Talk:British Rail Class 390

Naming convention

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 22:29, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Weight?

What is the weight of this train? Edward 14:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Weight 414t (8 car) or 457t (9 car). As the source is a Finnish website [1], I presume the unit 't' is Metric tonnes. Thryduulf 16:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Not the only fastest train in Britain

The Eurostar is not a multiple unit! But if you're including the Eurostar then you should also add the Class 91 which has a top speed of 140Mph!

IIRC the pendolino in its original configuration was rated to do 140 but the track upgrades required to run at that speed were never made. Plugwash 09:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.0.101.131 (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In what way is a Eurostar not a multiple unit? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 08:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It has a locomotive and carriages, albeit in a fixed configuration. It is a grey area, if you had traction motors under more than two cars that are not at the ends it can't be push-pull... Wongm (talk) 09:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a multiple unit. If it were a loco hauled set the power cars would have their own classification in the AC electric section of TOPS. Patrick lovell (talk) 12:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Pendolino uses a different tilting technology

The Pendolino uses a different (more advanced) tilting technology to the APT. The tilting technology in the Pendolino was developed by FIAT in the early 70s independently of the APT project. In the Pendolino, each coach can tilt independently; in the APT the whole train tilts. This can cause some passengers motion sickness, and is one of the reasons why the APT was abandoned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.222.136 (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The carriage on the APT tilted independently of each other. Look at some of the publicty films of the APT in Scotland and you can see the train going from one side to the other through reverse curves (near Crawford I think). The APT technology was sold to the FIAT. My guess is that is was combined with thier own research. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 16:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, both the above comments are incorrect in different areas. While the Pendolino does indeed use different tilt technology to the APT's system, who is to say that it's more advanced? It's just different.

For sure the APT tilt system does NOT tilt the whole train in piece, as the second comment points out. If it did only one vehicle would have zero cant deficiency on any given curve. Thus it had NOTHING to do with the APT project being abandoned.

With respect to the second comment, the APT tilt technology was NOT sold to FIAT, they had already developed their own technology as mentioned above. The whole situation vis a vis who got what when BR was privatized is very complex indeed and I've fully explained this in my lengthy comment in the 'Talk' section on the Wikipedia Tilting Trains page at Talk:Tilting_train.

The Class 221 Super Voyagers DO use APT type tilt technology though, sourced via ABB and subsequently Bombardier, and the Virgin Class 221s still use it, although Cross Country have ceased operating the tilt systems on their 221s.

I hope I can write with some authority on these matters as I was the Tilt System Development Engineer on the original gas turbine powered APT-E and carried out some work on the APT-P systems as well. Regards, Kit Spackman (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kit Spackman: You do realise that you're replying to a thread posted over seven years ago? Anyway, any information added or amended needs to satisfy the policy on verifiability - your personal knowledge is not just unverifiable, it would also violate the policy on original research. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64. Funnily enough I do know what the date is! I don't read every entry on tilting trains every day of the week, only when it seems a good idea. Quite how my personal knowledge can be 'unverifiable' I don't know. I was THERE, doing the work for much of the 70s and 90% of the posters on here weren't! If you're going to be that pedantic about such stuff I'll stop correcting the numerous faults posted on this subject and your 'encyclopedia' will continue to contain errors.

Regards, Kit Spackman (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Kit Spackman: Whether you were there or not is immaterial (and we only have your word for that). Wikipedia reports on verifiable information - facts that have been previously published, by reliable third-party sources. If you were there doing the work, you are first-party; if it's not been published, we treat your knowledge as original research. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Virgin Pendolino nameplate

Do you need further name plates of the Virgin Pendolino trains? I have a picture of the nameplate of the Virgin Enterprise. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 00:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Pendolino Window size and comparisons to APT

I was editing the article removing and replacing dead links when I noticed the info given about the Pendolino window sizes and comparisons to the APT. I have suggested that citation is needed on the figures stating the window size comparisons between the Pendolino and the APT, but also it was stated that "as many as 36% of the seats are parallel with either no window or only a limited portion of one". I have done some calculations and found this to be more like 22.5% for the train as a whole (and not just Standard Class which works out to be 32.5%) and if someone would like to check my working out the please feel free:

Coach	Total Seats	Restricted View Seats	Non Restricted View Seats
Coach A	46	16	30
Coach B	62	20	42
Coach C	48	16	32
Coach D	62	20	42
Coach E	76	24	52
Coach G	46	0	46
Coach H	44	3	41
Coach J	37	0	37
Coach K	18	0	18

