Talk:British Rail Class 139

Importance
I see that this article has been rated as low importance. Given that this is the first time that a radical new train technology has been tried on the National Rail network for a long time I think this could do with a bump upwards. This is not just a small DMU. If it works out well then it will be the start of something big. Even if it doesn't work out it is an important experiment. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Now re-rated as mid-importance. (Not by me I should add.) Alzarian16 (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Diesel Multiple Units
A multiple unit is a modular train which can be coupled together as a multiple and the resulting train driven from a single cab. The reference I have deleted from this article did not suggest that the Parry unit has this function, or that it has been placed (however inaccurately) in this group for administrative convenience. Not all railcars are equipped for multiple unit operation. One unit pulling the other without connection to allow both to be operated from one cab (usually at the front) is not multiple unit operation. Britmax (talk) 12:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Further to this, I would like to point out that it is not a diesel multiple unit because it doesn't run on diesel. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not a DMU because it isn't MU but it certainly does run on diesel. It's a diesel-mechanical hybrid. Every bit of energy stored in that flywheel comes from burning diesel fuel in that small engine. What it probably should be called, aside from marketing considerations, is a diesel railcar or a railbus...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.5.190.136 (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about the "diesel-burning" assertion made above (4 September 2014). The webpage for the Ford DSG-423 shows it to be a dual-fuel engine (gasoline or natural gas, or LPG).--Spray787 (talk) 10:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Why the delay?
From the article:


 * In January 2009 it was confirmed that 139001 was still undergoing testing at Chasewater Railway and 139002 was still not completed

Okay, that tells us what is going on, but not why the companies concerned have failed to meet their target dates. They knew when they had to be ready: why aren't they? Is there a proper reason, or simply excuses? That sort of thing. (Why yes, I am a regular traveller with LM...) It would also be useful if someone could add the currently expected date for start of service: a coach driver mentioned March, but that's not really a suitable source for WP! Loganberry (Talk) 00:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know why it's delayed. What's really puzzling me is why they don't just use the PPM50 which had done the two years of intensive Sunday runs.  (And which, when I was there three months ago, was still in the shed at the far end of Stourbridge Junction station).  —Sladen (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Tiny bit of information on (and associated PDF), dated 2009-01-16 saying it was being moved to Cradley Heath (their base/workshop/test-track) for final wiring.  —Sladen (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As of 26 April, the Class 153 is working the Stourbridge branch on Sundays. There is a large notice about the Parry People Mover in the Stourbridge Junction station. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.19.38 (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Now in use.
As of June the 22nd, 139001 is in full service on the Stourbridge Town Branch line.

--92.3.202.125 (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Are these really people movers?
People movers are automated systems using guideways, often implemented using moving sidewalks or cable-drawn cars. Is the 139 really a people mover? It looks fairly conventional to me, and it appears to have a driver cab at the front. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * They are branded as "People Movers" by the manufacturer Parry People Movers. It isn't us making it up. Their use of the phrase may be unusual but as they do move people I guess we can't object too much. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I see no claim on their page that they make "people movers" in the fashion I'm mentioning. This is just a trade name, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the technology. After all, this People Mover is just a bus. I'd prefer to remove the cat. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's something that's not a bus, not a tram, not a mainline train—"things" left over that are none of the above tends to be referred to as "People movers". —Sladen (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Does it have a driver? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, PPM60 has a driver—as do many ALWEG, ART, People Porter, Von Roll and WEDway types of people mover. That's not to say that I would support of a decision one way of the other regarding the Category:People movers;  it is just not clear-cut.  —Sladen (talk) 14:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of those are people movers either, not by modern terminology. So the question is whether or not the 139 is more like this or more like this. I would argue is is much much more like the later. Can anyone offer any reason not to classify this as anything other than a tram? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The PPM50 prototype used on the line for two years was 999 900 (aka Parry Car No. 12); and certainly its predecessor (Parry Car No. 11) looks more like a traditional tram... —Sladen (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Did this version also use the flywheel system? If so, it makes for an interesting twist on steampunk transport! Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, all [of the Parry People Mover prototypes and production] vehicles have used a flywheel drive system—I have a feeling that the ones up to, and including, No. 11 were electric motor boosted at the stations. As far as I'm aware, No. 12 and its two follow-on production models were probably Parry's first self-powered/LPG-fueled versions;  in these three a small, under-powered combustion engine is used to boost the flywheel.  In all cases (electric and LPG), the built-up store of energy in the flywheel is used for the peak-demand acceleration stage.  The flywheel drive system is what Parry People Movers do—the building of the vehicles around the flywheel system appears to be somewhat of a means to an end.  —Sladen (talk) 14:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One could call it a (non electric) tram as it is small enough for street running. It would be interesting to know what is theminimum curve radius that this vehicle can handle. This minimum radius would determine its' suitability as an urban tram. Peter Horn User talk 15:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a two axle vehicle, sharp curve negotiation is better served with four axles, i.e. two of two axle bogies. Peter Horn User talk 17:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The minimum radius is 15 m Peter Horn User talk 00:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Class 999
Per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO I have temporarily restored the original mentions of the prototype that lived on the branchline for several years, and operated the Sunday service and added the mention of "Class 999" to the WP:LEAD per WP:BOLDTITLE as it appears to have been an incoming redirect since August 2009.

