Talk:West Midlands Trains

Ownership

One editor (I assume it is the same person) keeps rounding the percentage ownership in the infobox and the body of the article. If the ownership percentages are cited as exact numbers then I assert that they should be reported in the same way here. See Airbus article infobox as an example. --109.153.214.109 (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Unless quoting the percentage shareholding to the decimal point adds some value, e.g 50.1% shows a person/entity has control while 50.0% indicates a half share, showing a shareholding as 70.1 vs 70.0 or 14.95 vs 15.0 is of no benefit to the reader. 94.119.64.2 (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

However, the sources (including the RS's) state 14.95/14.95 and 70.1. There is a rounding principle, but here, it delineates between the owners and their respective states. If you find a reliable source that states 70/15/15, then insert it. The current source is the business section of The Times. The joy of all things (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

:::94.119.7 If you wish to round per WP:INFOBOXREF, that's fine, but do not remove the citation without good reason. Rounding percentages is not a good enough reason to remove a reliable source.The joy of all things (talk) 12:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC) Apologies - misread the article - it is stated further down, I thought it was isolated. Apologies again.The joy of all things (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

All need to be in a consistent format as required by MOS:LARGENUM, i.e. xx.xx%. Finchfrog (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree with sticking to round percentages, 0.05% may be of relevance to a tax accountant or regulator, but not the public at large. Trelowry (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Rolling stock

The 3 x 2 cars 150 sets are scheduled to move to Northern before the franchise commences to be replaced by 6 x 1 car 153s from GWR. This was originally scheduled for June and may be delayed again, but in the meantime I think it best to omit the 150s until such time things become clearer. Enarge7 (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Figure 6 on page 26 of the DfT prospectus implies that the 150 will be part of the fleet. It is also a good source for that section of the article. --109.153.214.109 (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, section 5.6.15 of the DfT ITT makes it clear the Class 150 is not included. --109.153.214.109 (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The three remaining Class 150s have been used exclusively on the Marston Vale and BNS-Hereford lines for the last few years, not Snow Hill lines as stated, I'm not logged in as I'm on a public computer so have not changed the published page. Ian Murray. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.1 (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

This isn’t true. Multiple 150+170 combos run on the Snow Hill line daily. Nullpixel (talk) 10:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

• Wmr170.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Splitting into new distinct pages

Seeing how West Midlands Railway and London Northwestern Railway are two distinct brands and operate differently shouldn't they both have separate pages that is more heavily informed to the brands take on things.

Similar to Govia Thameslink Railway which is the operating company like West Midlands Trains and then they have individual sub brands which are very distinctive like; Thameslink, Great Northern, Southern and Gatwick Express.

West Midlands Trains is complete unheard entity compared to it's more distinct sub brands like London Northwestern Railway and West Midlands Railway. With the latter having more importance with the slow amalgamation into the Transport for West Midlands vision for a similar transport system like that of Transport for London. Currently this page doesn't reflect any of that and feels to be copied straight from the old London Midland franchise. I feel it would be more relevant to do this than the current. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William77 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

LNW service section table

Instead of having the complicated and hard to follow set of details about the various train splits at Birmingham New Street, surely there must be a better way to present the information. Would it not just be easier to present it as say 1tph from London to Crewe and Rugeley Trent Valley via Birmingham New Street, and then underneath explain that the train splits at Birmingham with one portion going to Rugeley Trent Valley a and the other going to Crewe and then detailing the stops in separate paragraphs? That would be more straightforward than the current complex table arrangement. G-13114 (talk) 08:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

LNW colour in service templates

template:LNW colour has a dark charcoal grey colour (004c45) that is indistinguishable to my eye from the Avanti colour (template:AWC colour, 123524). LMW trains are painted light grey and charcoal. Is there support for / objection to our LNW colour being changed to light grey? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

To be precise, I propose we use cecece, which keen-eyed readers will recognise as the colour used historically for Network South-East (template:NSE colour). I would be astonished if there is a clash, certainly not one as significant as we have between the current colour and the Avanti colour. Although Avanti is the new kid on the block, LNW is a much more geographically contained network and so unforeseen colour clashes are less likely. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

June 2020

Sorry to be writing after half a year, but grey is not the greatest colour to be used especially as the logo does not contain grey. Could this be changed back?

The previous colour was dark green, not charcoal grey, and the version before that was a little lighter by the way. Here's the colours for comparison.

. Oct 2017 . . Dec 2017 . . Avanti .

--YTRK (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The carriages are mostly light grey (with light and dark green stripes), which is why I chose it. In a service table, it is really quite hard to distinguish the original dark green from the Avanti dark grey. I suggest that this is case where we need to wp:think of the reader rather than work-to-rule.

An alternative option might be the light green of the \ strokes of the W logo (rather than the dark green / strokes). But if I remember, there were other TOCs with a similar colour. Maybe what we really need is a version of {{scarf}}? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't really think people would think of LNW when they see the colour grey?

I checked the colours and it turns out they were actually incorrect. Here are the current and the actual colours of current TOCs using dark colours taken from Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways/Colours list, for the purpose of correctly assesing clashes. (actual colour codes determined by using this tool on logos on their twitter profile / header photos or websites).

	LNW		AWC	CS	FGW	GrandCentral
current	Oct 2017	Dec 2017
actual	lighter	dark

All except FGW (will) clash with the dark green, and its even more difficult to tell apart from Avanti when corrected. The lighter green, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be clashing with any of the current TOCs, at least as far as the colours list goes. (The now defunct Central Trains uses a similar colour by way of {{Temporary rail colour|00bb00}}, but that shouldn't matter much.) --YTRK (talk) 12:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@YTRK: I would be happy with the light green. As no-one else has commented, I suggest that you just wp:be bold and just do it and see if anyone complains.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Will do. Thank you.--YTRK (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Links to rail lines in rolling stock

Yes, I do agree there needs to be more clarity in the links for which trains serve which lines. For example, Xo Spain oX why do you insist on using the links you used for Walsall to Wolverhampton and related routes when we clearly have an article for the Walsall–Wolverhampton line? In other words, for each service listed for each unit on the network, what's the main rail line each route covers, and can we link that line instead of multiple links for one route? Jalen Folf (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind on Walsall–Wolverhampton; the article refers to a freight line, not a passenger line. Still, though, it would be nice to find better links for the section. Jalen Folf (talk) 06:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)