Talk:Greater Anglia

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because this page tells about the next railway company who will operate the Greater Anglia franchise. As there is not much detail as present, the amount of information on the subject will be slightly limited. This page will have much more detail when the company starts running train services. --A1personage (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because the company will start operations in 8 weeks and from then on more will be able to be added. From February many articles will link to this and therefore it should not be deleted. --Chris0693 (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Stansted Express.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Stansted Express.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Romford - Upminster Line

Although it says so on the page, class 317s are rarely used, normally class 315s until recently, I've lived in the Area for years. Like i said, served by 315s until recently. Lately its being served by 321s, sometimes a 317, someone needs to edit this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.63.223 (talk) 10:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Article scope

Even though a new legal entity will take over the franchise in October 2016, this article should remain as the article for both pre and post. Precedent set where c2c, Southern and South West Trains franchises were retained by their incumbents, albeit with new legal entities.

Even a rebrand should not be enough to require a new article as witnessed by First Great Western being rebranded Great Western Railway when the current contract commenced. The article should just be renamed with text added about the change in legal entity and trading name.

Nor should the change in franchise name from Greater Anglia to East Anglia as when First Great Western’s franchise was renamed from InterCity Great Western to Greater Western in 2006, a new article was not created. And this involved a quite different franchise map whereas the maps of GA and EA are exactly the same. 94.119.66.43 (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 15 October 2016

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: MOVED to Greater Anglia (train operating company). (non-admin closure) Mike1901 (talk) 09:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

---

Abellio Greater Anglia → Greater Anglia – Company has resumed trading as Greater Anglia from 16 October. Greater Anglia is currently a disambiguation page for 2 articles, other article being the former name of the East Anglia franchise that the subject of this article operates. Effectively this will be a restoration of how the article was named prior to January 2014 when the train operating company traded as Greater Anglia, so as was previously the case, this is the primary article. Shireofsx (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• Move to Greater Anglia (train operating company). TOCs and franchises are not the same, even if they share a name and geographical area. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with Redrose64. The train company and franchise articles should be separate. The one for the franchise lists all previous operators. Cloudbound (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

  Seems that the bot generated hatnote went a bit wrong and was suggesting the article be renamed East Anglia rather then Greater Anglia which probably confused users Redrose64 and Cloudbound, my apologies. Not suggesting that the train operating company (this one) and franchise (East Anglia franchise) articles should be merged, each are significantly different and worthy of stand alone articles.

  But this article should again become the primary article, hence neither the existing disambiguation nor proposed (train operating company) dab are required. Prior to this article being renamed in 2014, it was named Greater Anglia [1] with the Greater Anglia franchise (as the East Anglia franchise was then named) article existing separately with no dab.

  While statistics are not the be-all-and-end-all and with an element of inflation caused by naxboxes, talk & user pages more heavily weighted towards this article, this article has 850 (770 excluding talk & user pages) articles linking in,[2] vs 60 (45 excluding talk & user pages) for the East Anglia franchise.[3] Shireofsx (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

  It did not confuse me, since my post above was made prior to the edit that broke the banner at top of article. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Move as per redrose, "GreaterAnglia" could mean absolutely everything so it's best to have "train operating company" at the end, ANyway support. –Davey2010^Talk 03:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• Move to Greater Anglia per WP:CONCISE. Clearly the primary article, only other article being a redirect. No need for '"train operating company" suffix. If "could mean anything" was universally applied then Arriva would be named Arriva (transport company), British Caledonian → British Caledonian (airline), Tesco → Tesco (retailer) etc. Piccadilly389 (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
• Move as per Redrose64. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. No evidence that this company has almost instantly become the primary topic just because it recently changed its official name, and in view of the continued existence of the East Anglia franchise which previously had this official name it seems unlikely. The two-way DAB should stay for the moment at least. Andrewa (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
• Move   JaJaWa |say hello  07:17, 26 October 2016 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Greater Anglia (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/20130606094818/http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/intercity-west-coast-franchise/franchisebidders.pdf to http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/intercity-west-coast-franchise/franchisebidders.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131219175421/http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/rail-passenger-franchise-agreement-greater-anglia/greater-Anglia-franchise-specific-agreement.pdf to http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/rail-passenger-franchise-agreement-greater-anglia/greater-Anglia-franchise-specific-agreement.pdf

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).

• 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) 18:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

New image

It'd be great if anybody had an image knocking around of a GA train, preferably a Class 90/DVT as they're on the flagship intercity route, could upload it and replace the current main image! As that image is getting slightly old now, but more importantly the train carries the old 'Abellio Greater Anglia' logos, which could cause confusion to some readers.--07Alpha55 (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@07Alpha55: what about this one: File:90002 at Ipswich (31227986510).jpg? Cloudbound (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks for finding one!--07Alpha55 (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Class 720 Derby.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --78.145.55.171 (talk) 09:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --78.145.48.206 (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Past fleet table - needs a major sort out

The past fleet table, specifically around the Class 321/360 area is a complete mess - would anyone be able to clear up? Thanks. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The simplest thing is to delete the whole column and leave information about where they went in the relevant class article. What happens is units move on multiple times and the tables in each article (ToC and Class) get updated or don't and get out of sync. Sometimes the ToC table shows where a unit went to when it first left the Toc, sometimes it's where it is now - but there is no consistency whatsoever. The information is not being removed from Wikipedia, it's just being managed in one place not two.

Failing that I would say to delete any unreferenced entry, which will tidy things up a lot. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#Duplicated_information_-_how_to_address? 10mmsocket (talk) 07:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks 10mmsocket - but I was specifically thinking more about the mix up in the columns preceding the current status(es) of the units (routes operated, number, max speed etc). It seems to have been mixed up last night by an unregistered user. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 08:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Current Fleet table - 321

Hello, just to inform you all that the Current Fleet table is incorrect as no Class 321/4s remain in service and only 30x Class 321/3s now work for Greater Anglia alongside the 3x Class 321/9s. There are plenty of credible sources to cite for this, as have been used elsewhere on the page and on other pages such as “British Rail Class 321,” but I do not have the skill to remove the Class 321/4 column from the fleet table entirely. Sootysuerickie (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Sootysuerickie:, I have added the 321/4s to the past fleet - if you could add a relevant citation to verify the information I have changed (to the '72' in the past fleet table), that would be great. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

"Cascades"

See sections 2.8 to 2.10 of Porterbrook's T's & C's. It would seem to support the way the word "cascade" is used within this article. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 8 June 2023

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

---

• Greater Anglia (train operating company) → Greater Anglia
• Greater Anglia → Greater Anglia (disambiguation)

– Train operator is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over the former name of the franchise it operates. Incoming links of 800 vs one and views in the last 30 days of 8,000 vs 20. Hestroudar (talk) 02:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Greater_Anglia indicates that of the 77 incoming views, 70 went there (~91%). Since it seems like it's all part of the same story, the move seems sensible. --Joy (talk) 07:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Operation on Fen line?

Twice already in the past 2 months, anonymous users have tried to make efforts to remove the Fen line from this article, claiming "no operation", when there's clear evidence of operation on this line up to Ely railway station. I'd like opinions on this matter from other users: can it be freely removed or is there an alternative line to mention in this case? Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 17:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The reference that was used does not support operation north of Ely, so maybe we need to specifically state that Great Anglia only operate on the Cambridge–Ely section of the Fen Line. Mjroots (talk) 10:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)