Talk:British Rail Class 43 (HST)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Cotswold Rail

According to Cotswold Rail's article, the company now has two HST trainsets - needs mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2005‎ 81.178.106.116 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 29 September (UTC)

Yeah, these things get out of date quite easily. Be bold in updating pages. Dunc|☺ 13:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

!

Duncharris, There is a discussion page if you wish to take part in the discussion. Please do not make decisions on behalf of every other Wikipedia user.

This comment was on the article page. As does not belong there, I have moved it here. L1v3rp00l 14:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Merge of pages suggested. In my mind, High Speed Train is a very appropriate topic for info about high speed trains in the UK (seperate one exists for overseas already). I think on High Speed Train, there is too much about Class43/IC125 but not enough on APT or Class91&82/IC225. I think that there is info on High Speed Train that could be copied onto British Rail Class 43 (HST). We would then have an "unbrella topic" High Speed Train, where links could lead to Advanced Passenger Train, British Rail Class 43 (HST) and British Rail Class 91 for more detailed information about each type of HST. Any views? Nickg1980

I agree. The Class 43 page could eventually contain information specific to the locos (such as who operates which ones) that would not be relevant on any other page. Our Phellap 23:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I also agree. L1v3rp00l 14:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Pages reorganised as per original recommendation.

From my original proposal one week ago, there have been two replies, both clearly in favour of the changes. Due to this response, I have reorganised the pages High Speed Train, InterCity 125, British Rail Class 43 (HST) and British Rail Mark 3 so that there is a clear home for everything.

There still appear to be quite a few pages very close to overlapping, although if other people consider that these pages should be fully merged rather than reorganised, they can make a proposal on Talk:British Rail Class 43 (HST).

  • High Speed Train now refers as a general overview to high speed rail transport in the UK including APT, IC 125, IC 225, and Classes 180, 220, 221 and 222.
  • InterCity 125 now contains only information about complete sets of trains (2 power cars and a rake of coaches) or things which are common to both power cars and coaching stock.
  • British Rail Class 43 (HST) now only refers to IC 125 power cars only.
  • British Rail Mark 3 now refers only to Mark 3 coaching stock.

This has taken me a long time to do, even though much was copying and pasting, although it is still a little rough around the edges. Please feel free to tidy this up.

Please do not revert the changes - The changes were made after a consultation lasting seven days. The response was unanimously in favour of what has been done. If you disagree with what has been done, please propose on a talk page to revert the changes and if the majority of users feel that way, this is fair enough. The decision to change the pages met no objection of the seven days of consultation.

I hope that you like what has been done. Nickg1980 21:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

PS: I've tried to delete no useful information, but often moved from one article to a more relevant one. Nickg1980 21:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

SIGNING NOT NEEDED!

Who in the world kept signing those paragraphs? It's not needed for the article! It's only required in the talk pages! DUH! Moojgoo 01:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Who kept signing the paragraphs? Umm, tricky, but he did leave his signature everywhere, and that might give you a clue... EdJogg 13:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC) :o)

Merging again

This article and InterCity 125 still contain a lot of duplicate information. I'd suggest making that article the main article (with all the history etc) and reducing this one to technical details of the power car (and little else). --82.45.163.4 11:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Single HSTs

I think a class 43 can haul a number of mk3s because in fact in the late 90s Great Western wanted to reduce its trains to a class 43+4 coaches. However I dont know whether those formations would have needed modifications in the power cars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.42.128.189 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Picture

I have changed the main infobox image, as the new one better shows the actual class 43 HST rather than the whole InterCity 125. I feel this is the right image to aim for! Britishrailclass91 (talk) 10:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Images

Some of the images are very old, the MML power car featured for example is sporting an out of date livery and there is no image of a FGW MTU power car despite them now making up the vast majority of the FGW fleet. 81.77.103.132 17:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

