Talk:East Midlands Trains/Archive 1

Archive 1

East Midlands Trains

Aparently the service will actually be called "East Midlands Trains". See this BBC news video report for details - http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6230000/newsid_6231000/6231008.stm?bw=bb&mp=rm

Should this article be re-named?

I would wait until Stagecoach themselves announce what they will be called. The press release on their website makes no mention of the brand name that will be used. --Jorvik 20:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge

See Talk:East Midlands Franchise. Simply south 14:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC) when is the idea of Lincoln to London goto come along by then??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.112.196 (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Colour coding

What colour should we use for the station (services) tables? Most are currently in red but this clashes with Virgin. Some have uses orange (which I agree with). Your thoughts please. --Mfarrow6483 18:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#TOC colours. --Jorvik 18:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

153s IN EMT COLOURS

• 153311
• 153326
• 153355
• 153374
• 153381

Are in EMT livery... Best of luck in finding and taking a pic of them ;)

ACBestDog and Bone 20:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Timetable

• Weekend services to York and Scarborough will continue beyond the December 2008 timetable change.
• All services to and from Barnsley and Burton upon Trent will cease to opperate from the December 2008 timetable.

How much truth is in this? Has there been any offical word or are people just putting what they "think". Year1989 19:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Senior management who were part of the franchise bid, have given word that this is the case. Similar to what has been said of Skegness, and other things. What is actually in the public dommain is very little, what has been said to staff is much greater. Amgmichael (talk) 11:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words?

Where specifically are the ‘weasel words’ to which the banner is objecting? David Arthur (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Map of network and route map

Midland Mainline route map
Scarborough York Leeds Wakefield Westgate Doncaster Barnsley Meadowhall Sheffield Dronfield Chesterfield Belper Alfreton Burton upon Trent Langley Mill Willington Nottingham Derby Beeston Long Eaton East Midlands Parkway Loughborough Leicester Market Harborough Corby Kettering Wellingborough Bedford Luton Luton Airport Parkway London St Pancras

Do you think its possible to get a route map like this one (on the right) and a network map simlar to ones on Tramlink and Sheffield Supertram. The first one will probably be better as we can use this in a new section or the bidding/history section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pafcool2 (talk • contribs)

Having both would be a bit redundant, wouldn’t it? I think a map is more appropriate than a route diagram, since East Midlands Trains cover a number of separate routes that would be difficult to explain clearly with a single diagram. I’ll give some thought to making maps for this and other national operators — I wonder, should they be schematic, as I did for Tramlink (and like the official EMT map), or geographical, like Sheffield? David Arthur 00:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Class 222 from Hull Trains

How certain is it that EMT will be getting Hull Trains Class 222's in the future. I just thought it was a possiblity that could happen. But some people seem certain and have added a "Future fleet" section which I have removed once. Was I right? Year1989 21:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say you were correct to remove it as per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. DrFrench (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hull trains havent decided wether they are to keep them, or give them back yet. Remember they will need them if they start their new service... ACBestDog and Bone 20:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of a reliable source the information shouldn't be in the article. There is too much unreferenced material in our railway articles, lets not allow more to get in. Adambro (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Logo in Gif format

Have reverted from log in gif format to previous logo in png format as new logo was forcing infobox size up (Taking up too much page space), and changing size from 120 px to 100 px had no effect. -BulldozerD11 (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Logo Battle

Whats with the swapping logos all the time. Discuss the pros & cons of each type on here not the Article page edit summarises. Revert all the time look like a battle of whos upload wins, and as both are now up for deletion will be a no win. I reverted an earlier version as it was too big and setting the size did not work. No doubt there will be a policy doc for logos any way. ---BulldozerD11 (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with the PNG version anyway, Berk2 replaced it with a GIF version saying "The .png image MUST have a transparent background, or the 'East Midlands' lettering DOES NOT show", which the article had a blue background the same colour as the 'East Midlands' letters, and the image is specifically for the article using it outside would be violating fair use. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 14:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It is very unclear as to the exact reasons why one version of the logo is any better than the other and I'd like to see some clear explanation of this before further changes are made. Adambro (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• • • It's like I mentioned above. The previous logo had an obvious flaw: try and use it without a dark-ish background, and it was simply illegible. Not difficult to read, but impossible to read!! The letters didn't show; take a look here [[Image:]]. Given that a dark background was induced in the company box, and isn't part of the official company style-guide, or branding, I can't understand why it ought to continue to be used. Even if I made my point a little too forcefully. It certainly can't be used in any other articles e.g. Train company, for example. (Berk2 (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC))

