Talk:Southeastern (train operating company, 2006–2021)

Header photo

Does anyone have a nice, recent photograph of a Class 375 Electrostar? We’re still using one with Connex logos as the header image. David Arthur 19:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

See talk at Talk:South Eastern Trains as well Pickle 00:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the header photo with image:Southeastern-465164-01.jpg, which although not a new train, does at least have Southeastern branding rather than Connex. When we get a 375 photo then it can be changed. Thryduulf 19:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the above image with Image:NewCross-375913-01crop.jpg - a photograph of a Class 375 with Southeastern branding photographed two days ago at New Cross station. Thryduulf 23:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

As Southeastern's Highspeed service has now formally launched, on 13th December 2009, should the header photo be now changed to the (Javelin) Class 395? It is Southeastern's flagship service; as well as the country's fastest domestic train service! Think there exists a suitable picture in commons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.221.105 (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Class 395

Quote: They will be known as British Rail Class 395 when in service.

Surely not! 10-11 years after the winding-up of British Rail? Wikipedia has developed the (in my view) unsatisfactory and confusing practice of naming articles about post-BR traction classes "British Rail Class X", but that ought not to be extended into making inaccurate statements in the text of articles. -- Picapica 09:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The same classification system that was used by BR is still in use today, so it is still the British Rail classification system. It is not a Network Rail Class X, nor are/were there Railtrack Class X trains. Class X is possible, but ambiguous with other schemes, for example that used on the French network and with headcode classes. Until a new classification system is introduced - which AIUI is very unlikely at the moment - then British Rail Class X is correct. Thryduulf 13:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not a Network Rail Class X, nor are/were there Railtrack Class X trains.
Of course not. Straw dog argument. Network Rail and Railtrack are/were infrastructure companies as eny fule kno.

Then which successor organisation has the equivalent naming rights? Shadow) Strategic Rail Authority? (Office of the) Rail Regulator? HSE? HMRI? ROSCOs? TOCs? Manufactuers? RAIB? DfT? All of them have direct input into the rolling stock to some degree. There clearly is no single organisation that embodies every bit of BR's rolling stock design/classification role. Thryduulf 22:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I can see more reason in your second point, inasmuch as you are arguing that the notion of a "British Rail Class" lives on, as part of the post-BR legacy system. However, I have seen no evidence that this is true anywhere outside of Wikipedia and its derivatives. I have never seen or heard reference anywhere else to any such beast as, for instance, a "British Rail Class 222" - and I remain of the view that naming articles in this way is putting taxonomic convenience before respect for the principles expressed inWikipedia:Naming conventions that

names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists;

and that

article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize.

--Picapica 16:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

A lack of ambiguity benefits the reader as much as the editor. In the vast majority of places where there is any need to talk about different classes of trains there is no need to establish that the classes are British Rail classes.

An article about "Class 395" in a specialist work needs no disambiguation. As you have already pointed out though we are not a specialist work - we are a general work and thus have need to distinguish between British railway trains and the countless other uses (including trains of other nations - Deutshe Bahn uses a very similar system but with different numbers, for example Class (0)66 would be a steam locomotive).

As there is no industry need to disambiguate, but an encylopaedic need to do so, we must choose a name that "the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize.". The majority of English speakers would clearly recognise that "British Rail Class 395" is going to be about the British Railway system - even if they have never heard of the organisation. The generalist also cannot be expected to know that the Class 455 trains were built before Class 444s so to look for the former at British Rail Class 455 and the latter at Shadow Strategic Rail Authority Class 444, while they must read about Class 395s at Department for Transport Class 395 - even though this could be about any form of transport in any country that might have such a department. Taxonomic naming thus also helps the reader in cases like this.

The only name that is accurate and consistent is TOPS Class 395 - but this would not be regognised other than by a specialist, and might be ambiguous - after all BR bought it after seeing it in operation in North America, and the DB system (which is not named in its article) seems [i]very[/i] similar. I beleive also that the railways in the Benelux countries also use a very similar system. Thryduulf 22:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The majority of English speakers would clearly recognise that "British Rail Class 395" is going to be about the British Railway system.