As it stands the table clearly shows the registered class in the first column; removing that column then creates the possibility for ambiguity. To on that basis remove the mention of the previously in-service prototype is further misleading and removes the opportunity for side-by-side comparison (which is really what the table is for!). Whilst I'm sure the presentation can be improved, hopefully this can be done in a manner that does not remove existing good material. —Sladen (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Given that the Class 999 gets several mentions in the text (including the one you added in the lead), and that it is not the main topic of the page, perhaps it should be removed from the table. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no article specifically about 999 900, and the redirect for British Rail Class 999 brings readers here. Therefore this article is about 999 900, aswell as 139 001 and 139 002.  If you were to remove that comparable information from the table, where would you suggest it is placed?  —Sladen (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * All the information about 999 900 contained in the table is already in the text (in the opening paragraph of the 'Usage' section), so it doesn't really need to be repeated in the table. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "All" is a very strong statement, and easy to disprove. Both the strings "2002" and "Pre-Metro Operations" appear only once in the article, and that is the in the table under discussion (as verified against article revision ).  —Sladen (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I wasn't really counting "Pre-Metro Operations" as I felt the article made this clear without using those exact words. You're right about "2002" though, so I've integrated that into the text. Would it now be okay to remove 999 900 from the table? Alzarian16 (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you expand on how doing so, would add to the article? —Sladen (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * By removing duplication and focussing the table on the main topic covered by the article. Integrating information about 999 900 into the article, as we have both done recently, makes the text in the table a little unneccesary. This discussion has already added to the article through the edits we've both made as a result of it. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The duplication of the construction year was only introduced by yourself in the last edit. We've also established the No. 12/999 900 prototype is a core topic of this article, so I'm unclear how deletion of "Pre-Metro Operations" would improve the article. I can see the value in adding details (eg. number of seated and standing places) to the table to further demonstrate how the PPM60 evolved from the PPM50. —Sladen (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * By all means improve the table if you can, as this would give it some value and make it worth keeping. In its current form it isn't very helpful, but if it had more information I would be happy to keep it. As for the duplication of construction year, this is such a fundamental piece of information that it should be in the text, which is why I put it there. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

'Lightweight'
After I flagged the use of the term 'lightweight', someone added a citation from the supplier, which uses that term (and gives a weight of 12 tonnes - for a shorter model).

http://www.parrypeoplemovers.com/PPM50-60-spec.htm states that seating is typically 20-25.

If a vehicle has only a few seats, that obviously gives a weight advantage over a vehicle having a lot of seats.

It would be better to provide a numerical weight for the vehicle. On a weight-per-passenger basis, the PPM vehicles aren't particularly lightweight.

