and replaced with free photos too. Nick 08:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
What I was stating is was what The Islander is saying. It is free at the moment. I didn't know it had been deleted before- I have not been a bad User at all. User RFBailey misunderstood- I am sorry if my language was ambiguous. As soon as a replacement is availiable, I will the support the change to the new picture! In the meantime..... Dewarw 15:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Can I suggest that we continue all discussion on this matter here - currently the debate seems to be fragmented over both these locations. TheIslander 16:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Where are the fleet pictures? i have stopped the nonsense regarding the New Voyager image but the other should still be fine (eg the Turbostar 170 pic is still used in the 170 Wiki page!). I am going to re add the pictures! -- Dewarw ( talk) 19:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
At last, a new photo! Rgsao ( talk) 22:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot RGSAO- I now fully support the deletion of the old image- get rid of it, it has caused enough trouble! Dewarw ( talk) 11:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Just happened to catch a semi-rebranded Voyager tonight, so took a picture. Only had my fairly poor qualiy camera phone on me, so the picture is anything but of the best quality. However, it is a completely free-use picture, and will do until a better alternative is taken. TheIslander 22:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
On a smaller screen such as 1152×864, the network box is broken -- it overlaps large parts of the page in a very horrible way. Just a tip-off, if anyone here knows how to kick the HTML/CSS back into line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghiraddje ( talk • contribs) 01:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone else noticed that the website has changed? Now seems to be powered by thetrainline - pity, as cheaper fares used to be available direct from CrossCountry. Any other information like when this happened and if it's a permanent thing would be helpful, and if it's indicative of a merger or takeover then this needs noting in the article. dreamcatcher23 ( talk) 01:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
According to RAIL magazine, the HST fleet will be introduced in May 2008, I will put this in the wikitable, but if anyone needs to contradict that, then tell me, and so be it! Britishrailclass91 ( talk) 14:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes I agree, I just thought it was worth a mention somewhere. Yes I admit the details were excessive. Year1989 ( talk) 23:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
In the timetable 8 Sept - 13th December 2008 There is only 1 train per hour between the two cities. Is this temporary or permanent? If is the latter the main page should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.30.124 ( talk) 14:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the artists impression of one of the trains - to whoever reinstated it please read the edit summary.
As far as I know these drawings have not been shown to be accurate in terms of either colour or dimension - the features they do show are grossly simplified.
It should be obvious that such a drawing is not suitable for an encyclopedia. 87.102.43.12 ( talk) 22:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Of course the diagram should remain. However, I think discussions on improving them (i.e. adding more features of the livery etc.) could be started. Some diagrams are better than others, and I think that they should all be brought in line with each other. Btline ( talk) 19:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Does it really make sense to have the image in the middle of a table - can you see it just looks a mess there? see CrossCountry#Multiple_Unit_fleet
I still think it should be obvious that the images should be removed as they are innaccurate and misleading - a class 170 crosscountry unit looks nothing like that in reality; in part becuase the image lacks any context.
I hope you can see that there are real issues with using the image - note the issue of accuracy in an encylopedia. I don't think that you can argue that an artists impression can be taken as an accurate repesentation of the subject? FengRail ( talk) 22:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
It is not an issue with copyright, as the pictures have been drawn separately. And if someone wants accuracy and reliability, they won't (if they have an ounce of common sense) look on Wikipedia! Btline ( talk) 22:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
But these diagrams (of which there are many scattered around now), are simple, plain pictures of train liveries. They are adequately accurate (IMO). Yes, a photograph is more accurate. There are plenty of train sites out there, full of pictures; have a look at them. The text is the most important thing in a Wiki article. Pictures should supplement the text. The diagrams fulfil this requirement well. Btline ( talk) 23:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with what you say about the pictures, Adambro. However, some are better than others (with more accurate detail of First Class, and Disabled/bike store areas). Perhaps they could all be brought into line with each other? Starting a removal programme now (i.e. before a major, more centralised discussion) is out of the question, as there are loads on most UK rail Wiki pages! If Fengrail thinks they should be removed; this is the wrong talk page to discuss it.