No, in my view they would expect something about British Rail (1965-1994). There never was a "British Railway system", though there was a "British Railways system" and there has, of course, been a "British railway system" for over 175 years. It is the "British Rail" -- the latter-day marketing name of a now defunct organization -- that is the very large fly in this ointment. If the prediction about the classification of the new trains turns out to be correct, any article about them ought, in my view, to be entitled "Class 395 electric multiple unit", or, if disambiguation were required, "Class 395 electric multiple unit (Great Britain)". -- Picapica 22:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

By "British Railway system" I meant "railways in Britain" in it most generic form, I appologise for my unclear wording. The assumption might be that it relates to the British Rail era, but assumptions are not always correct - the article should make it clear about the dates/organisations involved. There are still people who (incorrectly) refer to the whole railway system as British Rail still ("I travel to Crewe regularly, but going by British Rail these days it is pot luck if you get there"). To these people describing a Class 395 (which is more than a predicted desgination, as I've seen at least two different official uses - see the article) as British Rail is perfectly logical. They will not be suprised at the content of this article after clicking a link calling it "British Rail Class 395".

There needs to be consistency in the naming of articles about the rolling stock used on railways in Great Britain so that links end up at their intended target with the minimum of effort from the editor - meaning that readers are taken where they expect to be taken. There should be no need for the casual reader/editor (remember non-specialists do edit these articles as well as railway enthusiasts) to know whether Class X is a diesel locomotive, electric locomotive, electric multiple unit, diesel multiple unit, or a multiple unit or locomotive that can run on diesel or electric power.

The only terms that coudl encompas (sp?) all of these are "train" or "rolling stock". Train is incorrect as a Class X train relates to the train reporting number (headcode), and a train may be formed of combinations of more than one locomotive/multiple unit and/or coaching stock. "Rolling stock" is better but also includes coaches and wagons, which have their own classification systems. It is also not immediately obvious to none-specialist readers what it is.

Class 395 (Great Britain) would need distinguishing between other types of classes (busses, boats, etc perhaps) and is therefore not suitable. "TOPS Class X" has been rejected several times.

To have some classes suffxied with "(Great Britain)" and others not is going to result in unnecessary links to disambiguation pages - a hinderance to the reader and creates extra work for editors unnecessarily.

There is apparently no official term as there is no need for the relevant organisations to disambiguate; we do have such a need and so must create and use a term that results in the least suprise for readers and editors. This is the entire purpose of naming conventions. "British Rail Class X" will not leave anyone suprised the article relates to what it does. No better term exists, so why change it? Thryduulf 00:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Future

Read about the new timetable today ( [[1]] BBC News and [[2]] Southeastern website) - the 508s are to be replaced with 466s on the Sheerness Branch and Medway valley lines, among some other extra services. don't know if we can spin this into the article or just amend it when the change does happen ? Pickle 07:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Logo

New logo added by User:Rvd2007

Logo currently appearing on the official web site

Is there any proof they are using this new logo? I know that the font is called Rockwell. Unisouth 09:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, what is the source for the new logo? It still has not appeared on their web site. David Arthur 16:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Until someone provides a source, I’m restoring the logo that appears on the official web site. David Arthur 20:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The logo used on this page and on the official site are indeed not the correct logo, strange how it hasnt been updated on the main site but has been on the majority of documents given out by the company. I guess we leave it with the old SET logo until the new logo is put up onto the website? [[[User:Jennisuk|Zephyr]] 23:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)]

I have just put a comment and since removed it on the other southeastern trains page! The logo 'rockwell' can be seen on their newsletter leaflet available at train stations. I prefer the old logo and not the new one. --Screen42 00:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with your comment about the new logo, it looks old fashioned, but not in a good way like Southern's logo does James ^MSC 11:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Today Southeastern launched their newlook website, complete with the new logo at the top. As it is now used on their site i think that we should be using it on this article. Southeastern's site. Zephyr

Class 375 Electroliner

Someone decided that the Class 375 goes as three coaches per set, when they are infact very wrong. The majority of all 375 sets come as sets of 4, and sometimes three. You can see most services from London Victoria to Ramsgate & Dover Priory with eight coaches, and seven on the rare occasion, consisting of two fours, or one four and one three.