Feel free to confirm but this works out to be a percentage of 77.5% Unrestricted View seats? Geezertronic (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I got The Railway Age at Crewe to check the size of the APT`s windows. Then, and it took some nerve, I went to Birmingham New St and measured the size of the Pendolinos windows. Simple arithmetic gives the ratio of window area per coach. I must confess I can`t find the original data now but if anyone doubts the facts they can check for themselves, it`s not difficult. Actually anyone can look at a picture of the interior of an APT (here : http://www.traintesting.com/images/interior.jpg ) and compare it with the picture in the main article, the conclusion is obvious. --JustinSmith (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, what definition of "non restricted view" are you using to get the above quoted figures ? The reason I ask, having been on a few Pendolinos, is they seem rather more optimistac than I remember.--JustinSmith (talk) 07:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The figures above are taken by viewing the information contained in the Virgin Trains Pendolino seating plan http://www.virgintrains.co.uk/assets/pdf/global/seating-plan.pdf - you can make your own decision on what is Unrestricted or Restricted but the figures above are based on the seating plan issued by VirginTrains. The best policy regarding posting technical information is to get valid references for your figures so if you could obtain technical data on both Pendolino and APT window sizes then that would help your information rather than relying on "simple arithmetic" - for example the Pendolino seating plan is a valid source. Please feel to continue the discussion on the RailForums thread rather than here Geezertronic (talk) 10:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The statistics on the relative window sizes on the Pendolino and the APT do not need a citation as they are can be easily proved, like what is the capital of Paris in the Wikipedia page on this subject. Quite apart from anything else if all the facts and statements on Wikipedia which have no citation were removed most of its content would disappear, at least this fact is provable. The Crewe Heritage Centre - where the APT P is preserved - did the research for these for the measurements. Anyone doubting the accuracy of them can make the same call, or, better still, visit the place for themselves. --JustinSmith (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Your edit reads like a point of view and you have not offered any links or refences to back up the supposed criticism regarding your comments about dark and claustraphobic interiors. Also, you should try and get some official window sizing statistics from Alstom, Angel Trains or Virgin Trains themselves regarding the Class 390s and from a reliable source regarding the APT. Failure to do so will always cause issues around your figures since they could easily contain mistakes. And don't suggest that others could do the figures, if you want to include this you should do the official research --Geezertronic (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not a point of view, they are objective figures which I got from The Railway Age, now called Crewe Heritage Centre. They have the original APT there, they are the custodians of it, they gave me the figures. Why would I not trust them ? I make no mention of claustrophobia or any subjective factors. You are deleting objective facts from this atricle for some reason I cannot fathom. Please leave them alone. --JustinSmith (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahh I see now. It wasn`t actually me who put that comment about the intereriors being clausrophobic ! I do actually think they are, and so would most people, but I never put it in because, as you say, it is subjective and inappropriate for an encyclopedia.--JustinSmith (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Can we establish that dimensions are not a P.O.V. The APT-P is actually preserved at the Crewe Heritage Centre --JustinSmith (talk) 17:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Justin, you have still not provided cited references for your evidence. Without such evidence, your figures will always be disputed and classed as your own POV. As mentioned many times, why don't you obtain official sources for your findings if you want the comments to remain on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geezertronic (talk • contribs) 22:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I have rewritten this disputed section to reflect (just) the facts. Saying the window size on Pendolinos has attracted comment is a fact, it is not a point of view. Putting "Pendolino small windows into Google brings up 145 000 matches, including mentions on any number of forums (e.g. 1, 2, 3, [http://www.skyscrapercity.com/archive/index.php/t-622933.html 4], 5). It is even mentioned in this Times article "The small windows, which have been criticised by passengers for reducing the breadth of the view". I do not know of any other train that has had this reaction. Similarly Virgin officially recognise that there is an issue with the size of the windows/view out by even including a plan on their website indicating which seats have a restricted view, no other train has this, again, this is a fact. On the relative sizes of the windows that again is a fact and was sourced from the Crewe Heritage centre. I have no reason to doubt them and, in fact, looking at pictures of Pendolinos and the APT it actually looks about right. The fact it is not on their website is irrelevant in that if all facts on Wikipedia which didn`t have mentions on other websites were removed there`d be hardly any of it left. If you wish to remove this again please be consistent and remove every other non website linked fact on this page. If you persist in just singling out this section I consider this vandalism. --JustinSmith (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Good work, however a reference to this information that is not original research (i.e. your time with a tape measure), noting that the Virgin seating plans do not show the window sizes. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 05:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Justin is missing the point (as he regularly does on RailForums). Stating the windows are smaller is one thing (as it is fact) as is the seating layout (which has an official document to refer to) but anyone can go along with a tape measure and try and work out the sq m of the windows on the 390 or the APT and could invariably come back with differing figures from those stated by Justin due to the way they either measure the windows or the way they make their calculations. Justin - by your own admission on RailForums, you measured the Pendolino windows whilst "skulking around New Street" [2][3] so your measurements can hardly be taken as fact, espeically since the nine vehicles that make up the 390 sets are not all the same (leading vehicles as an example). As I have mentioned before, you could if you wanted find out if there is anything official with window sizes in which would bring credibility to your findings. Without something official, your figures will always be your point of view and not fact --Geezertronic (talk) 08:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Crewe Heritage Centre got me the dimensions of the APT-P windows. The interesting thing is does that then constitute "original research". Does such a fine distinction actually matter ? As it happens I have been back on to them to check an exact equivalent vehicle, a trailer second. Mike the menager is away for a while but one of the lads who work on the APT will be getting back to me. If there is any difference in the stated figures then I will obviously change them. I would add, again, that deleting anything, unless you know it to be factually incorrect, just because there`s no official citation would result in half of the Pendolino page, and half of Wikipedia in fact, being deleted. If that`s what you want then fine, but it must be consistent. You can`t just use that as an excuse to just delete something you don`t like, and leave everything else. That said, what is there not to like about an objective fact fact ? The article said before that Pendolinos were claustrophobic (interestingly, it wasn`t actually me who put that on, as far as I can remember anyway) and that is not a fact, so I can put up with its deletion, even if I actually agree with it.--JustinSmith (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

What wording could be used to describe the difference in window area between the Pendolino and the APT/most other trains ? How about "significantly smaller" ? I can`t personally think of wording which is objective and accurate, but at the same time tells the story as it were. It rather goes against the grain to get rid of objective and accurate figures (just because Alstom or Virgin haven`t published them) and replace them with words like "significantly smaller". However if something that conveys the same message can be found, use that instead. --JustinSmith (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

How about, "The smaller size of the Pendolino windows has attracted comment, the size of the windows being unprecedented for rolling stock in this country" ? I still think it`s a poor option compared to just objectively giving the sizes of the windows. --JustinSmith (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of putting all the dimensions and calculations for these window size statistics, in an article on my website then linking to that as a source. Then I thought, forget it someone will just say that`s not "official" and therefore invalid (even though it`s provably correct). So I still put on the statistics but went for the satirical angle instead so as to make it more readable, I`ve also put some revealing pictures in the article. Consequently I have deleted these spurious and dangerously unofficial dimensions from this article and replaced them with a less exacting comment. I have used the term unprecedented because its definition (i.e. having no previous example) is perfect in this instance.--JustinSmith (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Currently sitting in K16 - K13 and K15 have no view, whilst K7 and K9 have limited view. Whilst I agree with the revised wording, I do not think the reference is valid. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 18:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Could someone with more expertise in lateral thinking than my goodself please explain to me how a comment about the Grayrigg derailment is relevant in a section entitled "Problems", as opposed to the section below entitled "Grayrigg derailment" ? Answers on a postcard to Wikipedia. I can`t be bothered with all this, getting into revision wars is so immature. I think someone has an axe to grind, facts are not relevant here, as far as the Pendolino goes I`ll just sort my own website out.--JustinSmith (talk) 07:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Justin, you carry on publishing your own points of view on your own website (which you advertise so much) where you can write what you like. As your comments on RailForums have shown, there is no middle ground with you and it is you that have the axe to grind as you always have to be right almost to the point of abusive at the expense of anyone else whose opinion differs from yours (even going to the extent of questioning how people had been killed by the 390 because they chose to go by car instead of use a 390!?!?!). Please post on RailForums if you want to continue a civilised discussion - either that or open another pointless moan thread --Geezertronic (talk) 12:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we`re suffering from a breakdown in communication here. I said how a comment about the Grayrigg derailment is relevant in a section entitled "Problems", as opposed to the section below entitled "Grayrigg derailment" ? Not only is that not personal, I`d have thought it fundamentally correct. --JustinSmith (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

