Talk:C2c

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains: in UK Low‑importance

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. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).

Text and/or other creative content from c2c (1996–2025) was copied or moved into c2c. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

On 13 July 2025, it was proposed that this article be moved from c2c (2025) to c2c. The result of the discussion was moved.

Article title

Based on what has happened when previous UK train operating companies have been nationalised, when this operator goes live this article will become the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It has previously been established that the incumbent operator is the primary topic, e.g. when Northern Trains, ScotRail, Southeastern, TransPennine Express and Transport for Wales Rail were nationalised, with the new operator becoming the primary topic with the outgoing operator's article move.

Suggest that just before the handover, a WP:RM be initiated to move c2c to c2c (1996–2025) and in turn to move this article to c2c. Naleork (talk) 22:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the c2c page

It should merge as the pages entire info is already in a paragraph in the c2c page Faisalisonline2 (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 July 2025

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 MRSC (talk) 11:26, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

C2c → C2c (1996–2025)
C2c (2025) → C2c

– Same principal as when South Western Railway was nationalised in May and articles moved after this requested move was passed unanimously. Attribution to the editor who initiated that RM, as much of the text has been copied from there.

When the new government owned c2c supersedes the Trenitalia owned c2c on 20 July it will become the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Precedent when a privately operated UK train operator is nationalised with the trading name retained, has been for the outgoing operator article to be renamed to allow the incoming operator article to take the article title.

Similar examples in recent years are:

Arriva Rail North that traded as Northern Trains, was renamed allowing the incoming operator article to be moved to Northern Trains
KeolisAmey Wales that traded as Transport for Wales Rail, was renamed allowing the incoming operator article to be moved to Transport for Wales Rail
London & South Eastern Railway that traded as Southeastern was renamed allowing the incoming operator article to be moved to Southeastern (train operating company)
TransPennine Express (2016-2023) that traded as TransPennine Express, was renamed allowing the incoming operator article to be moved to TransPennine Express
South Western Railway (2017-2025) that traded as South Western Railway, was renamed allowing the incoming operator article to be moved to South Western Railway. Broghtwies (talk) 04:22, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No brainer. On 20 July just do it. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:54, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - however, not before 20 July when the new operator takes over. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:03, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They should probably be merged, you can have a section pre and post nationalization. It's clear the newer page is not fully baked.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be breaking with “tradition” to an extent - previously, all franchise operators (as they were prior to nationalisation) had their own articles… is it perhaps just that the new article needs a bit of TLC? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:17, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve boldly moved C2c to C2c (1996–2025) - I’m just waiting on someone that can delete the redirect that was left to move this page to C2c. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:18, 20 July 2025 (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.

Copied over content from the old page

I’ve copied over the service table from c2c (1996-2025), see the source page for attribution. Class444SWRail (talk) 08:58, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bold edit to remove 'excessive detail'

I added a line in the service table to say that "West Horndon and Pitsea are served by the same trains" explaining the (2tph) notes in the list of stations on the 4tph Fenchurch Street to Shoeburyness route (such lines are common in these service tables), and a short sentence underneath on Saturday services, including the half-hourly trains to Liverpool Street. This was shorter than c2c (1996–2025)#Use of Liverpool Street which went into more detail about the railways taken and such like. I do not view my edit as bold, but rather as transferring still-relevant information from the old page across, but improving it at the same time, deliberately seeking to make the detail as minimal as reasonably possible as well as making it up-to-date.

My sentence read: On Saturdays, the Fenchurch Street to Southend Central via Ockendon service extends to Shoeburyness, and the fast Shoeburyness via Basildon service serves Liverpool Street and Stratford instead of Fenchurch Street, Limehouse and West Ham.

This was boldly removed as "excessive detail". I reverted the removal, with an explanation that comparable articles all have this kind of information in far more detail (eg South Western Railway#Services). It was re-removed without any engagement with what I said about other articles, just a declaration that it's "excessive detail" without an explanation of what's excessive about it. So now we're on the discussion part of the BRD cycle.

Please can someone tell me what was excessive about the detail I added? If it was peak extras, then I'd agree, but these are regular frequent services.

86.8.29.68 (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with @MRSC. It's a level of detail, almost trivial, that simply isn't necessary. See WP:NOTTRAVEL - we simply don't need to explain every last intricate detail of the timetable. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Monday-Friday off-peak only shows the typical service pattern. That's all that is needed. The schedule is different at peak times, Saturdays, late evening and there is also a different service pattern on Sunday. We don't need to show any of that. MRSC (talk) 09:07, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is long standing consensus that route tables are intended for off-peak services, and "special" or occasional services should only be included where they are notable in their own right (for example once a day services to certain locations, like the old Penzance > Aberdeen service that XC used to operate). Plain old peak time services aren't notable IMO. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:51, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]