Talk:British Rail Class 150

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

Naming convention[edit]

There is a discussion about the naming convention to use for articles about British locomotive and multiple unit classes at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (British railway locomotive and multiple unit classes). Your comments are more than welcome. Thryduulf 22:28, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Class 154[edit]

I notice that in the table of DMUs, Class 154 links to this article. However, there is no mention of the Class 154 anywhere in the article! I vaguely remember that the Class 154 was a prototype for something with as Class 150 bodyshell: perhaps someone with more knowledge of this could add something (or maybe create a stub article about it). --RFBailey 16:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • it was the re-vamped 150 002, with new gearbox etc. Sunil 131.111.36.48 12:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diesel equivalents of Class 317?[edit]

I think there should be a mention of at least the end gangwayed units being diesel equivalents of the 317/318/455 series. Sunil 80.189.37.51 03:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • They arn't really as such - the equivilent was the class 210 DEMU, the 150 does however share the Mark 3 bodyshell. --Enotayokel 15:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, make that Diesel Mechanical equivalent then! That picture of the Anglia unit at Cambridge does look strikingly similar to the 317s that are stalwarts on the London services. Of course, they never built 4-car 2nd-Gen DMUs... Sunil 131.111.36.48 18:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unique door controls in Class 150s[edit]

I have added a section in the article outlining the unique square blue passenger door controls on Class 150s that are rapidly being replaced. I intend to add to this with a shot I took of these buttons using a camcorder on a York to Leeds via Harrogate service (currently using Class 150s that still have these buttons). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BenjaminWWHughes (talk • contribs) 21:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Need references![edit]

We need to do something to get this article referenced properly or big chunks of it are going to get deleted. The information here must have come from somewhere so what we need to do is find sources and add ref tags. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely hope that this article can be appropriately referenced but I won't hesitate to remove information that clearly isn't. See my comments here which concern this issue. My fear is that most of this information can be described as original research which can't be included, rather than based upon reliable sources. Adambro (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a big problem on a lot of rail articles with regards to referencing. A lot information would need to be removed if the above is true. Basically anything to do with unit numbers would need to be scrapped. I don't think a reference will be found as there are no offical documents about which trains belong to which operator. Is there any books published with this information?Year1989 (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know it isn't easy but we have to try. Where does the information come from in the first place? Even if it is not an official source we can still reference it to prove that it isn't just made up by us. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I get alot of my information on unit numbers from Thejunction.org --Marky7890 (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just tried it and got an IIS login page. Is it a subscription site? --DanielRigal (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry wrong URL: http://www.thejunction.org.uk --Marky7890 (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That is a good start. Now we need to check that our information matches theirs. It would also be good to find some additional sources. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis is it being suggested that thejunction.org.uk is a reliable source? As far as I can tell it is simply a rail enthusiast's website who gets information from other rail enthusiasts, with no real evidence of credibility. It isn't a satisfactory source. See WP:SPS. "Anyone can create a website... For this reason... personal websites... and similar sources are largely not acceptable to cite in Wikipedia." Adambro (talk) 11:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having thought about this issue a bit more, whilst I can appreciate that this material may be useful to some readers, I cannot unfortunately see we'll be able to find a reliable source to cite. Therefore, perhaps it might be more appropriate to, instead of including this material in the article, add an link to the relevant page on thejunction.org.uk in the "External links" section. This solves the verifiability concerns and would remove the need for this article to be constantly updated with this slightly questionable data, thejunction.org.uk will probably always have more up to date information. This solution would seem to comply in some ways with the external links guidelines which allows links to "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article". Whilst there may still be questions about linking to this site, in my opinion this is better compromise than removing this data and not linking to thejunction.org.uk. Adambro (talk) 12:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I can see the sense in that. Their layout is easier to read than our table anyway. Any objections, or shall we go ahead with this? --DanielRigal (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I personally find the table here a lot easier to read. No bloody acronyms for a start. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also find the table here easier to read. --Marky7890 (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how easy the table can be read is relevant. The issues we have to consider include whether thejunction.org.uk can be considered a reliable source but not how the way we present this information makes it easy to understand. Adambro (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also find the tables here easier to read. The tables on here also have more information about when that batch was built etc. Perhaps we could have the tables without the unit numbers. I think it would be possible to find a reference that says "CrossCountry has X number of X type of train which was built X year". I certainly managed to find a reference to how many of each type of train CrossCountry has. Not when they were built though.Year1989 (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indet) The problem is primarily the unit numbers. As Year1989, "CrossCountry has X number of X type of train which was built X year" type comments at least have the potential of finding a reliable source to cite. Endless lists of unit numbers won't ever be cited to a reliable source I suspect. Adambro (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tidy[edit]

I tried a minor tidy/rewrite. The "unique door" information is of dubious notabilty, but I left it in - but shortened it.

