No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
|
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Trains}}.
|
||
(15 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B| |
||
{{WikiProject Trains|importance=low|UK=yes|UK-importance=low|passenger=yes}} |
|||
}} |
|||
== Refs == |
== Refs == |
||
Line 11: | Line 12: | ||
==Table colours== |
==Table colours== |
||
The table of fleet locations is very brightly coloured. Do these colours have any significance? If not, I'd say they should be toned down a bit. Firstly because the contrast with black text, especially on the orange and green, is not good and this may impair the ability of some people to read them. The other reasons are less important: secondly because the orange and yellow are a bit close, functionally, and imply a connection between the statuses; and thirdly because there may be green-orange colour-blindness problems. Basically, using colour to convey information on the web isn't a great idea when good layout and text can do it. – [[User:kierant|< |
The table of fleet locations is very brightly coloured. Do these colours have any significance? If not, I'd say they should be toned down a bit. Firstly because the contrast with black text, especially on the orange and green, is not good and this may impair the ability of some people to read them. The other reasons are less important: secondly because the orange and yellow are a bit close, functionally, and imply a connection between the statuses; and thirdly because there may be green-orange colour-blindness problems. Basically, using colour to convey information on the web isn't a great idea when good layout and text can do it. – [[User:kierant|<span style="color:#006600;">Kieran T</span>]] <sup>''(''[[User talk:kierant|''<span style="color:#006600;">talk</span>'']]'')''</sup> 16:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
== Compartments == |
== Compartments == |
||
Line 142: | Line 143: | ||
{{diff|British Rail Class 442|prev|934346043|This edit}} by {{user|SavageKieran}} - and its sourcing - reads as if some journalist doesn't know how railway signalling works. The signals are [[Absolute block signalling|''supposed'' to turn red]] as the train passes, any other colour is asking for trouble. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 21:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC) |
{{diff|British Rail Class 442|prev|934346043|This edit}} by {{user|SavageKieran}} - and its sourcing - reads as if some journalist doesn't know how railway signalling works. The signals are [[Absolute block signalling|''supposed'' to turn red]] as the train passes, any other colour is asking for trouble. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 21:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC) |
||
:Looking on a rail techie forum the issue seems to be that the return current through the third rail is tripping signal relays before the train reaches the signal causing the driver to see a signal go green to red ahead of him and therefore having to slam the anchors on. I'm looking through the railway press to see if any have a sensible article about the incidents. [[User:Nthep|Nthep]] ([[User talk:Nthep|talk]]) 21:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC) |
:Looking on a rail techie forum the issue seems to be that the return current through the third rail is tripping signal relays before the train reaches the signal causing the driver to see a signal go green to red ahead of him and therefore having to slam the anchors on. I'm looking through the railway press to see if any have a sensible article about the incidents. [[User:Nthep|Nthep]] ([[User talk:Nthep|talk]]) 21:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC) |
||
:Yeah, it's a [[failsafe]]. Interesting discussion [http://www.timworstall.com/2019/09/03/is-longrider-about-how-does-this-work-then/ here], not a RS of course. [[User:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:black">'''——'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:black">''SN''</span>]][[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:#8B0000">54129</span>]] 10:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
From what I can understand, the units were turning the signals to danger as they approached them. The media doesn’t mention the detailing this far by the look of it. [[User:SavageKieran|SavageKieran]] ([[User talk:SavageKieran|talk]]) 21:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC) |
From what I can understand, the units were turning the signals to danger as they approached them. The media doesn’t mention the detailing this far by the look of it. [[User:SavageKieran|SavageKieran]] ([[User talk:SavageKieran|talk]]) 21:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC) |
||
== Successors == |
|||
Re-added information on successors as even though the Class 444 and Class 450 are already with South Western Railway, the Class 444 and Class 450 are replacing the Class 442 on all routes the Class 442s operated on. Thus the Class 444 and Class 450 are the successors to the Class 442. [[User:Maurice Oly|Maurice Oly]] ([[User talk:Maurice Oly|talk]]) 13:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC) |
|||
: Doesn't follow, the 442s were to provide extra services that won't now operate. [[User:Murgatroyd49|Murgatroyd49]] ([[User talk:Murgatroyd49|talk]]) 20:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC) |
|||
: Ah right ok, I was under the assumption that we counted successor what replaced a Class of train once it left a TOC, I did not know about the has to follow bit. My bad. In that case my edit adding in successors may be removed if that is the right thing to do. [[User:Maurice Oly|Maurice Oly]] ([[User talk:Maurice Oly|talk]]) 00:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:: With stock that has moved from TOC to TOC several times, as in this case, that would just get confusing. [[User:Murgatroyd49|Murgatroyd49]] ([[User talk:Murgatroyd49|talk]]) 08:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== Is it true that SWR purchased the units in order to scrap them? == |