390033

This article states the Grayrigg set has been written off. This [4] would appear to suggest otherwise... anybody know anything? Tom walker (talk) 10:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Accordingly the the railway press a year (or more) back, the set was written off. Three observations about the pictures - (1) there are no wipers on the windscreen; (2) if it was returning to traffic why not take it out by rail as a complete set; (3) the pantograph car in the background dose not appear to have a pan fitted.

A thought - it is possible that as it is the London end (first class) car, it was relatively undamaged in the accident (did it stay on the rails?) it could be replacing another driving coach which is unavailable as part of the refurbishment programme.

Does anyone know where it went? There is a section of Wolverton Works being closed - is this part of it and the set needs to be move?

Written does not mean cut up --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 10:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Part of it (one driving car one other) are going to a Virgin Trains driver training centre located in an industrial estate in Crewe.–Signalhead ^< T > 19:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

According to Railnews (http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2008/06/03-virgintrains-extra-carraiges.html) one of the new Pendolino sets to be procured as part of the Pendolino lengthening is meant as a replacement for 390033 --Geezertronic (talk) 10:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Pendolino top speed

This article says that the Pendolino has a maximum design speed of 140 mph, but according to the speed dial the speed goes up 160 mph, so shouldn't this article have the maximum speed saying 160 mph? --390VirginPendolino390 (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The speed dial on my car goes up to 160mph not that I would ever get that out of it (it's restricted to 155mph anyway) and the speed dial on my friends car goes up to 120mph which would be quite an achievement out of a small car. There are probably issues with the tilt mechanism at speeds above 140mph which is why the 390s have an official top speed of 140mph. Stating anything different just because the speed dial goes higher would not be accurate --Geezertronic (talk) 10:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Could be a standard part, designed for trains which are capable of 160mph. But as we now they would only ever do 140mph in the UK and are limited to 125mph at present. If someone can find a source that confirms they're definitely capable of 160mph then that would make an interesting addition, and make them potentially usable on High Speed 1/2... NRTurner (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUKHDga4Mys&feature=related Watch it and look at the speed dial. --390VirginPendolino390 (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

And your point above and beyond what has been explained above is....? A Ford Fiesta 1.25 Edge has 130mph on the clock but the Ford stats for the model give a top speed of 94mph, by your reckoning should Ford change the top speed to be 130mph since that is what the speedo goes up to (not that the car would ever go that fast)? --Geezertronic (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The point is that the speed dial in the video clearly shows it has a top speed of 160 mph. I just think the article should mention it's top speed of 160 mph. --390VirginPendolino390 (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the point. The speedo could have 250mph on it for all it really matters but regardless of what the speedo says the manufacturers top speed of the 390 is 140mph with it currently software restricted to 125mph. The manufacturer makes no mention of a top speed of 160mph in the same way Ford make no mention of a Fiesta 1.25 Edge having a top speed of 130mph --Geezertronic (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Assuming the speed dial is graded in 20s, you'd make it go to the next tick above 140 anyway, for accuracy in speeds. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

All's I'm trying to point out is that the Pendolino speed dial clearly shows it having a top speed of 160 mph. It's goes 130, 140, 150 then 160 in miles per hour.--390VirginPendolino390 (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

And we're saying that speed dials really have no relevance to how fast something can actually go. If you wanted you could fit your car with a speedo that went up to the speed of light, but it wouldn't have any relevance to the actual speed of the vehicle. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

11-car sets

The article says that the 11-car sets are in storage, but when I look out of my office window immediately north of Crewe station (next to the junction with the Manchester line and opposite the old Crewe North signal box) every day I see trains going past with Alstom branding rather than Virgin and proudly saying "11 car Pendolino" on the end vehicles. Something needs updating. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

As it says in the infobox, one 11-car set is on test runs. - David Biddulph (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I could swear there's more than one of them - I'll have to see if I notice the set number(s) next week. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw 390 107 Virgin Lady running as 11 car set at Wigan North Western on the Euston - Preston and return 9th May 2012.

([Steve Wigan]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Wigan (talk • contribs) 00:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Possible change to the title of this article

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.

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/Tilting/

  Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 10:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 20:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

GNWR

So I read through the citation provided for future Class 390 operation by the GNWR, and it does not actually seem to suggest that the trains that the TOC will receive will actually be Class 390s; just that they will be trains of the Pendolino family. LostCause231 (talk) 20:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Good point - I will change it now. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on British Rail Class 390. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100331143850/http://www.virgintrains.co.uk/assets/pdf/global/seating-plan.pdf to http://www.virgintrains.co.uk/assets/pdf/global/seating-plan.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110111003455/http://www.traintesting.com/Class_390.htm to http://www.traintesting.com/Class_390.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080324002432/http://www.dft.gov.uk:80/pgr/rail/pi/pendolinolengthening/ to http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/pendolinolengthening/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131028025543/http://www.railwaymagazine.co.uk/news/pendolino-makes-historic-east-coast-run to http://www.railwaymagazine.co.uk/news/pendolino-makes-historic-east-coast-run
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100331143850/http://www.virgintrains.co.uk/assets/pdf/global/seating-plan.pdf to http://www.virgintrains.co.uk/assets/pdf/global/seating-plan.pdf

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on British Rail Class 390. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715151837/http://archive.railwayherald.com/Issue244.pdf to http://archive.railwayherald.com/Issue244.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120316102254/http://www.rharchive.info/Issue250HIGH.pdf to http://www.rharchive.info/Issue250HIGH.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101124171109/http://hornby.com/sets-123/r1134/product.html to http://www.hornby.com/sets-123/r1134/product.html

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).