The article still has issues especially references needed.

One suggestion I'd like to put forward is to regroup operations by regions, and then have a chronological list by regions - most of the franchises fit into this pattern anyway - eg london, south west, midlands etc. Any comments/volunteers..???

I also cut some pictures - (because it was a mess..) There might be better images in "wikimedia" to illustrate the sections. If anyone wants to try to find those...

Also the bulleted list for one of the refurbishments is too detailed and unreferenced. That needs fixing. Best wishes on your 156 journeys (be patient pressing those buttons - they don't work until the train has STOPPED...!) Good luck.Carrolljon (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regions[edit]

Arranged operations by region - the article needs desperately information on pre-privatisation operations etc. (and references as well). Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 02:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons images[edit]

Hi. Just to let you know, the Commons category for Class 150s is now completely sorted by operator and livery. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible change to the title of this article[edit]

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.

Subclasses[edit]

This page needs information on the subclasses. For instance, what the hell is a 150/9? I saw that at Temple Meads last week... -mattbuck (Talk) 03:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A 3 coach Hybrid using one half of the toiletless 150/2 as a centre car --Enotayokel (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:British Rail Class 150/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

== Reclassification from B to C class == I consider this more to be a C class article according to the criteria due to the significant lack of references and a concern that the no original research policy may be violated on a number of occasions in the article. It is immediately obvious that this article fails the first B class criteria, that "The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary". I've not considered the other criteria because of this but it isn't immediately clear that these would be met either. Adambro (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 13:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 10:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on British Rail Class 150. 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 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British Rail Class 150. 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 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on British Rail Class 150. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reformations[edit]

Could someone who knows about it add something about the reformations of the class for 3-car units? I know the Midlands had quite a few, and FGW operated some as 150/9s for a while. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The two Class 150/0 were built as 3-car units, and almost always ran as such (150 002 did lose its centre car for a short period in the early 1990s); last time I saw them (at Reading a year or two back) they were still 3 cars. The 150/1 and 150/2 were all built as 2-car units, but beginning in about 1988, a number of 150/2 units were split, and used to strengthen two other 2-car units to 3 cars. If the strengthened unit was a 150/1, the extra car was invariably placed in the centre; but if it was a 150/2, the extra car was normally placed at one end. IIRC some of the split units were accident-damaged, and this was used as a way of finding gainful employment for the undamaged car whilst the damaged one was awaiting repair or scrapping. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And of course there's 153399 where they stuck half a 150/2 onto a 153... -mattbuck (Talk) 16:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Future[edit]

There is no section about the future of this class (eg when they will be withdrawn) and what they will be replaced by. I believe that they are to be withdrawn from Transport for Wales service, including on the Heart of Wales Line. The Class 153s on this line are to be replaced by Class 170, but what are the Class 150s on this line to be replaced with? Also Class 170s? FreeFlow99 (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not predict what might happen. Wikipedia reports on events that have happened, are happening or verifiably will happen. Find a reliable source explicitly describing the future of these DMUs, and we may report on that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Class 150 braking system[edit]

XAM2175 has stated that, according to a technical data sheet uploaded to http://www.traintesting.com, the Class 150s have a 4-step Westcode brake. This is wrong, there is no such thing as a 4-step Westcode. Even Wikipedia's own article on EP braking states that second generation BR multiple units use a 3-step Westcode.

The Class 150 summary box therefore needs to be clarified, or better yet, just reverted to something such as "Electro-pneumatic (tread)". This would correspond with the Class 156s that, as built, used the same Westinghouse brake controller. DAB (talk) 09:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

XAM2175 Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 10:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately "Wikipedia's own article on EP braking" doesn't cite any relevant sources at all, so it's not very good as an argument, but I can see on checking further that the authors of the leaflet have incorrectly treated the "emergency" application as a fourth step, so I'll amend the infobox. Thanks for bringing it up. XAM2175 (T) 15:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making this change. The only difference between a 'full service' and 'emergency' brake application on Class 15x is that an emergency decouples the electrical wiring to eliminate any wrong-side failures. The rate of braking is identical. DAB (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Operational area categories[edit]

I've noticed that the Midlands are still regarded as a current region the class operate within, despite the fact they do not currently operate within the Midlands, barring excursions by Northern and Transport for Wales units. With the Marston Vale Line being fully within Southern England, I would consider splitting the Marston Vale only history from the Midland history, and moving the Midland history to 'Former Operations' Class444SWRail (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Rail_Class_150&oldid=1215004822"