|||
According to 3 separate publications, yes. |
|||
*''[[Rail (magazine)|Rail]]'' 21 April 2021 issue states: {{tq|The Wessex Electrics were owned by Angel Trains. SWR will now take ownership before removing any parts it requires and sending the vehicles for disposal.}} |
|||
*''[[The Railway Magazine]]'' May 2021 issue states: {{tq|A £45 million plan by South Western Railway to refurbish Class 442 EMUs has been abandoned. The five-car sets are owned by SWR, and not leased.}} |
|||
*''[[Railways Illustrated]]'' June 2021 issue states: {{tq|With much of the work on the 442s already complete it is to buy them off the lessor, Angel Trains, and scrap them.}} |
|||
Was done as part of the deal to terminate the lease that was to run until 2024 early. I would put more faith in what reliable publications state in articles published sometime after the event having had time to drill down on the details, than an online source that was published on the day of the announcement. [[User:Customreed|Customreed]] ([[User talk:Customreed|talk]]) 05:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:''The Railway Magazine'' doesn't actually state when the trains were bought by SWR, it says <q>The five-car sets are owned by SWR, not leased.</q> (paragraph 1) and <q>as the units are owned by SWR and not leased</q> (para. 10). They could have been bought several years ago, and nowhere does the article state that the units were bought with the intention of scrapping without further use. The impression given by the rest of the article is that SWR, being in possession of these units, intended to refurbish them at its own expense; but then COVID put these plans on hold. Any business should be prepared to revise their future plans in light of major events, so if SWR have decided that in the long term it is more cost-effective to scrap, rather than laying out more money for a refurbishment that may never recoup its costs, we can hardly blame them. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 08:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::They were still on Angel Trains' books in [https://angeltrains.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Investor-Report-Year-Ended-30-June-2020.pdf June 2020]. The ''Rail'' and ''Railways Illustrated'' articles make it clear that the change in ownership occurred as a result of the March 2021 decision to terminate the lease. At the time of the decision to not return them to service, the refurbishment program was almost complete, all had received new interiors and 14 of the 18 had new traction equipment. [[User:Customreed|Customreed]] ([[User talk:Customreed|talk]]) 02:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== Fleet details == |
|||
Can somebody please update the fleet detail table to change all the colours to grey as all Class 442 units have been scrapped. |
|||
:Done [[User:Murgatroyd49|Murgatroyd49]] ([[User talk:Murgatroyd49|talk]]) 17:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
It would seem that reference 36 states, given the information it is backing up. [[User:Maurice Oly|Maurice Oly]] ([[User talk:Maurice Oly|talk]]) 14:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== Isn't the Rohr Aerotrain the fastest third-rail vehicle? == |
|||
The Rohr Aerotrain never entered service, but the speed record for this one was prior to entering service as well. The Rohr was a frictionless tracked air cushion vehicle that reached speeds of 145 MPH on a third rail, with a linear induction motor. |
|||
It seems like a more accurate description would be that this is the fastest third rail vehicle to enter service, or the fastest wheel-driven third rail vehicle? [[Special:Contributions/24.6.208.246|24.6.208.246]] ([[User talk:24.6.208.246|talk]]) 20:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
: where do you get the third rail from? It appears to straddle a concrete guide beam like a conventional monorail. [[User:Murgatroyd49|Murgatroyd49]] ([[User talk:Murgatroyd49|talk]]) 20:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC) |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Some of these should provide refrences for this article:
The table of fleet locations is very brightly coloured. Do these colours have any significance? If not, I'd say they should be toned down a bit. Firstly because the contrast with black text, especially on the orange and green, is not good and this may impair the ability of some people to read them. The other reasons are less important: secondly because the orange and yellow are a bit close, functionally, and imply a connection between the statuses; and thirdly because there may be green-orange colour-blindness problems. Basically, using colour to convey information on the web isn't a great idea when good layout and text can do it. – Kieran T (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen people say that these were the last British trains to be built with compartments. Is that true? If so, it seems significant enough for at least a passing mention. 86.132.140.207 (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The acronyms for the vehicle formations are used but never explained - this is bad. My guess at their meaning is:
Is their really only one motor coach per set? Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at the acronyms for the class 442 and the British Rail coach designations, the acronyms posted on the class 442 page do not make sense.