I've changed it to look more appropriate.

The 376 is OK at the moment, because when in service they either operate as five or 10 coach configurations. Alteran Ancient 18:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Electroliner??? its ElectrostarLikelife (talk) 09:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Nature of Integrated Kent Franchise

There seems to be some disagreement about the nature of the IKF. Let me nail my colours to the mast. The Integrated Kent Franchise is an amalgamation of the old South Eastern Franchise and the CTRL Domestic Services. For the purposes of accuracy on the succession box, I believe it is fair to treat the CTRL-DS as a franchise itself that simply did not run any trains. Is this fair, or am I talking out of somewhere unpleasant? Hammersfan 31/10/07, 13.17 GMT —Preceding comment was added at 13:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The Integrated Kent Franchise is the franchise that replaced the South Eastern franchise in 2006. At this already included the CTRL-DS service to be commenced apon completion of the CTRL. So the franchise is still the same. 'Preceded by' also means that the thing preceding existed beforehand. This is definitely not the case. The CTRL-DS did not exist before the Integrated Kent franchise as the South Eastern franchise did. Further more the succession box should only list operators and Franchises not individual services. I can see your point that the CTRL-DS is a impotent service wroth special mentioning but the the succession box is definitely the wrong place for this. 91.64.3.248 14:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

CTRL-DS

It's troubling that this article manages to mention "CTRL-DS" several times without either explaining the term or linking to a page which might explain it. Can someone who knows this stuff please fix it? Thanks. 92.234.10.126 (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

‘CTRL-DS’ just means domestic services on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (i.e. High Speed 1). I’ve added a definition to the appropriate section of the article. David Arthur (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant, thank you very much. 92.234.10.126 (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

CTRL changed it's name to High Speed 1, and signage is starting to appear (at Ebbsfleet for example). The Wikipedia article has been renamed, so I've updated this article. Edgepedia (talk) 05:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Javelin Merger Proposal

I proposing this because looking at the London 2012 this service, the St Pancras to Ebbsfleet shuttle during the Olympic games, is referred to is the Javelin®. See [3] I was looking at the page a view to moving it, but I feel that the information could fit in a couple of paragraphs on this page. Edgepedia (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it was initially called the Olympic Javelin, but the later refs have it called the "Javelin" and the link above is showing a registered trademark. I've updated the article with this information. Edgepedia (talk) 08:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The British Olympic Association registered Javelin as a UK trademark on 02 June 2006, see [4].

Merge into class 395 Someone proposed this. As you can see (on the page), The British Olympic Association registered Javelin as a UK trademark. Southeastern refer to the services as Southeastern Highspeed on there website. Javelin is therefore the service that will be operating during the 2012 olympics. Therefore this merge does not make sense. Edgepedia (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It was a week with no comment, so I went ahead and did the merge. Edgepedia (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

sboxs (rail starts)

Should the sboxs now be bule? As Southeastern's colours are now bule it makes no sence having them still yellow after 3 years of Southeastern, it's not South Eastern Trains any more! Likelife (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

proposed version:

Preceding station	National Rail			Following station
Dunton Green		Southeastern South Eastern Main Line via Paddock Wood		Hildenborough

Its been eight days with no comment so I may to start changing them Likelife (talk) 10:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Overhauled Routes List

Just decided to put a few hours into overhauling the current routes, guiltlessly taking the template from the Southern TOC Article and summarising all of Southeastern's routes onto it. It should be error-free, but I may have missed something. If you do spot anything, feel free to correct it. I am only familiar with the Victoria and Chatham-based routes, so someone may have to look over the Charing Cross and SEML-based routes. Thanks Alteran Ancient (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

London Bridge redevelopment

Not sure if appropriate to add to Southeastern's page a section about the redevelopment at London Bridge and what looks likely to be terrible disruption to Southeastern services, the subsequent withdrawal of some of Southeastern's services, and the company's decision not to communicate these effectively to the affected public and not to offer appropriate / acceptable alternatives. They are major changes, a significant number of people will be affected: while Southeastern is not the only TOC affected (hence my hesitation), it does seem to be the worst at communicating with it's customers, and looking at various coverage it also appears to be the only TOC that is withdrawing entire services for years or in some cases permanently without providing decent alternative options. Billse10 (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