So you delete them, just like that, that is not what we are aiming for, we are aiming for good quality images of liveries past and present, so don't just delete them, this is the final warning you will have. Britishrailclass91 (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It appears Britishrailclass91 must have misunderstood something here. 81.77.103.132 didn't remove any images. Adambro (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
No,sorry but I don't think that I have misunderstood, the picture of the old-look Midland Mainline HST has dissapeared! Britishrailclass91 (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
That would have been me then, replacing the image showing the EMT Class 43 two liveries ago with EMT's own livery. Adambro (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh right, profuse apologies then! Britishrailclass91 (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Makes sense to me, perhaps with sub-articles for the various reworks. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you give some context; I'm confused what/which merge suggestion you're referring to. There were merges/reorders performed in 2006 and again in 2007. Does something more need doing, and if so could you clarify what could/should be done? —Sladen (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've re-formatted both British Rail Class 43 and Intercity 125 so that the former has primarily loco details, and the later has primarily DMU and working details.. The article still needs references as well.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 00:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Dispute: Class 43?

Can anyone actually provide an official reference for the HST Powercars being classified as Class 43, or a locomotive atall for that matter? Current Network Rail Sectional Appendicies list them as 253/254, as do official operations notices (in short instruction manuals) for the HST. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.121.38 (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Originally a set was designed to stay together—owing to maintenance regimes that did not happen, and it being easy to just swap another power car in, they were reclassified as separate locomotives + coaches. —Sladen (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I understand this but where is the evidence to back this up - I work with the HSTs in the railway industry as a trainee engineer and have never heard any of my colleagues refer to them as 'Class 43' - that was an old Western Reigon Diesel Hydraulic IIRC. This misclassification is a common misconception held by many rail enthusiasts, and publication that they are Class 43s without any proof whatsoever isn't going to help that. Facts don't become facts because lots of people think that's what is right, facts become facts when backed up by verifiable sources, and I'm sorry to say that NO official document past or present refers to an HST Powercar as a Class 43. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.121.38 (talk) 09:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
The "Class 43" designation comes from the fact that they were numbered 43xxx in the coaching stock series under BR. (Source: 1989 Motive Power Combined Volume, Ian Allan Publishing). They were never classed as Class 43 locomotives. Happy to help. ;Laseandre (talk) 09:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Right so on that basis there shouldn't be a Class 43 (HST) Article, it should be merged with Class 253/254 in order to "cure" this gross inaccuracy... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.3.201 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that HSTs are officially Class 253/254. The running numbers 43xxx are not an indication of their class like they were for other standard locos post-TOPS (e.g. class 47s were 47xxx). Pre-TOPS locos had Dxxxx running numbers, but already had defined classes like the Class 35 Hymek. Class 52 Westerns never got 52xxx numbers, but all the other classes were given TOPS numbers that showed their class, around the early 1970s I think. Originally, HSTs were given running numbers 253xxx. If my memory from when I was 10 serves me right the prototype HST was class 252 with numbers 252001 & 252002. I'm not sure when the HST running numbers were shortened from 253xxx to 43xxx, but that does not alter their classification as 253/254s. Hope this helps. [Mark Wilson] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.93.107 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

HST Sets were given 253xxx (WR) and 253xxx (ER), and inititially each set had 2 consecutively numbered powercars, so for example 253001 had PCs 43002 and 43003. Obviously when powercars needed maintenance this meant you'd have 'hybrid' sets and to counter this BR removed the 253xxx/254xxx numbers from the sets when they were reliveried into IC Executive livery. However, the cessation of 253/254 number application was not indicative of reclassification of the units - they still carried their TOPS Coaching Stock number of 43xxx - much like for example the Class 180s have a 59xxx number on their Driving Cars - and you wouldn't hear any rail enthusiast or employee refer to a Class 180 and a "Class 59" would you? - this misleading inaccuracy needs to be removed, the relevant information can be put in the main HST (Class 253/254) page. [James Nelhams] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.2.140 (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Multiple operation

The page doesn't make the class 43's mode of operation explicit and it probably should do. I make no guarantees on the following info (part from a rail fan, part speculation) and anyone who has a verifiable source for this would be welcome.

To obtain the required level of power from diesel, class 43 locos work in pairs, one at each end of the train. This provides two driving cabs as well as two engines. Both locos can be controlled from either cab via signalling that runs down the train. This is perhaps the basis for it being originally classified as a multiple unit, but I am really unsure on this. Can a single class 43 haul a train without a rear engine? But, say, four carriages, or eight with substantially reduced acceleration and/or top speed? A lack of a rear cab aside, you could then consider one class 43 and four carriages a multiple unit, that can be joined with another, except that I am not aware that they were ever run as anything but 8 + 2.