On the accuracy comment: My main point is that if someone want an accurate picture of the livery - they should look on other websites for photos. But in general, since anybody can edit a Wikipedia page, it can't and never will be sufficiently accurate and reliable, no matter how hard we work. That's just a unavoidable fact. Btline ( talk) 23:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll go and suggest their removal (or some better alternative such as improvement/standardisation) at WP:trains/talk. (the link is at the top of the page) - its the project page. Hopefully a thrid opinion and some oversight will be helpful. FengRail ( talk) 01:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
This is just a quick note to let any interested editors know that I've created Cross Country Network as a redirect to CrossCountry network map and changed all the piped references to "Cross Country Network" in the various station rail line info boxes to use the redirect. If the consensus is that Cross Country Network should point to this page rather than the map, then the redirect can be edited appropriately. Tevildo ( talk) 21:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
It should say what each service calls at, and what they call at when operating extensions. I've memorised what the journey from Aberdeen to Penzance calls at, but it should still say so. It says what First Great Western and East Midlands Trains intercity services call at, you know! Pdiddyjr ( talk) 11:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Opening paragraph statement that All services call or terminate at Birmingham New Street is incorrect. There are services from Bristol to Cardiff, Plymouth to Penzance, Dundee to Aberdeen, Aberdeen to Edinburgh and Cambridge to Stansted that do not go through Birmingham.
http://traintimes.im/rail-service/C08212/2012/10/09/
http://traintimes.im/rail-service/C08003/2012/10/09/
http://traintimes.im/rail-service/C08315/2012/10/09/
http://traintimes.im/rail-service/C08314/2012/10/09/
http://traintimes.im/rail-service/C08000/2012/10/09/
http://traintimes.im/rail-service/C08319/2012/10/09/ D47817 ( talk) 12:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip, have reversed his most recent changes, as he is unlikely to respond. D47817 ( talk) 13:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
There's a problem with the table of routes and I don't know how to fix it. Captain Cornwall ( talk) 10:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
@ Redrose64: thanks for pointing out the ambiguity in my edit. Do you have a suggestion for improved wording? I considered simply swapping "removing" for "redesignating", but that begs the question 'redesignating to what?'. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
May need to add new heading for Diagrams in table. FuSSionZ ( talk) 22:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
"CrossCountry services are operated using diesel trains only, since none of the routes it operates is fully electrified." -- a counterexample to this: CrossCountry run the 1C80 service from GLC to EDB on saturdays. This goes via carstairs junction and the route is completely electrified. It is nonetheless serviced by voyagers. Alecjw ( talk) 22:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
In Section 2.1 there is a table headlined Future Fleet, where, for example Voyagers are said to replace Turbostars on the Cardiff - Nottingham route, and so on, however there is nothing anywhere to say that this is the case and will happen, so, where has this information come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BensterNO1 ( talk • contribs) 18:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on CrossCountry. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on CrossCountry. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/tna/20100927131008/http:/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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to create separate article for CrossCountry Franchise? My proposal would be to have this cover both the 'new' franchise that has operated since 2007 and the original one created on privatisation and would then link to the articles for the TOCs to date (the current Arriva Franchise and the former Virgin one) and also in time to whoever wins the current retender. Without having a separate article it is unclear to be how we can usefully inform people about the progress of the tender and provide a consistent narrative for the franchise over time. Thoughts? PeterEastern ( talk) 10:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
AfD was procedurally closed as speedy keep. My rationale was: "The diagram is not particularly large compared to other diagrams and map images in similar articles and could easily be included in the main article
CrossCountry with |collapse=1
. Other than the diagram, all of the information is already included in the main article." The only content I am proposing to add to the article is the diagram, which is a transcluded template. Notifying
Ansh666,
Mangoe,
Unscintillating,
Doncram.