I'd further like to point out, that I'd uploaded a second, scaled-down version of the logo (the current version), in order to fit within the company box. So it's arguable whether it's actually an original of the company logo, or a self-created work. I won't claim one way, or the other. But if it's considered as a personal work, then I'm happy to release it as a {{PD-self}}/{{GFDL-self}}, or whatever. (Berk2 (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC))

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:East_Midlands_Trains&oldid=233211112 for a view of what Berk2 means (thanks bot!) I don't really think that an image of a copyright (trademarked?) logo that you have resized is your copyright! Talltim (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Berk2 wrote "Not difficult to read, but impossible to read!! The letters didn't show" - Thats why the infobox had a coloured heading so that it would show.
:Berk2 wrote "isn't part of the official company style-guide, or branding" - The image is just the same as they use on the trains.
::Berk2 wrote "It certainly can't be used in any other articles e.g. Train company, for example." - Like many other images on Wikipedia, using images outside its article violates fair use. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 20:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"Conversion" of Class 158s

Someone had added a note to the bottom of the page under the fleet box stating that the Class 158s are to be converted to Class 159s which is completely incorrect. I have removed it. I'm sure whoever it was was just getting confused as the units are currently being refurbished.

Timetable changes

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East_Midlands_Trains&oldid=258589689

Hmm, not sure it's really a "controversy" - the timetable for Wellingborough clearly shows that the frequency of trains is significantly reduced, and the time it takes on many journeys has increased. Some have got faster, but the mean time between London and the two Northamptonshire towns has increased. You can't really tell that capacity is reduced from the timetables, but I know that before the changes, I got a seat on my usual trains every day (barring the odd day when things go wrong of course), and I have now had to stand (in one case, in first class because we couldn't fit in standard) on 7 trains - i.e. every trip!

There were 42 trains from London to Wellingborough on weekdays. There are now 37. To pick a period I had memorised as a regular commuter, during the peak period (16:30 to 19:30) |old|16:30|17:00|17:15|17:30|17:45|17:55|18:00|18:25|18:30|18:55|19:00|19:30| |new|16:30|17:00| |17:30|17:45| |18:00|18:15|18:30| |19:00|19:30|

There can be no question that this is a cut in frequency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.140.133.254 (talk) 10:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Copied this from my talk page in relation to this

- | style="background:#120C80;" |   || The 2008 timetable changes reduce frequency, capacity and speed of services between London, Kettering and Wellingborough.

Not sure what anyone else thinks but I believe it is more of an opinion than a fact therfore inapropriate for Wiki. But feel free to discuss! Amgmichael (talk) 13:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think some criticism of the new 'improved' timetable would be appropriate. Another example of how the service has deteriorated is that there are now no trains from Attenborough or Spondon to Derby or Nottingham on Saturdays. In its present form the page reads too much like an advert for EMT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.138.172.76 (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

During peak times, between 1630 and 1800, the number of trains to Wellingborough has decreased from seven, to three. And one of those, the 1700, is half the size, and stops are more stations, including Beford. IT is easy to dismiss it as "opinion", but it is clearly fact, as demonstrated by their own timetable. Heywoodg (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

References

Where is the source for the "December 2009 proposals" bit?

There doesn't seem to be one, and a close look at the text reveals phrases such as "The 6tph from 2010 may look like..." and "Sundays services also seem to be subject of a major improvements". As the second example shows, the English is poor in places, too. I'm sorely tempted to remove the whole subsection on the grounds that without citations it's effectively original research, but for the moment have just marked it as unreferenced. 86.154.9.177 (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I've marked the section as unreferenced. As it appears to be someone's imagination run wild, if no one comes up with sources for the information brought in I suggest it's deleted, and kept deleted with the help of a WP admin. Dosxuk (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

As an employee of EMT I can advise that none of these things have been proposed for next year or the year after. This is clearly someone's imagination gone wild. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelchris31 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The timetable is probably a violation of Wikipedia:No original research and several sections of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, particularly WP:CRYSTAL and WP:IINFO. —Snigbrook 17:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Midlandmainlineman has added another variation of the timetable in again, with a source, which only exists on his computer. I've removed the section again. There also seems to be a bit about changes to the Nottingham - Liverpool service and Nottingham to Lincoln services under routes 2 and 3 which don't have a working reference if anyone can help sort that out. Dosxuk (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

These are proposals, not necessarily going to happen but EMT, Network Rail and the DfT want it to. What is actually in the public domain is very little, what has been said to staff is much greater. Which is why I'm unable to find sources for this information. Plus, in regards to 'my poor English' let me tell you that typing errors due occasionally occur actually. Bet you didn't know that either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midlandmainlineman (talk • contribs) 13:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2010 timetable

How can the December 2010 timetable be up already.

