Talk:Wrexham, Shropshire and Marylebone Railway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

[edit] Route

Okay... how is it possible to go from Wolverhampton station to Snow Hill/Moor Street stations then?? It's impossible (without having to do a few shunting manuveurs, which they're not going to do on a "high speed rail service")!!

Anyway, surely they will try and miss out Birmingham if they can? Go from Wolverhampton to London direct and without stopping. If you look at what Hull Trains do, they go straight from the East Riding of Yorkshire area to London. David 16:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It's been confirmed it's missing stops at Birmingham altogether, and is rather stopping at Banbury after Wolverhampton. Born Acorn 23:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff. Will be great if all this happens! David 11:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. -- tariqabjotu 01:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Wrexham Shropshire and Marylebone Railway → Wrexham, Shropshire and Marylebone Railway – Name as it appears officially on the website. The new destination already exists, but as a redirect - just to note. Simply south 15:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support - should have been that way round in the first place. Change it as soon as you wish. David 17:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Lead image

I have changed the picture to a 67 for the following reasons:

They have announced using these would be a possibility
You can see Midland Mainline in the old picture and you can't see any brand here.
It was this exact formation which performed the test run.
It has nect to it a 165 which will probably be the case at Marylebone, even though this is Paddington

Fine by me. David 17:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've taken it out again:

Image is of the EWS Company Train, which clearly will not be operating the actual service.
Image is taken at Paddington, service will operate (supposedly) out of Marylebone.

As a result, the image is somewhat misleading. The image in the TOC summary box should be representative of the operator. The above reasons do not make a strong enough case for the image, and seem like a convenience measure more than anything, which is contrary to the Wikipedia:image use policy. Chris cheese whine 15:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there needs to be an image of some sort there, and the 67 was pretty good. Okay, it's in EWS livery but what else could it be in, otherwise how about putting three images on the page (67, 156, 170) to show the different options. Roger.

I've got no objection to there being some image there to illustrate the article, my objection is purely with potentially misleading images in the infobox. In general, though, I'm not convinced that there's a case to be made for putting those images in. Images should be relevant to the article, and if we included a picture of a 170 in every article that contains a passing mention of them, things would start to become cluttered. That said, a map of the proposed routes might be useful. Chris cheese whine 22:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trains

Having read the site, they claim that the trains they use will be 100mph - I'm guessing this would mean Turbostars rather than the 67, yes? The 67 does 125, IIRC. This is reading into things a little too much probably, just a thought Worley-d 01:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I know it's an old topic but as far as I'm aware the only direct way to get to Snow Hill from Wolverhampton is if they were to relay the track that now forms some of the Midland Metro route. I can't remember what it's called - probably Snow Hill-Wolverhampton or something simple. Anyway... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Worley-d (talk • contribs).

Its no longer going through Snow Hill be will be rerouted through Coventry, I think. Simply south 12:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Class 170s are expected, but they've announced their intentions for a Buffet, which I don't think would fit on a 170. Their Class 67 test trains and announcement that they could "cater for 67s" in the timetable have only confused things. Born Acorn 00:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The thing I can't wait to see now is if any 67 they do bring in is reliveried. Similarly with 170s. Wouldn't that be fun! Can't wait... Worley-d 23:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, so, their options are:

Class 170 Turbostar
Class 158
Class 67 locomotive and Mk2 or Mk3 coaching stock

Apparently, 170s are hard to come by, and the 158 is currently only cleared as far as Aynho Junction. The 67 is all cleared for the entire route apart from an MK2 DVT they may use. Born Acorn 02:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)