• 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) 04:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2019

It should be mentioned that the following information should be added in the relevant part of the page:

390 115 is now named " Crewe - All Change", following the All Change railway event that took place at Crewe Diesel Depot on June 8th, 2019 - the day the unit was named.

It also now bears the name "Alison" on the front and rear ends of the train. 80.1.250.122 (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 15:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2019

In the Pendolino names table; 390015 (390115) in column 2; insert new name Crewe - All Change Chris M 390141 (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 15:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Link to a photo

https://www.flickr.com/photos/cosmostrainadventures/48031963686/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris M 390141 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Full dull photograph

I really don't want to have to do this, but an anon is pushing this photo onto the article. For this or other trains, we do not need the latest livery, we need a good photograph, preferably an example of a typical unit. Other photos may be available, but the side-by-side comparison below should be enough:

• 
  This is a well composed photo taken in extremely dull lighting conditions, by a Canon PowerShot G7, which does not cope well with the poor lighting conditions. A dslr would have been slightly better, obviously, but weather is weather.
• 
  This is a well-composed photo taken in excellent lighting conditions with a Nikon D80, which is a pretty good dSLR.
• 
  Also, this is a decent photograph technically but does not show a whole unit. It does show the tilt.
• 
  Composition OK - the back of the train is in. But the weather conditions are *awful* and the shallow depth of field means that the back of the train is out of focus. Try again in sunshine. Also, why is this a png?

Now that it is summer, there shouldn't be any excuses for accepting photos taken in foggy conditions anyway. Tony May (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree 100%- the fact that the dull new livery one had the wrong set number in its caption should have excluded its use anyway. Chris M 390141 (talk) 10:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

This anon is being very persistent. It's worth reiterating then that it's not super important that we have a photo of a train in the latest livery. What we need is a good photo of a train, preferably in a typical livery. The original VT livery was kept for several years, and it is very typical of the class, so it is highly appropriate. Tony May (talk) 03:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

This anon now asserts that the photo is "clearer, newer, and more accurate"; let us consider these three assertions in turn. Firstly, the claim that it is "clearer" is demonstrably incorrect - it is less clear since the lighting is poor and the cheap equipment used not capable of coping. The second claim, that it is "newer" is true, but largely irrelevant, since the main criterion to be applied is one of typicality not newness. Finally, the idea that it is "more accurate" is bizarre. The good photo has not apparently been doctored so its reliability should be unquestionable and unquestioned. Tony May (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Repeating this nonsense in Norwegian will not make it true. And edit-warring will not work. Tony May (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Clearly the guy has a massive ego and thinks his Hest Bank photo is gods gift to Class 390 photography. He should be blocked, and if he still thinks it's 390014 he should be made to stand on the end of Euston platform until the 9 car 390014 comes in. Chris M 390141 (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I took the Hest Bank photo but I'm not the anonymous editor - I always put my name to my work.

I had an unexpected opportunity to visit and took an opportunity to try catching trains at full line speed with the G7 that I had with me (rather than the SLR that I use when I'm out for a day's photography). The weather wasn't great but it was a "once in a lifetime" chance. I certainly wouldn't have thought that it was a lead picture contender. Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't think the anon was Geof because from many other photos I think Geof knows what he's doing, the composition above is spot-on for a record shot, but a good photographer would always recognise its challenges. Tony May (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

This is now getting a bit ridiculous. Our anonymous norwegian friend is extremely determined. I have literally looked at hundreds of photos of these units on flickr; most free ones are not very good. But the one in sunshine above is one of the top 2 or 3. The one at Hest Bank is technically mediocre by comparison. The anon's failure to come and discuss here should I think be a case for semi-protection? Tony May (talk) 06:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Here are some more alternatives, if anyone really wants to look:

• 
  In standard livery, 11 car, shows a whole unit, but part of the unit is obscured by fencing/OHLE and the light is a little uneven.
• 
  In special livery, so untypical
• 
  New livery (which really is not important), good lighting, but the photographer forgot the back of the unit.

I recognise that taking photos of these things is difficult because of their length. The main photo should be of a whole unit. Tony May (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The third one of that trio is more than fine, it shows what most of them look like now (at time of writing only 10 sets remain silver) and given the length of a set I think we shouldn't be stressing about getting a full train in shot, I'd rather show the driving car to good effect and the first few coaches giving a clear idea what the train looks like. Chris M 390141 (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

IMHO this is the best photo out of them all, Followed by this one, The rest are alright but not infobox worthy imho.

Also Tony we don't change infobox images to match the weather outside!–Davey2010^Talk 18:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Photoshopped?

The anon is now making accusations that File:390 Rugeley 2010-06-22.JPG is "photoshopped". If it has been photoshopped, then it shouldn't be used. For me, it is not obviously photoshopped, though some detail may have been changed without my noticing. The exif data seem straight out of the camera without modification - that is evidence (though not conclusive) against modification. If anyone can show it is photoshopped, please say, otherwise we have to WP:AGF that it is genuine, I think. Tony May (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

We can never remove the "cite sources" box from the names section!

Hello

The table of Pendolino names "needs additional citations" for verification but I have two large problems with this. Firstly, over the last 20 months there have been over 40 changes to the table, either names removed at repaint or new names applied. It's impossible to cite a source when a set appears minus its old name, do they really want a picture of a blank bit of bodyside for all of these and how would they know it was the right bit of empty bodyside?! Secondly, when they do apply a new name sometimes the "additional citation" is so hilariously poor that it adds no value. Someone has (correctly) added a citation from a local newspaper report into the naming of 390039 Lady Godiva and doubtless there will be someone who knows nothing about the topic at Wiki who will be delighted by this. Read the article though and the journalism is useless, most of their facts are wrong - they think its a new train (17 years old this year), they think it will do 30,000 miles this year (try 300,000, they think that the one named City of Coventry is an old train (same age as Lady Godiva), they think it's visiting Coventry for the first time (apart from the previous few thousand times)- the list of errors goes on. So do we just know that we know better than Wiki on this and update the names table when a change happens and trust that enough people will spot an error if one gets put there (I've put one or two right when this has happened) and forget trying to "additional citation" each time?!