There's a new timetable planned for this December, and there has been some (local) criticism about the public consultation about this. ASAIK, the changes are currently with the DfT for approval. Not too sure about the rest of your comments though, surely the services changes around London Bridge are to do with the Thameslink Programme over which SouthEastern has little control? Edgepedia (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The (obsolete) southeastern consultation document, section 7, goes into detail about these changes. Edgepedia (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Reason I hesitated was the changes that are Thameslink Programme related which are not within Southeastern's control - however, their decision not to discuss or even communicate with fare payers (and it has been so bad it can only have been a deliberate decision) is a reasonable reflection on their performance and indicative of their attitude to customers. There hasn't been much local criticism of the public consultation because there was no effective consultation whatsoever (a fact that has indeed been criticised locally): affected locals weren't even told "this is going to happen" unless they asked questions or went looking for information. It's still not common knowledge in some of the worst affected areas*, and Southeastern have chosen not to publicise the withdrawal of services to any meaningful degree. I admit a bias in that I am an affected local (username might be a clue there) but I'm trying hard to be fair - again, hence the hesitation - however their performance in this regard is appalling, and people looking for information about the company should know that? Billse10 (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC) (* for example, numerous estate agents are still selling houses based on commuter access to London via both London Bridge and Charing Cross; rental agencies are signing people up on contracts which will incorporate periods with no London Bridge train service without telling them - because the agencies themselves don't know, because the railway company responsible for services in the area has chosen not to have any effective publicity)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Southeastern (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:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.southeasternrailway.co.uk/index.php/press_releases/press_releases/view/77

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Southeastern (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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070810131241/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/passenger/franchises/ikf/integratedkentfranchisestake3338 to http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/passenger/franchises/ikf/integratedkentfranchisestake3338
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090419152425/http://www.firstcapitalconnect.co.uk:80/content/doc/timetables/tttl_book_pdf_ontime_final_ver.pdf to http://www.firstcapitalconnect.co.uk/content/doc/timetables/tttl_book_pdf_ontime_final_ver.pdf

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

"Waterloo East" or "London Waterloo East"?

When I modified the layout of the table, I deliberately changed every mention of "Waterloo East" to "London Waterloo East", since it is a London station in Zone 1 and is officially classed as a London Terminal for ticketing purposes. In the same way, London Charing Cross, London Victoria, London Bridge and London Cannon Street all have the "London" prefix as well, as do several other through stations served by other operators, like London St Pancras International and London Blackfriars. Every time I do this though, someone undoes my edit without giving any reason for it. Most recently @Redrose64: only said "please stop doing this" while not providing any reason for why "Waterloo East" is more appropriate. Can someone please explain? I'm hoping this discussion will help resolve the disagreement but if there is no mutual consensus, I will seek an RfC on this. 2A00:23C5:D033:4400:9429:6123:E576:453F (talk) 14:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The station name is Waterloo East. This is what is shown on the station signs (example), and is reflected in our article title, Waterloo East railway station. Similarly, our other articles have names like Blackfriars station, Cannon Street station, Charing Cross railway station and St Pancras railway station. However, although we do have London Victoria station (and London Waterloo station), that is because the word "London" actually appears on the station signs. London Bridge station may also appear to be an exception, but it's named after London Bridge, not after the City - particularly since it's not in London but Southwark. If we followed your suggestion to the letter, this one would be shown as "London London Bridge". Being in zone 1 has nothing to do with it, we don't use "London Elephant & Castle", "London Farringdon", "London Shoreditch High Street" or "London Vauxhall". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, the argument about what the station signs say is a very weak one. The signs at London Blackfriars station say "London Blackfriars" (as can be seen here), yet the Wiki article shortens it to "Blackfriars" anyway. Same goes for London Euston (full name is shown in this video around the 1:00 mark), London Charing Cross (full name here at 16:54), London Cannon Street (full name here at 0:00), London Fenchurch Street (full name here at 0:00), London Liverpool Street (full name here at 1:38) and London Marylebone (full name here) - all of these stations lack the "London" prefix in the Wiki article title for some reason. If I'm allowed to nitpick even further, at London St Pancras International the platform signs include the word "International" (as seen here at 0:55), which the title of the Wiki article also lacks. If anything, in my opinion this puts a serious question mark on whether these articles should keep their current names - I would argue they should all include the "London" prefix too.