Trains to Edinburgh? Has someone made it up? Btline (talk) 15:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not up, the May 2009 timetable is a few months away from being up! These are proposals, not necessarily going to happen but EMT, Network Rail and the DfT want it to. What is actually in the public domain is very little, what has been said to staff is much greater. Which is why I'm unable to find sources for this information. Midlandmainlineman (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about the rubbish (now removed), that was up last month. Regards, Btline (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You'll see what I mean, it may not be operated by EMT and it may not ahead at all, it is simply a proposal. Midlandmainlineman (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It is rubbish If it was a serious proposal, it would have a reliable source. Speculation/ pipe dreams are not for Wikipedia. Do not add it again. Please sign your posts with four "~" symbols. Regards, Btline (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As Btline has said, unfortunately content on Wikipedia has to be cited to a reliable source, speculation is not allowed. Whilst these proposals are interesting, they cannot be included if no source is available. As I am sure Midlandmainlineman can appreciate, this verifiability is essential. Far too many rumours circulating on rail enthusiast forums turn up on Wikipedia. I'm afraid that it is for this reason that I have to be sceptical about whether these are serious proposals and indeed about whether you actually are a Network Rail employee as you've stated elsewhere. If there is any basis to these proposals then it does surprise me that I've not seen anything mentioned in any of the published Network Rail and DfT documents which I read extensively. If you are a Network Rail employee then you might want to consider the impact publishing this kind of information might have on your career since presumably if it hasn't been published it is to be considered confidential. Anyway, to sum up, I'm afraid this information cannot be included according to Wikipedia policy due to the lack of verifiability so please do not add it back into the article. Adambro (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I apologise for adding information without sources, I'm a new Wikipedian. I wont add anything till I learn how to post sources & how to edit page etc. I would like to add that there is a nice way to say things "Btline", (I thank Adambro for a more informative & nicer response) and where this is coming from if you must know is a proposed extension of Renaissance Trains' proposals to run a Glasgow - Nottingham service to London St Pancras via Leicester & Luton with a reversal at Nottingham. It may not happen as I said previously. My apologies & regards. Midlandmainlineman (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologise if you thought I was harsh, but it is annoying when speculation is repeatedly added to the page. If a source comes to light about a possible service, do add it. Sorry again for my response. Regards, Btline (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand why people such as yourself were annoyed, I am searching high and low for a source and I will add one as soon as one comes up. Regards, Midlandmainlineman (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. But remember - speculation has no place on Wiki. Btline (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

xx:30 to Nottingham

The xx:30 stopping to Nottingham calls at Loughborough and not East Midland Parkway (when it opens, that is) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.215.166 (talk) 10:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Ticket Inspector Refuses To Honour Railway Warrant Tickets of Flight Diverted Soldiers

This section needs to be rewritten in accordance with various policies but particularly WP:NPOV and the WP:MOS. Phrases like "the ticket inspector showed neither flexibility nor common sense" and "this public relations disaster" are indicative of the section being written from a non-neutral point of view. Whilst I appreciate some attempts have been made to address the copyright concerns, there still needs to be reliable sources cited for the information. I'm currently remaining open minded as to whether this type of ticketing dispute is appropriate in what is supposed to be an encyclopaedic article but that probably needs to be considered. Adambro (talk) 09:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for allowing a chance to respond to this. The event has been widely reported in ALL the major national newspapers and the local Leicester Mercury in all cases where East Midlands Trains has been contacted and has given a response the allegations do not appear to disputed by them. Neither the threat to eject the soldiers nor the threat to call the police.

I and others I am in contact with have also written directly to EMT about this - in most cases enclosing the press cutting from our newspaper of choice. The replies we received from EMT have again not argued or contradicted the correctness of any material fact on the particular clipping that was enclosed.

One reply from EMT says:

"Thank you for email and I appreciate your comments following the recent newspaper article.