Chris M 390141 (talk) 12:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

If it's not backed up by a reliable source, it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Chris M 390141: You should not need to use local newspapers if they are unreliable. Are you familiar with the British railway press? There are magazines which give rolling stock updates including new, altered and removed names, such as Modern Railways, Rail, Rail Express, The Railway Magazine, and Today's Railways. These are published twelve or more times a year. See also WP:DAW. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

So if they change a name you want us to wait between six and ten weeks for it to get mentioned in a railway magazine, scan in that page of the railway magazine and then update the name table with a link to the relevant page in the railway magazine? The Wiki page will be far poorer as a result. The railway magazines are reliant on people sending in news and as such are not materially more reliable than a logged in user updating here. Chris M 390141 (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

If you want to create or add to a fan website, then feel free to do so. As we have tried to explain to you, Wikipedia is for content which is backed up by verifiable sources. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Anyone can verify the info by standing on any station along the line of route. You are trying to apply something which is unrealistic and in doing so ultimately seeking to remove useful info about the train fleet from Wiki. It would be like saying that the page on Manchester United football club cannot say they play home games in red shirts unless a verifiable source or a fan site says so!! Chris M 390141 (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

At least two of the magazines that I named obtain their rolling stock information from official records; all employ professional journalists and are not "reliant on people sending in news". The delay is not "between six and ten weeks" - the June 2019 issue of The Railway Magazine, which was published on 5 June 2019, includes in its first few pages information about events that took place on 9 May, 11 May, 15 May, 16 May, 17 May, 19 May, 22 May, 23 May, and 28 May - this last being eight days before publication. We are not asking you to scan in pages, that is not how referencing is done. See WP:REFBEGIN: use <ref>...</ref> tags and in between these provide the name of magazine, cover date, and page number as a minimum. Use {{cite magazine}} if you like. Please see WP:NOR and WP:V - these are core content policies. Please also see WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DEADLINE - it is not necessary for us to be right up to date on everything. Manchester United have not always played in red shirts, either. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, you have answered the question in your line "it is not necessary for us to be right up to date on everything". So Wiki (in this context) doesn't aspire or require to have accurate or current info, it just seeks to be an echo chamber for other sources regardless of their provenance (see the Coventry newspaper hyperlink which prompted my original comment). The railway press has a small number of professionals but rolling stock records wouldn't show detail such as repaints or names being applied, or more crucially removed (these are far harder to "additionally citation"), and so reports of these will be drawn from 'platform enders' who are thanked/acknowledged but NOT paid/employed. Wiki should just come out and say its not an online encyclopedia and that all readers should refer to other sources for more up-to-date or accurate info. Chris M 390141 (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced content

I removed the "Fleet liveries and names" section, given that it was completely unsourced. It was restored by Chris M 390141, who said "ATTENTION. This page was locked for a week owing to "vandalism". Then less than 24hr after it was re-opened someone was allowed to rip an entire section out totally unchallenged. Wiki needs to sort this out. I've re-written as well as possible." but did not add a source. I don't want to edit war here, but could all editors please have a read of Wikipedia:Verifiability and remove the unsourced content. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

None of it is sourced: I tagged it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

There had been a paragraph in there explaining the names and summarizing the livery change (not written by me) from circa 2009 until Sunday- someone ripped that out, it had the same level of provenance as the rest of the article. If you want me to "source" it I can fill your inbox up with over 100 photos which show each of the 57 trains in the original silver livery and the 42 trains in the new livery. Just post an e-mail address. Chris M 390141 (talk) 10:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

A photo of a train is not a reliable source. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

So what is a reliable source?! The original livery and the change of livery to current, along with the original nameplate format and change to current should really not be in dispute, all are factual. To omit them from Wiki is to exclude the most obvious visible feature of the trains as they would be seen. Chris M 390141 (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

See WP:IRS. You could use the abc Rail Guide (Ian Allan) or British Railways Locomotives & Coaching Stock (Platform 5) - these are published annually. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

They do, but they only list the current info at time of going to print. This means someone wishing to gain an understanding, for example, of the British Rail Class 390 fleet only gets a snapshot of that moment in time and cannot otherwise see a very brief history/summary of the significant developments. Chris M 390141 (talk) 10:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

An edit on the British Rail Class 390 article

I have made one edit to number scrapped section in the British Rail Class 390 article. Please do not revert it, I need that edit!!! Northernrailwaysfan (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Please explain why you "need that edit", also explain why you are persistently re-adding content that several people have removed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I have made another edit to British Rail Class 390.Northernrailwaysfan (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I wanted to put for British Rail Class 390's number scrapped section to '1 trainset (due to the Grayrigg derailment)'. And also, for the fleet details section, I put '390033 written off in the Grayrigg derailment'. Northernrailwaysfan (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The infobox is for summary information only, it is not where we put insignificant detail. That belongs in the prose of the article.

In making these edits without consensus on this page, you are now being disruptive; accordingly I have served this notice. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Citation formatting

The following discussion 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.

---

I noticed that many of the citations references) on this page were messy and/or incomplate. They also used a mixture of templates, free text and simple links - some of them using the incorrect template. To improve the article, I have gone through all the citations and updated/expanded/corrected them using the current citation syntax - adding extra information wherever possible. As part of this work, I have standardised all the dates in the 'edit view' so they use YYYY-MM-DD format, as there was no consistency beforehand. However, I have also added the df=dmy-all tag to ensure that when reading the article, the actual date is dispalyed in standard UK dmy format.