Jc86035 (
talk)
02:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone have a verifiable source that someone has actually proposed cascading ex-LNER HST sets or ex-Avanti West Coast Voyagers to CrossCountry? Because these keep being added to the article with no citation, as though it's something that the editor(s) in question want to see rather than anything that's been seriously considered. LostCause231 ( talk) 12:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
An unregistered editor keeps changing the core. The core in the current time table is Plymouth (trains start as Laira depot) for usual destinations in the North. Two trains at 1015 and 2020 from Paignton; the former to Bristol |and the second to Birmigham. REVUpminster ( talk) 18:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Can we please find sources to back this up, as the sources used for this say this would happen in 2020 however it is 2021 and these changes did not happen in 2020.
Six of the existing two-car Class 170/5s will be lengthened to three cars in 2021. This is happening as a result of the Class 170s from West Midlands Trains transferring to East Midlands Railway: the centre cars of the six 170/6s transferred to CrossCountry. Maurice Oly ( talk) 00:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Can anyone please double-check the December '22 timetable to see if I missed anything and add/remove as needed? It's very typical of someone like me not native to the UK to have some confusion with what's listed. Jalen Folf (talk) 08:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should reflect what has happened or likely to happen in the future based on what reliable sources state is planned. But they should not include text on what might happen. Point in case being
this cite that states It is understood that one option proposed was for EMR’s 27 Class 222s to move to XC...
'. That it uses it is understood
means the publication was speculating and not reporting concrete facts. Which it hasn't and with multiple reliable sources now confirming that XC will be downsizing, not upsizing, is unlikey to any time soon. The offending section has been deleted.
Hoekiema (
talk)
02:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
[it] is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. ... Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view.
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On their website is says they will carry on going to scotland. Mark999 16:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Aparently First great Western wants to keep the units that were goin to be transferes to trans pennie Mark999 16:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
How can they be a current fleet when the franchise has yet to commence? -- Stewart (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion concluded in the title being applied to the section (as of 15 September 2007). The current issue of Railway Magazine indicates that there is likely to be interchange between Virgin West Coast and the new Cross Country franchise during the first few weeks, with unlikely for the new fleet allocations to settle down until the takeover of the Birmingham to Scotland routes by Virgin West Coast in December 2007. -- Stewart (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
There is now one Class 220 in service with the new CrossCountry livery. The being the case, there is no longer a valid rationale for the use of one of Arriva's photos. The other photos of the trains in their new livery are valid for the time being, although as vehicles are repainted, they will need to be deleted and replaced with free photos too. Nick 08:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
What I was stating is was what The Islander is saying. It is free at the moment. I didn't know it had been deleted before- I have not been a bad User at all. User RFBailey misunderstood- I am sorry if my language was ambiguous. As soon as a replacement is availiable, I will the support the change to the new picture! In the meantime..... Dewarw 15:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Can I suggest that we continue all discussion on this matter here - currently the debate seems to be fragmented over both these locations. TheIslander 16:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Where are the fleet pictures? i have stopped the nonsense regarding the New Voyager image but the other should still be fine (eg the Turbostar 170 pic is still used in the 170 Wiki page!). I am going to re add the pictures! -- Dewarw ( talk) 19:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
At last, a new photo! Rgsao ( talk) 22:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot RGSAO- I now fully support the deletion of the old image- get rid of it, it has caused enough trouble! Dewarw ( talk) 11:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Just happened to catch a semi-rebranded Voyager tonight, so took a picture. Only had my fairly poor qualiy camera phone on me, so the picture is anything but of the best quality. However, it is a completely free-use picture, and will do until a better alternative is taken. TheIslander 22:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
On a smaller screen such as 1152×864, the network box is broken -- it overlaps large parts of the page in a very horrible way. Just a tip-off, if anyone here knows how to kick the HTML/CSS back into line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghiraddje ( talk • contribs) 01:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone else noticed that the website has changed? Now seems to be powered by thetrainline - pity, as cheaper fares used to be available direct from CrossCountry. Any other information like when this happened and if it's a permanent thing would be helpful, and if it's indicative of a merger or takeover then this needs noting in the article. dreamcatcher23 ( talk) 01:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
According to RAIL magazine, the HST fleet will be introduced in May 2008, I will put this in the wikitable, but if anyone needs to contradict that, then tell me, and so be it! Britishrailclass91 ( talk) 14:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes I agree, I just thought it was worth a mention somewhere. Yes I admit the details were excessive. Year1989 ( talk) 23:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
In the timetable 8 Sept - 13th December 2008 There is only 1 train per hour between the two cities. Is this temporary or permanent? If is the latter the main page should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.30.124 ( talk) 14:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the artists impression of one of the trains - to whoever reinstated it please read the edit summary.