Below is how they look now:
I believe theyy should be something like this:
What does everyone else think?
Ashley.f5 (talk) 11.30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
In the location key, it says in yellow Lovers Walk for Mileage Accumulation - what does this mean? -mattbuck (Talk) 23:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before a train comes into service, it needs to accumulate some miles to make sure the train is in working order. I feel this description is not needed as it is not in line with the complexity of the article and I have therefore removed it. Ashley.f5 (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Just to let you know, the Commons category for Class 442s is now completely sorted by line, operator and livery. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is currently named in accordance the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways naming conventions for British rolling stock allocated a TOPS number. A proposal to change this convention and/or its scope is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Naming convention, where your comments would be welcome.
The lead says that using the trains for an airport rail link was controversial as they were "not designed for airport rail links". Could we have some clarification on what this means? What is different about a railway that goes to an airport and why does it require a different train? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on British Rail Class 442. 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).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on British Rail Class 442. 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, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed 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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on British Rail Class 442. 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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the picture in the infobox to reflect the fleet's current operator and moved the previous pic of the GX unit to the article body --- I understand that the picture is lower quality compared to the previous one, so it is hoped that a new, better quality picture will be used once the trains re-enter revenue service. Feel free to roll back this change if the quality is considered too poor compared to the rest. Supchppt (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have some better photos available now including of the new livery. This guy really knows what he's doing: [1] Tony May (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-48295838Guyb123321 (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This editbySavageKieran (talk · contribs) - and its sourcing - reads as if some journalist doesn't know how railway signalling works. The signals are supposed to turn red as the train passes, any other colour is asking for trouble. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can understand, the units were turning the signals to danger as they approached them. The media doesn’t mention the detailing this far by the look of it. SavageKieran (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re-added information on successors as even though the Class 444 and Class 450 are already with South Western Railway, the Class 444 and Class 450 are replacing the Class 442 on all routes the Class 442s operated on. Thus the Class 444 and Class 450 are the successors to the Class 442. Maurice Oly (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to 3 separate publications, yes.
The Wessex Electrics were owned by Angel Trains. SWR will now take ownership before removing any parts it requires and sending the vehicles for disposal.
A £45 million plan by South Western Railway to refurbish Class 442 EMUs has been abandoned. The five-car sets are owned by SWR, and not leased.
With much of the work on the 442s already complete it is to buy them off the lessor, Angel Trains, and scrap them.
Was done as part of the deal to terminate the lease that was to run until 2024 early. I would put more faith in what reliable publications state in articles published sometime after the event having had time to drill down on the details, than an online source that was published on the day of the announcement. Customreed (talk) 05:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The five-car sets are owned by SWR, not leased.(paragraph 1) and
as the units are owned by SWR and not leased(para. 10). They could have been bought several years ago, and nowhere does the article state that the units were bought with the intention of scrapping without further use. The impression given by the rest of the article is that SWR, being in possession of these units, intended to refurbish them at its own expense; but then COVID put these plans on hold. Any business should be prepared to revise their future plans in light of major events, so if SWR have decided that in the long term it is more cost-effective to scrap, rather than laying out more money for a refurbishment that may never recoup its costs, we can hardly blame them. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can somebody please update the fleet detail table to change all the colours to grey as all Class 442 units have been scrapped.
It would seem that reference 36 states, given the information it is backing up. Maurice Oly (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Rohr Aerotrain never entered service, but the speed record for this one was prior to entering service as well. The Rohr was a frictionless tracked air cushion vehicle that reached speeds of 145 MPH on a third rail, with a linear induction motor.
It seems like a more accurate description would be that this is the fastest third rail vehicle to enter service, or the fastest wheel-driven third rail vehicle? 24.6.208.246 (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]