Secondly, regardless of what I have written above, this dispute has nothing to do with what the article about (London) Waterloo East should be called - it's about what the station should be called in the table. Following your logic, we should also change "London Cannon Street" and "London Charing Cross" in the table to just "Cannon Street" and "Charing Cross" because that's what their respective articles are called - I suppose that would make it more consistent, but it would also take away the explicit detail that these services terminate in central London. Besides, other TOCs' articles do include the "London" prefix, even at stations that don't have the prefix at their articles. For example, the Govia Thameslink Railway article calls them "London Blackfriars", "London Moorgate" and "London St Pancras International". Why can't the same be true with "London Waterloo East" here?

Thirdly, being in zone 1 may not be relevant to the issue, but being a London Terminal station for ticketing purposes (which basically includes all zone 1 stations except Elephant & Castle, Hoxton and Shoreditch High Street) certainly is. Basically, if you have such a ticket and you get out at any of these stations, according to the system you are in central London and your journey on National Rail services ends here. (London) Waterloo East is part of this terminal station group and thus I think it deserves to have the London prefix included in its name. I also don't think it's wrong to say or write "London Farringdon", "London Vauxhall" or "London City Thameslink", for exactly the same reason (especially Vauxhall, since it's also a major bus station for central London). There was even a brief time a few years ago when audio announcements at some Brighton main line stations did refer to City Thameslink station as "London City Thameslink" (as heard here at about 0:52, although I admit the video is not of the best quality).

86.166.6.50 (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Perhaps it was wrong to include London Bridge station in this dispute - as you pointed out, London Bridge is the landmark that gives the station its name, therefore "London" is not really a prefix in this particular case. But my point still stands with the other stations.

My intuition on these matters would be to generally drop the London prefix unless it is necessary for comprehension. Describing a service as "to London Paddington" makes sense when you're in Reading for instance, because you are not currently in London and so it is useful to know that Paddington is in London. However if you're at Acton Main Line then I'd say a service should be described as "to Paddington" because both stations are in London. I'd also say that the presence of a tube station would modify matters - speaking as an LU employee (but in an unofficial capacity), we do not refer to "London Waterloo", it's just "Waterloo". -mattbuck (Talk) 21:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Should be Waterloo East, that is what the station signage says, the London Victoria and London Waterloo articles are so named as there are other Victoria and Waterloo station articles that these need be disambiguated from. Toweplus (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Station count

In the infobox, the number of stations called at is listed at 180, while in the Overview paragraph below, this number is 179. When 109.144.221.66 edited this article, the number was updated to 180 in the infobox only. I cannot, however, seem to find evidence to support this edit or the reversion of it. Could anyone shed some light on this matter, or correct it as appropriate?

NPOV - "Performance" section

Relatively new Wiki editor here, I apologize if my cleanup tag is in error but I feel the performance section of the article needs to be discussed. To me, it reads more like a criticism section and a few of the references seem editorial in nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.246.30 (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

All of the references are verifiable (WP:V) and are from reliable sources (WP:RS) quoting industry normal passenger surveys. How is that not NPOV? --10mmsocket (talk) 08:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

And *never* apologise for trying to clean up an article by challenging its content. Thank you. We need more people to do that. --10mmsocket (talk) 08:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 8 October 2021

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved; the old franchise to Southeastern (train operating company 2006–2021); the new franchise here. Sceptre (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

---

• Southeastern (train operating company) → Southeastern (train operating company 2006-2021)
• SE Trains → Southeastern (train operating company)

