Talk:Hull Trains

Operator

I am getting conflicting info. Is this now only run by First or is it joint between First and Renaissance Trains? Simply south 17:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think Renaissance still own 20% of it, First simply got the 80% that was owned by GB Railways when it was set up. I'll see if I can find out. Dupont Circle 09:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• First Group only owns 80% of Hull Trains with Renaissance Trains holding the other 20% Britishrailclass91 (talk) 10:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability of the damaged 222 and the fire on board a unit

I removed the paragraph relating to these events as I didn't think either were that notable, and User:ACBest has re-instated them. I'm happy to give way on the damaged 222, but the unit that was on fire was back in service two days later - why is the information about the fire notable? If it's not, then it should be deleted. Dupont Circle 21:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

 DoneACBest 21:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Are there any good quality images of this accident? As this would enable us to go more indepth about it. Britishrailclass91 (talk) 10:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hull 170s

The article says that the ex-Hull Turbostars went to one, but I recall hearing that at least some went to First ScotRail. Which is correct? David Arthur 19:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No-one really knows, DavidArthur it's shrouded in mystery to those outside the railway industry Britishrailclass91 (talk) 10:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The three Anglia 170's used per day went back to Anglia for use on different services from Norwich and Liverpool Street. The Hull trains units that replaced the Anglia units went to Scotland. (Steveford666 (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC))

Fair use rationale for Image:Hull trains logo.gif

Image:Hull trains logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Class 86

The addition, and subsequent removal on a number of occasions indicates there is a dispute about whether or not to include the Class 86 which I understand is being used on Doncaster - London services as an interim measure before the introduction of a more permanent replacement for a damaged Class 222. Please discuss this here in a constructive manner rather than simply continuously reverting any change you don't agree with.

ACBest has commented that the page is "Under attack from IP addresses deleting the 86 from the article repeatedly" and requested the page be semi-protected on this basis however this is unhelpful as this is not vandalism. It would be inappropriate to semi-protect the page, if anything full protection would be justified should reverting continue without discussion.

All editors are reminded of the three revert rule which whilst specifically ruling out reverting the same change more than three times in a 24 hour period, also strongly discourages violation of the spirit of the rule, that is to encourage debate on an issue rather than editing waring. Adambro (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

And have I broken the 3RR? No. And just Incase no-one believes that HT have an 86, I'm uploading a picture from when I went on it yesterday soon. ACBestDog and Bone 08:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You would potentially be heading towards violating 3RR by not understanding the difference between vandalism, where reverting continuously is appropriate, and a content dispute where it is not and users should enter into a dialogue about the change.

Anyway, as far as I'm aware there isn't a dispute about whether HT are using and 86, rather as I see it, whether it can be referred to as part of their fleet considering it is an interim measurer rather than anything more permanent. I note that one of the edit summaries of the removal said that HT don't own the 86 and that is true but do they own their 222's either? Most TOCs don't actually own their rolling stock, they lease it so simply owning or not owning stock cannot be used to determine the fleet.

I'm personally split as to whether I consider the 86 as part of their fleet but I'm unsure as to how long they'll be operating it which would play a part in my decision. I am aware of the example of Virgin XC borrowing HSTs from Midland Mainline and whilst HSTs are listed in their fleet on Wikipedia, they are listed as being withdrawn earlier than the time they borrowed the stock from MM so that would suggest that in that case it was determined that the HST stock used as an interim measure didn't merit a mention but this probably is mentioned in the article text itself somewhere. Adambro (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the page for one week to prevent the ongoing unconstructive edit war. Users are encourage to discuss this rather than continuously revert each others changes. Adambro (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Help!

I seem to have made a complete mess of the Hull Trains article while trying to change the tables, please revert this! Britishrailclass91 (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Adambro (talk) 10:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Via Spalding

This sounds very similar to its sister proposal Humber Coast and City Railway. Simply south not SS, sorry 14:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Class 222s

Hi

I dont know if anyone noticed, but there is still one left with HT... 222104

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.173.37 (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible future expansion

The article still states that the application to run the Harrogate service was rejected in January 2009, but will be reviewed in February 2009. First Harrogate Trains says that it was rejected finally in February 2009.

I could update that, using the reference from First Harrogate Trains, but I don't know the status of other items in that section. It wuld be better if somebody familiar with it updated it. --ColinFine (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Back to Hull Trains again

First seem to be removing their name from their franchises with Great Western soon to become GWR and now Hull Trains have a new logo with no Flying F or First name. Time to rename the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enotayokel (talk • contribs) 15:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.hulltrains.co.uk/pr08-02.htm

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

London to cottingham

Hull trains now goes to cottingham directly. do you think this article and the infromation should be added or nah?

source: https://www.europeanrailwayreview.com/33418/rail-industry-news/london-cottingham-hull-trains/

Wkc19 :) (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hull 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/20081121080250/http://www.hulltrains.co.uk/pdfs/pio7.pdf to http://www.hulltrains.co.uk/pdfs/pio7.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080625114115/http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/s18-ECML-Hull_Trains.pdf to http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/s18-ECML-Hull_Trains.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304092023/http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/19489/hull-trains-limited-s17-hull-trains-response-to-network-rail-representations.pdf to http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/19489/hull-trains-limited-s17-hull-trains-response-to-network-rail-representations.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) 11:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Image for Class 802

Would anyone be able to provide an image of a Hull Trains Class 802 in its livery please? The current image is only an impressionist image and does not resemble the actual look of the train. SavageKieran (talk) 03:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion 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.

---

First Harrogate Trains never really was, the legal entity was wound up after only a year having never been anything other than a dormant company. The application to operate the proposed Harrogate service was made by Hull Trains, so really First Harrogate Trains was just a division of Hull Trains, as noted when nominated for deletion in 2008. It survived as at that stage its bid was still alive, but 15 years on and it clearly never was. Propose merging. Airpopg (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Neutral I don't object but neither do I see any strong need to change. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Weak oppose Don't see any real need for the merge myself; FHT (as far as I can make out) is a separate entity to HT; just because HT owned it, doesn't mean they are one and the same, IMO. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:58, 23 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.