As far as I know these drawings have not been shown to be accurate in terms of either colour or dimension - the features they do show are grossly simplified.
It should be obvious that such a drawing is not suitable for an encyclopedia. 87.102.43.12 ( talk) 22:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Of course the diagram should remain. However, I think discussions on improving them (i.e. adding more features of the livery etc.) could be started. Some diagrams are better than others, and I think that they should all be brought in line with each other. Btline ( talk) 19:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Does it really make sense to have the image in the middle of a table - can you see it just looks a mess there? see CrossCountry#Multiple_Unit_fleet
I still think it should be obvious that the images should be removed as they are innaccurate and misleading - a class 170 crosscountry unit looks nothing like that in reality; in part becuase the image lacks any context.
I hope you can see that there are real issues with using the image - note the issue of accuracy in an encylopedia. I don't think that you can argue that an artists impression can be taken as an accurate repesentation of the subject? FengRail ( talk) 22:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
It is not an issue with copyright, as the pictures have been drawn separately. And if someone wants accuracy and reliability, they won't (if they have an ounce of common sense) look on Wikipedia! Btline ( talk) 22:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
But these diagrams (of which there are many scattered around now), are simple, plain pictures of train liveries. They are adequately accurate (IMO). Yes, a photograph is more accurate. There are plenty of train sites out there, full of pictures; have a look at them. The text is the most important thing in a Wiki article. Pictures should supplement the text. The diagrams fulfil this requirement well. Btline ( talk) 23:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with what you say about the pictures, Adambro. However, some are better than others (with more accurate detail of First Class, and Disabled/bike store areas). Perhaps they could all be brought into line with each other? Starting a removal programme now (i.e. before a major, more centralised discussion) is out of the question, as there are loads on most UK rail Wiki pages! If Fengrail thinks they should be removed; this is the wrong talk page to discuss it.
On the accuracy comment: My main point is that if someone want an accurate picture of the livery - they should look on other websites for photos. But in general, since anybody can edit a Wikipedia page, it can't and never will be sufficiently accurate and reliable, no matter how hard we work. That's just a unavoidable fact. Btline ( talk) 23:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll go and suggest their removal (or some better alternative such as improvement/standardisation) at WP:trains/talk. (the link is at the top of the page) - its the project page. Hopefully a thrid opinion and some oversight will be helpful. FengRail ( talk) 01:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
This is just a quick note to let any interested editors know that I've created Cross Country Network as a redirect to CrossCountry network map and changed all the piped references to "Cross Country Network" in the various station rail line info boxes to use the redirect. If the consensus is that Cross Country Network should point to this page rather than the map, then the redirect can be edited appropriately. Tevildo ( talk) 21:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
It should say what each service calls at, and what they call at when operating extensions. I've memorised what the journey from Aberdeen to Penzance calls at, but it should still say so. It says what First Great Western and East Midlands Trains intercity services call at, you know! Pdiddyjr ( talk) 11:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Opening paragraph statement that All services call or terminate at Birmingham New Street is incorrect. There are services from Bristol to Cardiff, Plymouth to Penzance, Dundee to Aberdeen, Aberdeen to Edinburgh and Cambridge to Stansted that do not go through Birmingham.