– SE Trains Limited will be taking over operation of the South Eastern franchise on 17 October from London & South Eastern Railway Limited as described in both articles. The new operator will continue to trade as Southeastern. Propose the current Southeastern (train operating company) be renamed to its legal name (less the Limited per WP:NCCORP), and the future operator to Southeastern (train operating company) as the latter will become the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. A similar thing happened when the Northern franchise changed hands with the branding retained. The Northern (train operating company) was renamed Arriva Rail North, with the former then becoming a redirect to the new operator. A by-product is that only a small number of the 1,200 plus incoming links (mainly town and railway station articles) will need to be updated. Pleatrox (talk) 05:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• TOO SOON so oppose for now. I would suggest waiting until SE Trains is in operation and see whether they trade under the SE Trains or Southeastern name. LNER didn't trade as Virgin Trains East Coast, so no reason (for now) to assume what SE Trains will do. --10mmsocket (talk) 06:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  Comment, Per this "We will continue to be known as Southeastern", seems pretty clear. Names with references to owners will never transfer particularly where a royalty would be payable, but since then the Department for Transport has specified more generic names to avoid rebranding when a franchise changes hands, as happened with Northern. Pleatrox (talk) 07:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  "Since then the Department for Transport has specified more generic names to avoid rebranding when a franchise changes hands" - I don't believe this to be the case for LSER as the current franchise agreement was signed all the way back in 2006, and there have been no further competitions for the franchise since as the current one has seen multiple extensions. I concur with the stance taken by 10mmsocket and Thryduulf that we wait until after the 17th of October to see what choice is made by the DfT vis-à-vis branding. [User: 82.29.246.30 - 00:39 UTC, 09th October 2021]

• I support the move though think it would be best to wait until the franchise is handed over on the 17th as I feel the article names should represent the current situation, not a future situation. NemesisAT (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
• Wait until it is clear what name the franchise actually uses on the ground when they start running, rather than moving things based on current intentions that may or may not change (WP:CYRSTAL). If the new operator does continue to use the old branding, then the Govia operation should be renamed to Southeastern (train operating company 2006-2021) per Thameslink (train operating company 1997-2006). Thryduulf (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  That makes sense 10mmsocket (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  Agree with NemesisAT that any move should only occur after the 16th. Given that this discussion will run for a minimum of 7 days, even if the consensus is unanimous, no change will happen imminently. Thought it prudent to try and gain a consensus to avoid editors applying their own interpretations once the change happens. Support Thryduulf's Southeastern (train operating company 2006-2021) suggestion. Pleatrox (talk) 23:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• What about Southeastern (Govia) for the previous operation and the current article title for the operation after the 16th? Cloudbound (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  Southeastern (Govia) is certainly worthy of a redirect, but I still think Southeastern (train operating company 2006-2021) is the standard naming we should be using for non-current TOCs that are ambiguous with other TOCs. Thryduulf (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  I think we should follow the previous example of northern and name it like that as their last resort operator also continue using the same trading name as the previously private operator, which should be London & Southeastern Railway.61.221.155.11 (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support moving to Southeastern (train operating company 2006-2021) - Well it's the 17th October (nearly 18th) and nothing's changed in terms of social media accounts, website or branding - Bar different people everything is the same and it looks like nothing branding wise is going to change any time soon. Proposed name would cause more confusion than help as I imagine over a good 70-90% of people don't have a clue about LSER. –Davey2010^Talk 20:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  So time to make the moves to "Southeastern (train operating company)" and to "Southeastern (train operating company 2006-2021)"? Any point waiting around as we seem to have consensus? 10mmsocket (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• FYI Worth noting that the takeover has definitely taken place on the Southeastern website which states at the foot of the page "Southeastern is the trading name of SE Trains Limited. Registered in England.....". They haven't caught up on all the pages yet but that's a clear statement on the front page. They also have this announcement page, which is additionally pinned on their twitter feed. Looks like the Southeastern name is here to stay. --10mmsocket (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• Commment, as nominator have taken the liberty of changing the proposed name of the now defunct operator at the top from London & South Eastern Railway to Southeastern (train operating company 2006-2021) as this is clearly the consensus (4 votes) vs one each for London & South Eastern Railway and Southeastern (Govia) and zero for maintaining the status quo. Aa discussion is over 7 days old, has made it into the backlog listing so presumably closure will occur shortly. Pleatrox (talk) 02:07, 18 October 2021 (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.