There is a suggestion under multiple working that eight of the locomotives can in fact form a true double unit (16 carriages, four engines) but again, this is not clear at all.

Anyone able to formally clarify this? Ghiraddje 02:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have seen images of class 43's running light so they are able to operate as locomotives on their own, I'm not sure why they were originally classified as a multiple units, they are really fixed formation trainsets, the original numbering probably reflected this intention until it was found easy to change the locos around when maintenance issues arose. The first HST's were of 7 + 2 formation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.211.43 (talk) 06:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
They were 7+2 formation on the western region when introduced. They were 8+2 on the ECML from the start, but now are 9+2 on ECML, and 8+2 pretty much everywhere else, except for Grand Central which are 6+2 and perhaps a couple of the AXC may be different. elfabyanos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.38.36 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 25 September 2009 (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avicennasis (talk • contribs) 18:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Data panel

The data panel on the end of HST power cars, at least those operated by First Great Western, refer to CLASS 43. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Western Sunset (talk • contribs) 21:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Variant differences

We could use some clear information on the differences between 43/0 43/2 and 43/4 82.46.109.233 (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Midland Mainline Ocean Blue and White with Silver Stripe Livery

I note that some years ago, I uploaded photographs of British Rail Class 43 in the second, revised livery for Midland Mainline, which is ocean blue and white with silver stripe on the bodyside and a tangerine stripe on the sole bar. This livery is very clearly Midland Mainline, TOC belonging to National Express and NOT, I repeat NOT East Midlands Trains of Stagecoach. However when I checked Wikimedia Commons, the photographs of British Rail Class 43 in second revised Midland Mainline livery, they are in the East Midlands Trains operator category, which is completely inappropriate and incorrect! Please can someone create a category for British Rail Class 43 in Midland Mainline Ocean Blue and White with Silver Stripe Livery? Please remember that this is the last livery carried by Midland Mainline under National Express ownership and was BEFORE Stagecoach took over the franchise and renamed it East Midlands Trains. PeterSkuce (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

PeterSkuce, can you please identify the photos? I would note that there are Commons categories by ownership as well as livery, and it is perfectly possible for a train to be in one operator's livery but be run by a different operator. There were still trains with NSE liveries running around 10 years after NSE ceased to exist. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Here are the photos concerned:
File:43045 D St Pancras 1.JPG File:43052 D St Pancras.JPG File:43061 D Derby.JPG
All carry Midland Mainline branding and livery, so cannot be part of East Midlands Trains as they were firstly debranded and rebranded as East Midlands Trains before application of the Stagecoach blue, red, white livery. Thus therefore not the same case as Class 465 Networker in Network SouthEast livery ten years after privatisation.
PeterSkuce (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
It appears that the categorisation was performed by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) in these edits: 43045 D St Pancras 1.JPG; 43052 D St Pancras.JPG; 43061 D Derby.JPG. But this isn't really a question for this talk page, which concerns the article British Rail Class 43 (HST). A better place would have been c:User talk:HJ Mitchell. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
On the grounds of "I've started so I'll finish", PeterSkuce, those files have been modified as requested. Please feel free to contact me on Commons if you have any further issues. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Matt Buck PeterSkuce (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

TOPS Serial Numbers?

Can someone compile a complete list of the TOPS serial numbers + relations to the operators (Like most other BRCxxx articles) as this page should really have it for completion. SageWater (talk) 08:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

SageWater, see/cite [1]/[2]. —Sladen (talk) 10:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok Thank you, I shall go through it later. SageWater (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British Rail Class 43 (HST). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

43 140

Has 43 140 been officially withdrawn and scrapped? It is likely that it will be written off, but we seem to be getting ahead of ourselves here. Mjroots (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