http://traintimes.im/rail-service/C08212/2012/10/09/
http://traintimes.im/rail-service/C08003/2012/10/09/
http://traintimes.im/rail-service/C08315/2012/10/09/
http://traintimes.im/rail-service/C08314/2012/10/09/
http://traintimes.im/rail-service/C08000/2012/10/09/
http://traintimes.im/rail-service/C08319/2012/10/09/ D47817 ( talk) 12:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip, have reversed his most recent changes, as he is unlikely to respond. D47817 ( talk) 13:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
There's a problem with the table of routes and I don't know how to fix it. Captain Cornwall ( talk) 10:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
@ Redrose64: thanks for pointing out the ambiguity in my edit. Do you have a suggestion for improved wording? I considered simply swapping "removing" for "redesignating", but that begs the question 'redesignating to what?'. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
May need to add new heading for Diagrams in table. FuSSionZ ( talk) 22:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
"CrossCountry services are operated using diesel trains only, since none of the routes it operates is fully electrified." -- a counterexample to this: CrossCountry run the 1C80 service from GLC to EDB on saturdays. This goes via carstairs junction and the route is completely electrified. It is nonetheless serviced by voyagers. Alecjw ( talk) 22:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
In Section 2.1 there is a table headlined Future Fleet, where, for example Voyagers are said to replace Turbostars on the Cardiff - Nottingham route, and so on, however there is nothing anywhere to say that this is the case and will happen, so, where has this information come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BensterNO1 ( talk • contribs) 18:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on CrossCountry. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on CrossCountry. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/tna/20100927131008/http:/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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to create separate article for CrossCountry Franchise? My proposal would be to have this cover both the 'new' franchise that has operated since 2007 and the original one created on privatisation and would then link to the articles for the TOCs to date (the current Arriva Franchise and the former Virgin one) and also in time to whoever wins the current retender. Without having a separate article it is unclear to be how we can usefully inform people about the progress of the tender and provide a consistent narrative for the franchise over time. Thoughts? PeterEastern ( talk) 10:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
AfD was procedurally closed as speedy keep. My rationale was: "The diagram is not particularly large compared to other diagrams and map images in similar articles and could easily be included in the main article
CrossCountry with |collapse=1
. Other than the diagram, all of the information is already included in the main article." The only content I am proposing to add to the article is the diagram, which is a transcluded template. Notifying
Ansh666,
Mangoe,
Unscintillating,
Doncram.
Jc86035 (
talk)
02:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone have a verifiable source that someone has actually proposed cascading ex-LNER HST sets or ex-Avanti West Coast Voyagers to CrossCountry? Because these keep being added to the article with no citation, as though it's something that the editor(s) in question want to see rather than anything that's been seriously considered. LostCause231 ( talk) 12:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
An unregistered editor keeps changing the core. The core in the current time table is Plymouth (trains start as Laira depot) for usual destinations in the North. Two trains at 1015 and 2020 from Paignton; the former to Bristol |and the second to Birmigham. REVUpminster ( talk) 18:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Can we please find sources to back this up, as the sources used for this say this would happen in 2020 however it is 2021 and these changes did not happen in 2020.
Six of the existing two-car Class 170/5s will be lengthened to three cars in 2021. This is happening as a result of the Class 170s from West Midlands Trains transferring to East Midlands Railway: the centre cars of the six 170/6s transferred to CrossCountry. Maurice Oly ( talk) 00:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Can anyone please double-check the December '22 timetable to see if I missed anything and add/remove as needed? It's very typical of someone like me not native to the UK to have some confusion with what's listed. Jalen Folf (talk) 08:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should reflect what has happened or likely to happen in the future based on what reliable sources state is planned. But they should not include text on what might happen. Point in case being
this cite that states It is understood that one option proposed was for EMR’s 27 Class 222s to move to XC...
'. That it uses it is understood
means the publication was speculating and not reporting concrete facts. Which it hasn't and with multiple reliable sources now confirming that XC will be downsizing, not upsizing, is unlikey to any time soon. The offending section has been deleted.
Hoekiema (
talk)
02:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
[it] is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. ... Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view.