Requested move 16 February 2024

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Southeastern (train operating company 2006–2021) → Southeastern (2006–2021) – may fit in accordance with WP:CONCISE. There is no other company that operated within this timeframe. This has been done with TransPennine Express (2016-2023) so I see no reason why this could be made shorter. The same could even be done with Great Western Railway (train operating company) to Great Western Railway (2015) or 1996. JuniperChill (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Trains has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject London Transport has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Kent has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Should probably discuss Southeastern (train operating company) here at the same time. That title is currently insufficiently disambiguated. See WP:PDAB. 162 etc. (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  To address the question I see in the thread below: Southeastern (train operating company) could refer to two things: the current operator, or the operator 2006-2021. Partially disambiguated topics are only allowed in the rarest of circumstances. The better title would be Southeastern (train operating company, 2021–) or Southeastern (train operating company, 2021–present). 162 etc. (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Weak oppose WP:CONSISTENT, Southeastern (train operating company) the successor has the disambiguator, as it is not regarded as primary. Best they are considered together, whether they should both remove TOC. If "Southeastern" isn't regarded to be primarily for the TOC, then having only the years here wouldn't help. TransPennine Express has a unique name therefore considered primary for that title, so the only disambiguation needed for that is the years. Fully open to making the TOC primary if backed up, as I agree the current title is an eyesore, but the two should be considered together ideally. Oppose the suggestion for GWR, less WP:PRECISE. DankJae 10:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  In that case, would Southeastern have to be renamed to Southeastern (2021) for consistency? Besides, why do we even have two separate articles for TPE, TfW and Southeastern? . Also, how is GWR (2015) less precise? Obviously the original GWR remains the primary topic.

  Besides, titles are already inconsistent Like Mexico City and New York City but Bristol City?

  The reason why I proposed this rename is because the titles are too long and speaking of which, should have also proposed the current Southeastern (train operating company) -> Southeastern (2021). Realistically, Northern Trains could have been titled Northern (train operating company) or even just Northern but this is a case of natural disambig and Northern (TOC) is just confusing since we have different franchises. South Western Railway (train operating company) could have the disambig tag removed so that its just South Western Railway and could be the primary topic with a hatnote saying:

  This article is about the UK railway company. For the former, see South West Trains. For other uses, see South Western Railway (disambiguation).

  but best leave it to the discussion page of SWR.

  And @162 etc., I have no idea what that means but if successful, the current Southeastern will be renamed 'Southeastern (2021)'. JuniperChill (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  Definitely not “Southeastern (2021)” that is too precise, if readers do not already know it is a TOC they’ll have zero idea what started in 2021, as when a train changes legal company is even less common knowledge. This is too WP:CONCISE that it doesn’t help anyone.

  Names should not be shortened for the sake of looks, these are too short, the proposed disambiguator isn’t helpful at all. DankJae 13:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  So what will happen if SWR changes hands but retains its current name (ie, like what happened to Southeastern, TPE and TfW) ? Would the titile have to be SWR (2017-2025) since that way, people should know that it is a TOC unlike Southeastern since that on its own wont immediately tell readers its a TOC unless its primary which it isnt. JuniperChill (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  If assuming the name is kept (but WP:CRYSTAL), and South Western Railway (train operating company) is defunct, then first if the new company uses a different name, then that is used, but if it kept it entirely, then following those mentioned, it would likely initially be South Western Railway (train operating company NEW YEAR), then like the others possibly considered the primary topic, with the new moved to South Western Railway (train operating company), while the old may become South Western Railway (train operating company 2017–YEAR) or First MTR South Western Trains. Its name has "Railway" so its clearly relevant to railways, but "Southeastern" literally can be anything that just happens to be "south-east" of something. Nonetheless, these are separate topics, with either unique names, revivals of old names, or generic names, so the other page names should not be automatically relevant here.

  There is a more primary topic for Mexico than Mexico City, and there are two notable New Yorks, a city and a state. There is only one (main) Bristol, unless split.

