Talk:British Rail Mark 3

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.
Start This article has been rated as start-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.
Mid Importance: mid 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.

[edit] Mark II

Is it really relevant to describe in such detail how Mark IIs displaced by Mark IIIs have been sent to New Zealand, when the Mark II page already does so? David Arthur 21:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, its inclusion in the Mark III page is irrelevent.82.14.89.118 17:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Standard class

An anon replaced all references to "standard" with "second", citing Second was the description at time of delivery. Standard only became into use after the time being discussed. I don't think the Mk3s had yet been delivered when "second class" was abolished in 1875. Today's "standard class" was until the 1960s[uncertain] as "third class". 85.92.190.81 15:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Wrong. BR used the desctiption First and Second Class until the late 1980's to early 1990's. I'd suggest you repair all the references that you have incorrectly edited.86.27.129.31 20:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Page 3 of this link, http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/BRB_XP641964.pdf , describes the XP64 experimental rolling stock gives the classes used at the time of their introduction (1964). From which I quote :- The eight xp64 prototypes (the remaining four vehicles of the train are existing designs, redecorated and repainted) consist of three first class corridor coaches, two second-class corridor coaches and three open plan second-class coaches. It is clear from that official BR document that Second class was still in use in 1964, and not ended in 1875. If you look back even further, to Mark 1 rolling stock, certain Southern Region Mark 1's came in 1st, 2nd, AND 3rd class for cruise liner traffic. See here http://www.semg.org.uk/coach/brmk1_1.html
  • Well, we now have the date at which use of "third class" ended: "When European second class was abolished on 3 June 1956 the former third class was redesignated second ..." [SEG]. Either way, with the exception of former references to "Third" as appropriate when discussing Mk1s, this now presents an ambiguity in the meaning of "Second". Thus, it makes sense to not refer to "Second" in any way since its removal in 1875 and its abolition from shipping in 1956, thus retaining its meaning of "between First and Third", rather that "what Third later became", and use the current term "Standard", that unambiguously means "the one that isn't First". All of which reminds me of another problem for another day ... 85.92.190.81 16:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    PS - the coaches pictured in the lead are indeed TSO, not TS. I base this statement on the assumption that the data panel on each of the Standard cars of the HST I left earlier today stated "GH2G TSO". 85.92.190.81 16:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Here is a picture of a data panel of a GNER TS in September 2007. http://www.rollingstock.fotopic.net/p45638018.html As you can see, its a TS, not a TSO. The website that hosts the picture has a whole section devoted to BR Rolling stock, as refers to the HST cosching stock titles. Not one has an "O" at the end. This is why the TGS is a TGS, and not a TGSO. Also, if you took the time to look at the TF vehicle, it would be labeled GH1G. The 1 deonting the class. In the case of the TS, the 2 in GH2G shows its historically Second, since renamed to Standard Class.82.3.64.105 18:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Firstly, stop editing the pages as a concensus has not been reached. Secondly, I see that you have completely ignored the XP64 data, which, from an official BR document, refers to SECOND class. SECOND CLASS is the correct term for the AS DELIVERED state of the vehicles. Thirdly, BR(SR) had 3 classes of travel until 1956. I have provided a source which proves that your statement of "Second was removed in 1875" is incorrect. If you were to refer to any publication of the time, here's another http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/BRE_GNElectric1973.pdf, for the then new GN stock, it clearly refers to Second Class. Fourthly, please provide evidence that the vehicle is refered to as a TSO. As can be seen from the text, the Mark 3a is the TSO, the Mark 3 (HST) is a TS. And fifthly, here's an accident report involving a derailment in 1980 of an Inter-City 125 on the Eastern Region. http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_Northallerton1979.pdf See pages 2 and 3 where it defines the class of the vehicles. I don not know how much more evidence you require to prove that second class is the term used for more than 30 years on BR to define the lowest class of travel. This is the time period covered when the Mark 3 was introduced, and, is the correct designation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.64.105 (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry. "Second" is ambiguous - end of story. 90.203.45.147 18:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
      • No, its not ambiguious. You just do not understand it clearly. You cannot just change history. Wikipedia deals with FACTS, and the fact is, in the delivered state, the class was second. NOW the class is standard, but in the context of that section, it is SECOND. Also, you have consistantly failed to back up your POV with hard facts. I have produced source, after source to back up any change I have made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.210.74 (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
        • As has been pointed out, the class can only be correctly and unambiguously identified as "Standard". By your own admission, "Second" has seen no fewer than three different uses in the last 200 years, so it is clearly ambiguous. Making reference to the specific meaning it may or may not have had at any given time is therefore not helpful. 85.92.190.81 18:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Again, you cannot change history, just because it suits your own lack of understanding. And again you have failed to cite sources. Until you can cite any sources that say that the vehicles have never been "Second" class, I shall keep on changing your uncited edits. Have you ever looked at other class pages? The Multiple Unit pages are full of references to Second Class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.77.176 (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
        • The point has been explained to you by two different users now. "Second" is ambiguous, so we shouldn't use it when a more appropriate term exists. I personally am no longer prepared to repeat the same argument, so if you repeatedly reintroduce ambiguous language into the article I will blindly revert it as vandalism. 90.203.45.244 17:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
          • I am no longer prepared to leave uncited sources from 1 person, with 2 IP adresses. Sorry, But again, facts are facts. You are disputing doccumented information, with only YOUR point of view. This is against the principles of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.77.176 (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
In 1956 British Rail changed to a two class system; and in 1987 Second became Standard. Reference is Simmons, Jack and Biddle, Gordon (1997). The Oxford Companion to British Railway History: From 1603 to the 1990s. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pyrotec (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)