Talk:British Rail Class 220

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Trains Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
	See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale within the Trains WikiProject.
	This article is maintained by WikiProject UK Railways.
	This article is maintained by the Passenger trains task force.

Contents 1 Naming convention 1.1 Split? 2 couplers 3 (Un)reliability

[edit] 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 22:28, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Split?

This article needs to be split. The two classes are different. — Dunc|☺ 22:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

{{split}}

Yes the two classes are not identical but to the casual observer/average passenger the only difference they are likely to notice is that the Class 221 has one more carriage than the Class 220. As they are more similar than they are different, two articles would have a large degree of repetition - so unless this article needs to be split on length grounds (which it currently doesn't) then I don't see the benefit. Thryduulf 23:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think if more content is included, such as vehicle numering, set formations and names, then there would be grounds for a split. The Class 221 article could certainly include details of the tilt mechanism. Using that argument I suppose technically, the Class 171 article should be split from the Class 170 article.

I think there are grounds for a split if and only if a lot more info is added. Too many people seem all too eager to deconstruct good articles into heaps of crappy stubs. Plugwash 12:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

A parent article like pacer covering all classes 22x built by Bombardier to the same general design viz British Rail Class 220 British Rail Class 221 and British Rail Class 222 makes sense. Also, a list of units and their names should be given which will take a fair bit of space. — Dunc|☺ 13:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] couplers

am i right in thinking that the couplers on theese can be folded down and a screw coupling attached for shunting etc? Plugwash 03:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC) AFAIK Voyagers carry an emergency drawbar that either attaches to the coupler or alongside it --Enotayokel 10:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

--82.25.94.168 21:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)==Flock of turkeys== This is hardly NPOV, and also comes only from an email but it'll be worth keeping an ear out regarding anything official from Virgin...

Meanwhile at Virgin X Country top management has privately accepted that the Voyager fleet is a flock of turkeys and plans are well advanced for a completely new train to operate down here [South West England]. Can't at present reveal the exact details but this new train has been undergoing extensive testing for the last 30 years under a secret name starting with H and ending with T.

Thryduulf 19:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Could be adelantes ;) - There currently is a MidlandMainline H*T operating with 'This train is on hire' stickers in this area (and it's not one of First's private collection pre Barbie/Neonfying) - also seems to be proving very popular with the punters Enotayokel 00:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed I specifically chose to take this train for my Taunton to Leeds journey on Friday. The PA person (would have been called a senior conductor pre-privatisation) apologised for the lack of reservations (it seems that VXC have sold the printer) but did point out that there would be plenty of space as the train was twice as big as their normal ones! Quite a contrast to the near-crushloading on the 220 I had to get from Leeds to Brum on the return (only service from Leeds to Brum for over 2 hours before and at least 1 hour afterwards, that also makes an important connection with a GNER service from London at Doncaster, and they allocate a four-car train... </rant>). Thryduulf 00:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I know about the crush - had a very late running 4 car from York to Exeter, hit Bristol at 5:30pm and all the commuters chose an already busy Voyager over the Pacer Enotayokel 17:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
      • That sounds like the Bristol rush hour. The choice between a crowded voyager and a 143 (which can get nearly as crowded) for a journey to Taunton is a tough one, for all there foibles I'd take probably take an empty voyager over an empty pacer, but I'd almost certainly take a 158 and quite likely a 150 or (empty) 153. Wessex have recently started using their 143s on longer distances and running single 153s on busier services than they used to. Part of me wonders whether this is a cynical ploy to make FGW look good when they take over and use longer, better trains? Thryduulf 01:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (Un)reliability

However many of the engine problems have now been resolved, the article tells us. Not in my experience. As a fairly frequent commuter between Southampton, Birmingham, and Durham, I'd estimate that on around 30% of journeys I've taken there's been at least one fault en route, either mechanical or electronic, and on at least 10% the service has broken down and a replacement unit drafted in (oddly, usually seems to be at Derby, Doncaster, or Darlington - is there some sort of jinx on stations beginning with a D?)... Does anyone have any sourced statistics on current Voyager reliability? DWaterson 00:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)