Talk:British Rail Class 170

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
This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
Low This article has been rated as low-importance within the Trains WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Railways.
Low Importance: low within UK Railways WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport in Scotland.
Mid Importance: mid within Transport in Scotland WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of the Passenger trains task force.

Contents

[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] Tech descriptions

The British Rail Class 168 article has some good material describing the mechanical and construction details of Turbostars (in relation to their similarity to the 168); I am not certain that it is fully applicable to 170/171 so I didn't want to copy it here but I'd be glad if somebody with a clearer grasp on the facts would raise an objection or otherwise I'll append the relevant paras to this article in a few weeks. I think it would be a helpful addition to this article.

And another thing: according to The Railway Magazine May 2007, Bombardier upgraded many Turbostars free-of-charge after taking over Adtranz. I didn't want to shove that straight into the article either but it's a juicy story worth mentioning, so I'll stick it in here in a couple of weeks if nobody objects.

All those in favour? Nankai 05:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds a good idea to me. --Fuelboy 17:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SWT

[SWT 170 page]

Anyone got a date for when the last one is transfered ? Pickle 12:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Class 172

Should Class 172 also be incorporated into the title on this page? Or should it have a new article of its own? Maybe Class 170, Class 171 and Class 172 should all have different articles. The Class 220 and Class 221 both have their own articles despite being very similar trains. The same system will then be the same on all train class articles on wikipedia. User:Year1989 14:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering how they are so similar i don't see the point of splitting the articles up. Infact why not merge 220 and 221. Elsewhere stuff like 375, 376, 377 and 378 could all be merged into one or two really (just one example). Why should the "British Rail Class XXX" be the basis for article names on Wikipedia, why not use the brand name, eg juniper, desiro, electrostar, turbostar (this case), etc, etc instead ??? In the "old" days when there wasn't a difference then that was fair enough but now it appears new designation are being made up for marketing purposes. Pickle 16:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
But 170's and 171's are identical except for the coupler. 220's and 221's have major difference, (tilting for example). Same with th 375-378. --Fuelboy 17:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually thats a good point, but are the difrences here enough ? All i was getting at was i read the South West Trains article reacently, and the editorial take on the rolling stock by the "bnrad" names was an intresting deviation thats works well from the tradional take of "British Rail Class XXX". Pickle 17:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I’d say to cover all three on one page and, ideally, call that article ‘Turbostar’. David Arthur 19:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

But that takes away from the current naming convention. IE you would have to reclassilfy 175's and 180's as Coradias, 15X as Sprinters? 14X? as pacers? They really deserve separate articles, as will 172 when it is made as i'm sure there will be some major differences to the 170/171. If I'm proved wrong it should stay with these. (I think you'll find it will have a different engine so as it can meet current emmision regulations. --Fuelboy 11:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes i agree there probably will be more major differences between the 172s and 170s than the 171s and 170s. But I still think each class should have its own article. It then matches the continuity with all the other classes. Can someone explain to me why "British Rail Class XXX" is used? It dont understand why this is needed as British Rail is no longer in existance, it cant be used for every class that is made in the future on Wikipedia can it! Year1989 00:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

We will have to wait until the units are built until we decide whether to create a new article or change the title. However, why is there an article titled Electrostar on Wikipedia if there is not "Turbostar" etc. I am leaning towards supporting different articles about "Turbostar," "Desiro," etc, because it is more useful to readers than British Rail X (In any case, shouln't the articles be called "National Rail Class X" now, or even "Pendelino Class XXX?").

By the way, the Class 172s will be operated by London Midland instead of Class 170/171s, because they have better acceleration (for the Snow Hill Lines which have stops very close). Dewarw 17:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This is my logic — the class numbers are often meaningful for British Rail units, but now that the railways are buying third-party trains already named by their manufacturers, it’s counter-productive to split up the information on Turbostars according to differences which, while important from an operational perspective, are otherwise difficult to spot. If they were operated by the same company, how many people could tell whether they were riding a 170 or a 171? (National Rail Class X and many other such forms have already been considered and rejected, though, since National Rail neither operate the trains nor assign the class numbers.) David Arthur 18:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This is my idea: An article called "Turbostar" should be made. In the "Turbostar" article there will be all the technical descriptions and details. From this article there should be links to the Class 170, Class 171 and Class 172 articles. These specific articles will describe the operators which use them and all the specifics about that certain class and the trains in it. My view on the British Rail Class XXX is that the articles should be called Class 170 Turbostar and anything in front of the Class XXX should be scrapped. Year1989 19:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, makes sense. On the bigger picture ie "BR Class X" vs "Class X" that debate has raged elsewhere and remains unsettled, primarily because (IIRC) one could have a "Class X" something else that isn't a train, and they aren't "Network Rail Class X", etc. Pickle 20:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The debate over ‘British Rail Class X’ has happened on multiple occasions, and the general consensus seems to be that while it is unquestionably bad, every alternative that has been proposed is worse. If it makes you feel any better, you can think of ‘British Rail’ in this context as referring simply to the British rail system, not the former state-owned enterprise. Year1989’s proposal for the article layouts seems reasonable, though, as long as the ‘Turbostar’ article contains all of the information common to all the classes involved, and the individual class articles cover only the features that distinguish them, and their fleet lists. David Arthur 21:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes that would be the idea, to have all common features in the Turbostar article and then to have Class 170, Class 171 and Class 172 articles which cover the features that distinguish them and their fleet lists. This seems the best route to go, as then it would be in continuitiy with the Electrostars. There is also a similar set-up between the Class 220s, 221s and 222s. (Although it is just more of a page to redirect you to whichever class article). Year1989 23:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd say what has been done is the best answer for now. I think what David Arthur said about the 'British Rail' was correct, we need to distinguish these trains from trains with the same name in other countries. Well done to everybody who helped with the work!! --Fuelboy 19:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)