Please be assured that we are very concerned about this incident and the way the matter was handled by the member of staff. The appropriate action will be taken within our internal procedures and to ensure that this situation does not occur again in the future.

We are proud of our armed forces and the important role they play. East Midlands Trains are more than happy to provide assistance to forces personnel returning from duty overseas and we have also supported fund-raising initiatives for forces charities.

Thank you for your feedback."

The language of EMT supports the belief that the ticket inspector's action was inflexible and showed a lack of commonsense. Their throwing in at the end of mention of support for service charities is surely irrelevant unless an attempt to reverse the bad PR of the incident.

What is their response interestingly does omit is specific mention of any disciplinary action with just a statement about internal procedures.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.231.211 (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I would support the removal of this section as it is plainly not encyclopaedic. It is a worthwhile NEWS story but it will have very little relevance after it is no longer a headline story (say, after a few months). Perhaps it should be featured in Wikinews (it may already have been). EMT's response is that they are rightly concerned about the incident and want to make sure it doesn't happen again (is this what the internal procedure is about?), but they do not make any specific comments on the ticket inspector's actions. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Image change.

Kindly do not change the banner image of this page. The image is chosen as it is the busiest root and helpful. On behalf of Network Rail and East Midland Trains; Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.231.189 (talk) 17:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting note. You will need to do better than that if you want to argue for or against a specific image - or indeed anything else on wikipedia. Your claim to write "on behalf of" anyone , is belied by your spelling of "route" but even if it were true it wouldn't matter, as we don't accept instructions from Network Rail or anyone else on the content of wp articles! Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, so using a specific image on terms of advertising and navigational purposes is apparently "not accepted"? A more appropriate image used would surely be the benefit of the public and other people. Reverting some changes that have been suggested by Network Rail is fairly contradicting to one of your "favourite quotes" that "would be just fine...". My change is simply for the public as the previous images are not very clear and maybe confusing to some people (e.g. writing 'hotel' on the image caption of 'St Pancras Station' may be misunderstood by some tourists, thinking that it is a hotel, thus avoiding it). Although its clear to us, it could be an obstacle to people, domino-ing into the station, consequently, a ticket less for the rail company and Network Rail. Kindly do not change the images back. Thank You.

(P.S. I do have a Wikipedia Account, however, whenever I click 'home' after the sign up page, I get automatically logged out.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.231.189 (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not the busiest route, the InterCity London ones are! Liverpool to Norwich is one of the busiest regional routes. Likelife (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

update

this article needs updating C. 22468 (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

That is not very helpful. Can you give more detail of what needs updating? -- Alarics (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, yes the Franchise commitments seem like they are upcoming when in reality they happened three/four years ago C. 22468 (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

References

A lot of references on this page are outdated or non-existent - I have put a notice at the top to highlight this. Will help out where I can to tidy some of these, but if anyone can help with the cleanup, that would be handy - cheers! Mike1901 (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

southeastern?

On Oct 7 2013 at London St Pancras I purchased round-trip tickets to Dover Priory and back. My receipt clearly states "East Midlands Trains". At 1010 we boarded a train marked "southeastern" which took us to Dover. Why isn't southeastern mentioned here and why isn't East Midlands Trains mentioned in the "southeastern (train operating company)" wiki? It appears to me these articles are badly out of date. Dangnad (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Dangnad: You will have used a British Rail Class 395 Southeastern (train operating company)#Highspeed Integrated Kent Franchise service leaving from Platform 11–13 at St Pancras. Separately East Midland Trains' (aka Stagecoach Midland Rail)' Midland Main Line services operate from platforms 1–4; First Capital Connect Thameslink services from platform A–B, Eurostar International Limited Eurostar services from platforms 5–10, and London Underground services from the other eight platforms. In the undercroft between the railway tracks are many shops and retail facilities, one of which is a domestic ticket booking office franchise let to East Midlands Trains: if one buys at that particular booking office it'll say EMT on the receipt. You could also have bought from the FCC office (to the left of it); or from the Southeastern ticket machines (to the right of it); or across the way from the booking office franchise at King's Cross railway station (run by DOR/Eastcoast); or from Hull trains et al. The seller of the ticket keeps their 10% cut and via the Rail Settlement Plan and the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) the National Rail fare you paid eventually gets into the pockets the shareholders of the owners of Southeastern, which are Govia.