It won't be scrapped until all possible forensic evidence has been collected. Even then, they will not destroy any potential evidence until after the conclusion of the inquiry. We're talking months, if not years - consider the fate of e.g. 43011 after Ladbroke Grove. The accident was on 5 October 1999, the Cullen report was published on 19 June 2001; but withdrawal of 43011 was not until November 2001, and it was scrapped in June 2002. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
@Redrose64: - so how do we handle this in the article? As it stands, it says something that is incorrect. Mjroots (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Get hold of that issue of Rail (which I don't normally buy) or wait for my next issue of The Railway Magazine to drop through my letterbox. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Rail only confirms the identities of the vehicles involved. Nothing said about the official status of them. Mjroots (talk) 04:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Then we can't say either "withdrawn" or "scrapped", probably not even "stored". If Rail explicitly uses a word like "damaged", we may use that; otherwise, the strongest we can say is "involved". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
It's splitting hairs, but it will never run again. It would have been declared beyond repair even if there were a shortage of power cars, much less now when there are dozens in store that can be reactivated at a fraction of the cost of rebuilding 43140. It will be stored, probably at a MoD or police facility, and once the inquiry is completed, scrapped. Meirtout (talk) 03:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
More than likely. But we mustn't presume, we may only report on what others have already described. See WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
@Redrose64: re this edit, the BBC reference clearly shows 43030 as relatively undamaged (photo under the map). It is not straying into the realms of WP:OR to state that 43140 was the severely damaged power car as there is no other vehicle that it could be. Can we undo this edit please? Mjroots (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
No, because that would take the article back to a state which shows 43140 as written off, or even scrapped. This hasn't verifiably occurred. The strongest we may show is "damaged". No more than that is verifiable unless further sources appear. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
@Redrose64: - it wouldn't, because I rewrote the lede of the Accidents section to state There have also been four serious incidents involving Class 43s; these accidents resulted in three power cars being written off. A fourth sustained severe damage in 2020, but has not yet been officially written off. Therefore we are not claiming it has been written off or scrapped, but merely stating that it is severely damaged. Mjroots (talk) 06:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Source for 43045

@Slenderman7676: Trainlogger is an unreliable source. Their FAQs page states they rely on user generated content, which is not permitted as a source. SK2242 (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Dalwhinnie

Forum chatter is that 43012 derailed. Can we please not add this unless a reliable source verifies it. Mjroots (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Fleet section

Section was flagged for reference improvement in December 2020, yet large sections remain uncited. Appears to be loaded with WP:OR. Propose that it be deleted. Cites such as the Platform 5 books would enable at least some of it to be retained, but as it stands it is garbage. Jenkerrompt (talk) 05:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

43272/274 move to Derby - undo of my edit

I notice that my edit of the move to Derby had been reverted. I lack the will to make any further edits on the topic so will leave to somebody else. I am aware that social media is not regarded as a reliable citation, but this forum thread includes the Real Time Trains data for the move from Kidderminster to Derby and a video of the two units on route. Now, would the person who reverted it like to provide a citation that they are still at Arley. If it helps, I was there today and there's only three left in the yard. Robin84F (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

If you have been an editor on Wikipedia long enough you'll know that original research (WP:OR) isn't allowed and only reliable sources (WP:RS) should be used. There's no way around this (although of course Wikipedia's fifth pillar (WP:5P5) says there are no rules!) Is there anything definitive on the appropriate wikiproject that states what should be done in such cases. My own feeling is that anything that can't be sourced shouldn't be there. In this case, for example, you can't properly account for some of the units then omit them from the list. It doesn't have to be complete. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleting would be an option, although I personally feel that if information is shown which is potentially correct but not reliably sourced, it is better to leave it but flag it as 'citation required' so people can take it as such (and hopefully add a source). I would have have no issue if you had done so to my edit. I felt 'revert' was the wrong approach in the situation where one piece of unsourced information was being reverted back to another unsourced piece of information just because a change had been made, when there was no evidence that Wikipedia had been made worse rather than better by the edit concerned. I've deleted Arley from the two units but not put in a new location. --Robin84F (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
The policy on verifiability states that any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations - if unsourced content is removed, this can be seen as a challenge to the authenticity of that content. So you need to provide a source when reinstating it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Rail_Class_43_(HST)/Archive_1&oldid=1143740890"