  Nonetheless you're getting off track here. If you wish for a convention calling for consistency, best raise with projects. DankJae 14:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Southeastern (even with year range) gives no clue as to what it is about. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  • Oppose: I agree with Redrose. "Southeastern" on its own could refer to almost anything, anywhere.

  Alarics (talk) 12:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• OP comment, everytime I hear Southeastern and Northern, I always think of the railway company, but WP:NWFCTM (not what first comes to mind) and WP:PRIMARY TOPIC says otherwise. In addition, the original Great Western Railway will remain the primary topic and will never propose a rename for that (the new GWR is move protected / no move option for me)Plus, context will make it clear. JuniperChill (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  What first comes to mind for you isn't always what first comes to mind for other readers, especially those without a deep knowledge of train operators. Sacrificing clarity in the name of WP:CONCISE, especially with common terms like "southeastern", would only be detrimental. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 17:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current title is the shortest that is both precise and unambiguous - "Southeastern (TOC)" could plausible be a topic related to (at least) Tactical operations center or Transnational organized crime. Thryduulf (talk) 02:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Current name is clear as-is. Proposed change would only add ambiguity. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 04:15, 18 February 2024 (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.

Shouldn't this be titled Southeastern (2006–2021 train operating company)...

Because it feels more natural to say it that way, just like with Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020 video game)? and also because the years should go before the noun. Note that this is not an official RM. (forgot to say that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways has been notified by me 18:31 25 april 2024 UTC) JuniperChill (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. If this is changed, the same change should be applied to Thameslink (train operating company, 1997–2006) so I'll leave a note about this discussion on that article's talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 16 August 2024

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved - no consensus in favour of the proposed moved. Opposition was based on stability. The argument that, after six months, the page is not stable at its present location did not find consensus - if that is the change sought, then start another RM (in due course) directed to moving it there. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

---

• Southeastern (train operating company, 2006–2021) → Southeastern (2006–2021 train operating company)
• Thameslink (train operating company, 1997–2006) → Thameslink (1997–2006 train operating company)

– I think its more natural way of disambiguating TOCs by years. It matches Banana (1986 video game), but since it contains two years, I am not sure if its acceptable. [updated 22:27 16 August 2024] just also note that the original title was Southeastern (train operating company 2006–2021) (without the comma) which is option C if it needs to be move back to that. What do you guys think? JuniperChill (talk) 10:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Why not just boldly revert last night's undiscussed move? 10mmsocket (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@10mmsocket? JuniperChill initially boldly moved the pages to the proposed titles here yesterday, but was reverted as undiscussed, hence this RM. As part of the move dispute Talk:Thameslink (1997–2006 train operating company) is now out-of-sync. DankJae 18:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I obviously got confused looking at the page history. Appreciated. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Weak oppose on the grounds of stability. Neither is better or worse than the other but the current title has been stable for a long time so I'd want to see a proposed title actually offer some improvement to justify the (albeit minor) disruption caused by changing the established disambiguation. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe in that case, option C is the way to go, namely because its been at that title until ~Feb 2024 while the current title has been in place for only 6 months. I think even the current title isn't table, as seen at WP:TITLECHANGES. I should've thought about reverting it to its original name (option C) but it's been more than a short while and because of my bold move to another title, it may be disruptive to do, hence the RM.

  So in summary:

  • Option A: move to Southeastern (2006–2021 train operating company) (support)
  • Option B: leave it as it as (oppose)
  • Option C: move back to Southeastern (train operating company 2006–2021) (revert move)

  JuniperChill (talk) 13:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  Note to closer, if a "no consensus" move is applied, then it will probably have to be moved back to Southeastern (train operating company 2006–2021), per WP:TITLECHANGES and Wikipedia:Stable version to revert to because it was at that title from Oct 2021 to Feb 2024 (2 years, 4 months) vs the current one at 6 months and also because from Feb 2024, the title has been unstable due to the number of page moves. Why not Southeastern (train operating company)? its because every time a TOC switches hands, Wikipedia has a new article every time and that title is now taken by the current Southeastern company, owned by the government. See this discussion for more.JuniperChill (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, see WP:BROKE. We could also consider London & South Eastern Railway on the basis of WP:NATURAL, but it's probably not common enough. 162 etc. (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2024 (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.