--DrFrench (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Because of the repeated back-and-forth changes that appear to be a medium-to-slow edit war, and almost total lack of discussion of the matter (other than the above post by DrFrench), I've applied one week's full protection. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I am slightly surprised by the actions of two users who have been reverting my changes. They have made reference to WP:MOS which is silent on this matter, other than requiring that "the dates in the text of any one article should all have the same format (day-first or month-first)". (Note the emphasis on "text".) As I edited the article, I tried to ensure that all dates were displayed the correct DMY format. MOS:DATEFORMAT specifically excludes citations from its requirements. WP:CITESTYLE doesn't mandate a date format, other than to require consistency in citation styles overall. In fact, WP:CS1 specifically states that the |access-date= and |archive-date= formats can be YYYY-MM-DD irrespective of the format of the |date= parameter.

As the article used a mixture of templates, bare links, etc. I chose to standardise useing citation templates. The citation templates I used (such as {{cite web}} and {{cite news}}) are CS1 templates. These templates will automatically format the dates used in the ciatation templates according to the {{use dmy dates}} template at the top of the page. For example:

{{cite web |title=Example Webpage |url=//example.com |website=Example |date=2019-11-21|access-date=2019-11-21}}

would display as

"Example Webpage". Example. 21 November 2019. Retrieved 21 November 2019.

Thus complying with the requirement of WP:MOS that "the dates in the text of any one article should all have the same format (day-first or month-first)". (To ensure any absence of doubt, I even included the |df=dmy-all parameter, although it is not actually required in this instance.)

The two users concerned (Davey2010 and Cassianto) have either mistakenly interpreted the requirements of WP:MOS, MOS:DATEFORMAT and WP:CITESTYLE, or wilfully 'misinterpreted' them to impose their own preferred style on the article. The fact that they have given inconsistent reasons for reverting my changes and both have resorted to personal abuse in edit summaries to the article or to discussions on their user talk page leads me to assume the latter. --DrFrench (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for not coming here sooner I had no idea DF had came here, Prior to DFs edits the majority of dates were in DMY format, I see no valid reason to change a section (or ll) of an article to YYYY-MM-DD, It's also worth noting exterior-wise there's no difference between DFs edits and mine (ie they still show in DMY format) however internally they IMHO should remain in DMY format and not in YYYY-MM-DD, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 14:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I note your opinion, but it is simply that - your opinion. WP:CS1 specifically states that the |access-date= and |archive-date= parameters can use a YYYY-MM-DD format even if the |date= parameter uses a different date format. As you and I both noted, there is no change in the way that the date is displayed to users. So your reversion of my edits was simply to force your own preferred style on the page - there was no actual valid reason to revert my edits. Thank you. --DrFrench (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeed however prior to your changes (this revision) accessdates and dates were all in DMY so therefore you cannot simply force the YMD format into it - You are simply forcing your preferred style into the article, I don't care what MOS says - If the article was and still is all in the DMY format then that's how it can continue staying,

" So your reversion of my edits was simply to force your own preferred style on the page" - Other way round my friend you're the one who's forcing changes as explained above. –Davey2010^Talk 15:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Also CS1 does state you can use one format or the other - Given the article's been in DMY for years I see no valid reason to change it, Also given we've both stated there's no difference externally I'm slightly confused as to why you'd continue this .... As I said the article has been in the DMY format for 5-10 years and like I said I see no valid reason to change it especially when MOS explicitly states one format or the other. –Davey2010^Talk 15:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect. WP:MOS states that the dates in the text of an article should be in the same format. It says nothing about the date formats used in citation templates. And, as I noted above, WP:CS1 is relaxed about the date format. You may or may not be right about the date formats used in |access-date= and |archive-date= prior to me making edits to this article. It's really not relevant.

In various reversions you have tried to use different reasons to justify your actions, notably that I wasn't abiding by the WP:MOS. It's but hypocritical for you to then go on and say I don't care what MOS says - If the article was and still is all in the DMY format then that's how it can continue staying,. It suggests to me that you don't care what the 'rules' are, you simply want to have your own way.

My aim was to tidy-up and improve the citations. As it involves a lot of work, I find it easier and quicker to use to YYYY-MM-DD format. And as this is allowed by the requirements of WP:MOS, MOS:DATEFORMAT and WP:CITESTYLE you had no valid reason to revert my changes. I saw nothing controvertial in simply being bold and making the edits to improve the article.

Your subsequent intransigence (I don't care what MOS says) and use of personal insults is 'why I'd continue this'. I don't believe that people should be allowed to bully others simply to get their own way. --DrFrench (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I have no desire to continue this pointless discussion, As I have repeatedly told you prior to your edits the article was in one format and so therefore it can stay in one format, I've never used different reasons to justify my reverts - I've only used the one and at this point I'm sounding like a broken record.

I'm not bullying anyone - You made a change which has been reverted, You seem to believe you can force your date formats into the article whereas I disagree with such actions hence why myself and Cass have reverted you,

Please cease pinging me as I have nothing else to add to the extensive discussion above. –Davey2010^Talk 17:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

And as I have repeatedly told you, your assertion has no basis in fact - it is merely your opinion and you had no valid reason to revert my edits. As for 'pinging' you: mentioning your username in my edit summary seemed to me to be appropriate as I was reponding to you. I am very sorry that you find this irritating. --DrFrench (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Well it clearly does, My "opinion" is backed up by policy fact. I had absolutely every reason to revert you and given I'm not the only one who's reverted you and given the protecting admin hadn't reverted me I'd say it's your edits that are wrong here.

Anyway the DRN's on my watchlist so will continue there if need be. –Davey2010^Talk 20:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

My "opinion" is backed up by policy fact - you have asserted this repeatedly, but with no evidence. I have given a detailed explanation above as to why I believe your view is wrong. I note that you haven't explained why you think my analysis is incorrect.

But then, even though you claim that policy supports your opinion, you also state that I don't care what MOS says. So which is it?

TBH, I might have let the whole thing slide if you had been civil about it. Wikipedia isn't a place where you get your way simply by shouting the loudest or insulting other Wikipedians. --DrFrench (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Davey2010: I am the protecting admin. If I had reverted you (or anybody else), that would have shown me as taking sides, which would then have debarred me from protecting the page per WP:INVOLVED (there may be those who hold that I protected the wrong version: but it is a well known fact that admins always protect the wrong version). I protected the page something like ten minutes after I started up my computer on Wednesday morning, when I checked my watchlist only to find that reverts were continuing despite this thread having been started almost a day earlier. So please briefly explain why your version is the right one (when doing so, don't tell me why DrFrench's version is wrong).