(You can purchase a ticket from anyone you want; it has nothing to do with the colour of the train you might catch). Does that help? —Sladen (talk) 09:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Sladen: Thanks so much for your explanation. I have always thought the money goes to the entity listed on a receipt so that prompted my posting thinking that Southeastern was a subsidiary of East Midlands Trains. For instance, here in the US if one wants to fly from San Francisco to Reno, one pays United Airlines but flies on United Express. It looks like the British National Rail system is much more complicated than that. Dangnad (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

There are few things more complicated than the British railway system. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Under the Railways Act 1993, the previously-unified railway passenger network was split up into about 25 franchises (some of which have since been combined). These were not sold off completely but are leased to train operating companies (TOCs) for fixed terms; moreover, ownership and maintenance of the infrastructure was separated off from the operation of trains. Some of the benefits of a national system were recognised, and so the Railways Act 1993 requires that through tickets between stations of different franchise areas must be available. It was also realised that where a station was served by two or more TOCs, it would be impractical to set up separate ticket offices - prospective passengers would often not know (or care) which TOC operated the route over which they wished to travel. A national ticketing scheme was therefore retained, and the ticket offices are not tied to a single TOC. Any office or company that sells rail tickets is required to offer tickets for journeys between any two stations in the country; hence any TOC can (and must) sell tickets for routes entirely outside its own area. The Rail Settlement Plan was set up to apportion the revenues much like the old Railway Clearing House. TOCs are also permitted to sell tickets which are valid only on their own services, but this fact must be clearly stated on the ticket itself - receipts have no bearing on ticket validity. At some of the largest stations, there are travel information offices dedicated to a single TOC, but if these sell tickets, they are also required to offer tickets for all destinations. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Routes

EMT no longer use route 1,2,3,4 in publicity and instead use a different number for each line. The service pattern hasn't been updated to reflect the Dec 2013 timetable change, which resulted in shorter journeys (as long as you are travelling from 1 mainline station to another mainline station. Some other journeys actually take longer due to longer waits at intermediate stations. 109.151.254.26 (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

You are right, I'll update. Likelife (talk) 10:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on East Midlands Trains. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/tna/20100927131008/http:/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eastmidlandstrains.co.uk/EMTrains/AboutUs/News/#{172C1705-D651-4F48-AD7D-9DFA0559B5D4}
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eastmidlandstrains.co.uk/EMTrains/AboutUs/News/#{10B0A2AC-2164-4C38-9798-A6575A14D406}
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080906170036/http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1303565,00.html to http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1303565,00.html

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).

• 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) 04:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on East Midlands Trains. 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/20071211125313/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/passenger/franchises/emfranchise to http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/passenger/franchises/emfranchise
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.trainsardine.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120920063010/http://www.eastmidlandstrains.co.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Guide%202%20Tables%20May11%20PDF%20web.pdf to http://www.eastmidlandstrains.co.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Guide%202%20Tables%20May11%20PDF%20web.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100610101549/http://www.eastmidlandstrains.co.uk:80/EMTrains/YourDestinations/OurNetworkAndStations.htm to http://www.eastmidlandstrains.co.uk/EMTrains/YourDestinations/OurNetworkAndStations.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930154617/http://www.gnn.gov.uk/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=293828&NewsAreaID=2 to http://www.gnn.gov.uk/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=293828&NewsAreaID=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071211125313/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/passenger/franchises/emfranchise to http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/passenger/franchises/emfranchise

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) 20:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Bi mode fleet for the Midland mainline

On BBC news and the rail technology magazine it says that East Midlands trains will have bi mode fleet for the Midland mainline by 2022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luisanderson961 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Luisanderson961:. Government press release is [1], and states "from 2022". —Sladen (talk) 07:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on East Midlands Trains. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.trainsardine.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929043220/http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/Press-Releases/-530m-RAIL-INVESTMENT-PROPOSED-FOR-NORTH-ENGLAND-CITIES-S-Yorks-1396/SearchCategoryID-4.aspx to http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/Press-Releases/-530m-RAIL-INVESTMENT-PROPOSED-FOR-NORTH-ENGLAND-CITIES-S-Yorks-1396/SearchCategoryID-4.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130131032206/http://www.eastmidlandstrains.co.uk/our-network/liverpool-norwich/ to http://www.eastmidlandstrains.co.uk/our-network/liverpool-norwich/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eastmidlandstrains.co.uk/EMTrains/YourDestinations/OurNetworkAndStations.htm

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) 06:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)