Haskanik (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What would you compare it with? I am not aware of any other comparable rail vehicle that seats 20-25. Surely it weighs less than if it contained a full size diesel engine? That said, I do agree that we need to be careful about using the term particularly without making it clear what the comparison is. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * We should not be making numerical comparisions (WP:OR). The word "lightweight" is used by various reputable sources.   —Sladen (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There shouldn't be a need for "original research". If a key feature of these vehicles is their "light weight", I'd expect the manufacturer supplier to actually tell people what the weight is, and explain how that makes them light weight. They're using the term, so they should provide the comparison. The fact that bits of lazy journalism have probably recycled PPM press releases for content, is neither here nor there.


 * Haskanik (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Out of interest, what is it that makes you think that Parry were not the manufacturer of the vehicles at their workshops in Cradley Heath, Birmingham? —Sladen (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The website http://www.parrytech.com/ merely says


 * "Parry People Movers Ltd Develops and supplies innovative rail transport solutions" (not "builds").


 * Haskanik (talk) 22:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a reasonable run down of the component suppliers. —Sladen (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The list http://www.parrypeoplemovers.com/pdf/MAS-PPM%20Supply%20Chain.pdf suggests that Parry did not 'manufacture' the vehicle, in the accepted meaning of the word.


 * Indeed, Parry's seem to use words in odd ways. Parry People Movers doesn't make people movers; Pre-Metro Operations doesn't operate a pre-metro; and its lightweight railcar weighs more, per seat, than a 2006 Toyota Landcruiser (tried the Range Rover page but - surprise surprise - no weight given).


 * As it stands, not a good article. Outdated content (Penistone trial), fanboyish, and rather silly.
 * Haskanik (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is in a much superior state with NPOV and quality referencing when compared to a bloated, oppionated and largley factually irrelvant article such as Midland Metro. WatcherZero (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, this page is for discussing the 'British Rail' Class 139, not Midland Metro. As-is, the Midland Metro text isn't perfect, but it's one of Wikipedia's better transport articles. The potential readership for tram articles isn't just tram enthusiasts, so something like modal shift, while being "factually irrelvant" to an enthusiast, may be "factually relevant" to the general audience. More relevant, for example, than things like what colour a particular tram is, or how the trams are numbered.


 * Haskanik (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I was disputing your quality assessment of this article by providing a reference I know you frequent, but in regards to the Metro that stuff should be on generic transport or environmental pages otherwise it will be repeated ad infinitum, whereas information specific or unique to a an article topic belongs on its page. WatcherZero (talk) 23:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Guys, can you please take this discussion to Talk:Midland Metro now please? The issues raised by Haskanik (correctly) have mostly been fixed - thanks in no small part to User:Sladen, who's sensibly avoided talking about other articles and just got on with improving this one - and this discussion seems to have metamorphosed into something irrelevant to this page. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

--

Commons images
Hi. Just to let you know, the Commons category for Class 139s is now completely sorted by line, operator and livery. -mattbuck (Talk) 04:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible change to the title of this article
This article is currently named in accordance the 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, where your comments would be welcome.

Clarification
Is the 2.3 L meant to be the engine displacement or the fuel capacity? Peter Horn User talk 16:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * An engine displacement of, that is cute ("abbr=off" does not work here, but does work in 2.3 L). Displacement is traditionally given in cubic inches. The metric equivalent used to be in cubic centimetres (cc), but is now in Litres. So, let us have 2.3 L or . In the second example "abbr=off" does not yet work. Peter Horn User talk 15:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on British Rail Class 139. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090319154742/http://www.londonmidland.com:80/index.php/news/news_items/view/105 to http://www.londonmidland.com/index.php/news/news_items/view/105

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on British Rail Class 139. 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/20080108200508/http://www.londonmidland.com:80/index.php/cms/pages/home to http://www.londonmidland.com/index.php/cms/pages/home

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on British Rail Class 139. 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/20111009150120/http://www.railwayherald.org/magazine/pdf/RHUK/Issue170.pdf to http://www.railwayherald.org/magazine/pdf/RHUK/Issue170.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517110918/http://www.londonmidland.com/index.php/news/news_items/view/23 to http://www.londonmidland.com/index.php/news/news_items/view/23
 * Added tag to http://www.londonmidland.com/index.php/news/news_items/view/111
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.londonmidland.com/index.php/cms/pages/home

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)