Also: DrFrench, same thing, flipped over - please briefly explain why your version is the right one (don't tell me why Davey2010's version is wrong). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

My apologies I sort of assumed you protected this based on my edits but I was indeed wrong and have struck it so apologies for that,

In short: the dates were in DMY format prior to DFs edits and therefore I see no reason to change these to a YYYY format (whilst including another code which externally makes them reappear in DMY format),

For simplicity the DMY format should continue to take precedence

(also worth noting the date script changes these anyway so you'll eventually get someone who will change all dates with the script not realising there's been a discussion here). –Davey2010^Talk 21:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I think we're all agreed that the date format displayed when viewing an article should be consistent – and for a UK-focused article this should be DMY. That is what WP:MOS requires: but, of course, it is specifically referring to the displayed text when viewing an article, not the template syntax when editing an article: the dates in the text of any one article should all have the same format (day-first or month-first) (note the emphasis on "text").

When I initially edited this article, the citations were in a right mess. With 67 different citations in total, checking/correcting/updatating/expanding these is a fairly big task. And to make it easier for me (and ensure that I was less likely to make an error) I chose to standardise on using the YYYY-MM-DD format in the template syntax. Why? Simply, because MOS:DATEUNIFY permits this.

There is no requirement for the syntax in citation templates to be consistent (in fact WP:CS1 specifically says they do not even have to be consistent within the same instance of a template). As a comparison, the guidelines do not mandate that all instances of citation templates must be consistent in the name used for the 'Retrieved' date parameter: |access-date= is the preferred parameter name, but the older |accessdate= parameter name still (currently) works as an alias.

I made the choice of date format in the citation templates based on accuracy and efficiency – not to push any particular style or format. I did this to make improving this article a simpler task. And I ensured that I complied with WP:MOS, as the {{use dmy dates}} template makes certain that all dates used within the citation templates are displayed to readers in DMY format.

As I have complied with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on date formatting, I don't believe there is anything incorrect with the edits I made to this article. --DrFrench (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I note that Davey2010 has declined to constructively discuss the issue further, or even explain why he believes my analysis above is incorrect. So I will, in due course, raise an WP:RFC. --DrFrench (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

You will note I've declined to comment because I've got sick half to death of going around in circles with you, You were told to start an RFC so start one instead of repeating the same bloody hythm 20 thousand times. –Davey2010^Talk 23:02, 27 November 2019 (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.

Protected edit request on 22 November 2019

Add Category:Train-related introductions in 2002 Buttons0603 (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 23:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 November 2019

390055
(390155) Chris M 390141 (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, the Wiki software is such garbage that it wiped the edit out- not your fault.

It was in the Pendolino names table, entry for 390055

existing is... | 390055
(390155) | X-Men: Days of Future Past | Named at Euston Station on 31 March 2014 to promote the movie of the same name

needs to become... | 390055
(390155) | | Formerly X-Men: Days of Future Past. Named at Euston Station on 31 March 2014 to promote the movie of the same name

Hope that comes out clearer, stupidy stupid software!! (Oh, reason for edit- name removed during repaint).

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2019

The current photograph is outdated and of low quality. I have a much higher quality photo of one such trainset at Manchester Piccadilly to upload, with a cleaner look, higher pixel count and also demonstrating a more up-to-date livery (despite Virgin Trains going out of business on the WCML recently).

The picture can be found here: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/ovTG2qr2MGV5JIwEpZtgxxdYgjmgko0yKMLZuyHzrQh8751JIoadTynZsqMSnuYuNeELaeZTdYxblMV5tilQprWS03zKYt4JgQdewVu1jZgcLvyJ3fTJj_peaq8-eu3LZ9Zh7duV5z1CcMv9UkM2v4hvGwlpdQaKYEUzM7OMJsv0S6VklfJrLpuPHQeO2pX3b17BUydXyb0cXQziNh_HERhivGcL0tg2kbOWL3v4FfVni2VafbTVhs5ATSdiJ0UAqCQiwV4I6qI_jsjAZLhzeaAR-g2l9PMDrJRA_bvBGo3rPgXX-KfY7DS7BYsuuzwL7J4otltkxNANHsthaf_5KxvpYEf-R-gJtb5zHWMpxGUQMxP_k25s8TLIUZDNWWH2NkB2QrYn4052ZjT43ANYrh5fy4UYM8TDYN3HJSBVI7glCIe8TFW5j4r0mTqKmpCT0tmtgsjYZEkXveojYlT4DqMxJBD8NhF_Uuvroq6HyGBBHYLqxb5iuVAsGyiFyFEjLoL8q0t_DzttXtBPZ0njS9hRD-RxpC_HuIDM7QWCWIOJyzaURh2QCsH6pVmDgPpKME98_K5HyHJ_iPCKrinEVypwdB0kl0yuD19bNHcLXYpx6JUA12SgGueTtOL_qfTdvjJdE8NVa3yKPNonA87JLD4IScemeH1QR8RsJ4b8WafCHw427i2XvpX3=w1951-h1300-no

Thanks for considering the image. Tbarnes5 (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Images used on Wikipedia must be properly licensed for use here; see Wikipedia:Image_use_policy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Replacement images

I removed a "new" image that appears to have been taken from here: https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/new-premium-economy-class-launched-17388056. It has no camera information, only photoshop metadata, suggesting it has been a straight screenshot edit and should be deleted. Would appreciate someone marking the original image for deletion as I can't seem to get the template to work correctly.

During the edits there was also a second image that while correctly licenced, has not been talked about on here first. Personally I think it's not a great photo, but I'm no expert in the matter. Quinny899 (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I'ts a much better image than the one that was on the page. Poorly shot and has is outdated. Wikipedia is meant to be an up to date source and by using an old image this doesn't follow the spirit of the site Joshualowe1002 (talk) 10:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

There's a whole section of discussion on which image to use above this. If you want to suggest the image be used, suggest it first. Just changing the page will get it reverted, as I've just done again. Quinny899 (talk) 13:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Commons has a template, c:Template:Copyvio. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I was trying to use the Wikipedia template which obviously didn't work - now I know why 😀 Quinny899 (talk) 13:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

A replacement image is now in place. The new photo is up to date. Under GDPR, it is required to have up to date and correct information on file, therefore, this image needs updating to one that is up to date. There are no moderators of this page and any attempt to remove it, will be reported to Wikipedia. Joshualowe1002 (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Pages are not "assigned" moderators/admins; there is at least one who has this page on their watchlist (ahem). You don't get to unilaterally decide what is the best image for the lede; as suggested above, you'll need a consensus. I'm not going to revert the image back, as I'm not familiar enough with the topic to weigh in, but I will intercede if there is a dispute or edit warring. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Joshualowe1002: I have reverted you. Now, please explain what GDPR is and why we should be bound by it --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

GDPR is why we have to spend half of our time on the Internet clicking buttons to accept cookies. As you've probably surmised, it has absolutely no bearing on Wikipedia images, unless you're prone to making stuff up. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked User:77.97.179.254 for likely sockpupettry/editing while logged out. An WP:SPI might be warranted by interested parties. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Fleet numbers

Does anybody know what each of the bracketed words next to the fleet numbers stand for? AGAR-05 (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@AGAR-05: Where? Please give examples. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

DMS, MS, DMRF etc I think they correspond to carriage types but am not fully sure and would like to know AGAR-05 (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if the message went through already. DMS, DMRF etc these two are on the driving coaches AGAR-05 (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

They're not in brackets, and they are explained: after "DMRF" we find "Driving motor: first class open with kitchen". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

New image for infobox?

An anonymous editor, 2A00:23C4:8C83:8001:45EA:5180:DBCE:7383, has replaced the image in the infobox which got me thinking, it should be updated to show the 390 in Avanti livery as the Virgin livery is no longer used. I'll have a look and see if there are any good photographs of the 390 in Avanti livery. NemesisAT (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The following two images look good:

• 
• 

The first one is my preference, I propose the image in the infobox is replaced with the first image above. NemesisAT (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

To be honest I like both of the photos they are both good choices for a new infobox photo. If I had to pick one however I would also pick the the same photo as you. Maurice Oly (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Maurice Oly. I've gone ahead and changed the image. Best wishes NemesisAT (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4

There's been some new images uploaded, and I think any of them would make a better lead image then the present one. I personally think 4 is by far the best one. Any thoughts? (P.s. I took the two at the top, and I think the one chosen is technically quite poor, I uploaded it for posterity, and because there were few images of 390s in Avanti livery at the time) G-13114 (talk) 08:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

"The original 53-unit Pendolino fleet was delivered in nine-car formation"

Some 8-car units definitely ran early on, before the rest were built as 9-car units and then the 8s were extended to 9s by 2004 I think. --51.7.117.138 (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, according to

• Pritchard, Robert; Fox, Peter; Hall, Peter (2006). British Railways Locomotives & Coaching Stock 2006. Sheffield: Platform 5 Publishing. p. 279. ISBN 1-902336-50-X.

395001-390034 were delivered as eight-car units, the middle TSO (688xx) being omitted; these missing cars were added during 2004 and early 2005. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Braking

Could this article be improved with more details about the braking system? How are the brakes cooled? How is the regenerative braking used? Is it the default option for light braking, with the disks coming on for heavier braking? ENSOsurfer (talk) 09:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that would be useful. The Pendolino brake system is not unusual for an intercity EMU. (And to answer the questions, the brake discs are air-cooled, the electric brake is used in preference to the friction brake, but when heavier braking is required the two brakes are blended to give the required braking effort). Spookster67 (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

City of Edinburgh

Why has City Of Edinburgh been removed from the named trains list? The train 130, recently completed her refit and returned to service, her name still very much in place.

Can City Of Edinburgh be reinstated please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.38.91 (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

New image with full livery

Hi all, just wanted to say that I have nothing against the current image (I think it's framed very nicely actually), although having said that the image is technically outdated; without the full livery present, hence why I believe perhaps it's time for a new image. I have one that I have taken that could be of use (390Tamworth c:File:390Tamworth.jpg), hopefully it loads as I'm currently writing this on my mobile. If you have any disagreements with the idea of a new photo or want to send other photo ideas then of course do say. I won't change the image until several people have said to change, and won't change it with my image if people believe it is not an improvement, but, after all, Wikipedia is meant to be about giving the public the most up to date information as possible! Vanmanyo (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I have to say, it is a bit dark. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes I do see your point, I didn't want to edit it, and won't. I do have this image which is a lot brighter but in my opinion perhaps is a worse angle c:File:390rugeley.jpg Vanmanyo (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

That's certainly better overall. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Murgatroyd49 yes I think I have to agree, I would say we do need a new image though but perhaps we wait for anyone else to contribute a better image with a full livery? Vanmanyo (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Just wondering what peoples thoughts are on this image: c:File:39008_Stafford.jpg Vanmanyo (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Not a fan personally - while it's great from the front, you can barely see the side/livery as it's so much darker... sorry! Danners430 (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Source for 390039

How does anyone have a source for 390039 be refurbished? Tbrookes.23 (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Railways Illustrated have a semi-regular column on which units have been refurbished - and I'm sure much of the railway press will also publish information in due course. Danners430 (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Names in this article

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#When_do_"Names"_sections_become_excessive? 10mmsocket (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Length of units

"Fifty-three eight-car units were originally built between 2001 and 2004 for operation on the West Coast Main Line (WCML). The trains of the original batch were the last to be assembled at Alstom's Washwood Heath plant, before its closure in 2005. The trains were subsequently extended to nine-cars in the mid-2000s."

I'm not sure this is quite right. I know that some units initially entered service as 8-car units, but I thought that after that, part way through the building of the remaining units, they changed to building them with 9 cars "anyway". 2A00:23EE:14C8:2227:FCB3:8832:DD3E:19BD (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

There's a discussion above, complete with a reference, that confirms this. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)