Talk:British Rail Class 168

How about some non-techy info?
The great majority of this article is about the 168's technical details. Nothing wrong with that, but this is a general encyclopedia, not a rail-buff's fansite, and as such there should be more info about the interior, passenger reception etc. 86.136.251.6 14:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Tidy
Tidied up a bit - more operations details possibly are needed.

Also really needs more info on difference between sub classes.

Removed drawings of train liveries - as far as I now they are neither official, nor can be considered accuract - in terms of colour or dimension... Please don't add them - they are effectively "drawings". —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 17:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Class 168 and Turbostars
I have improved the article with information stating that Classes 168/1 and 168/2 are essentially Turbostars. The Class 168/0 could probably be best described as the prototype Turbostar. --Peter Skuce (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Commons images
Hi. Just to let you know, the Commons category for Class 168s is now completely sorted by operator and livery. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:41, 24 June 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.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on British Rail Class 168. 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/20080705034433/http://rssb.co.uk/rv_coupling_system_data/list_index.asp to http://www.rssb.co.uk/rv_coupling_system_data/list_index.asp

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 03:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on British Rail Class 168. 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/20100703123005/http://www.chilternrailways.co.uk:80/about-us/our-train-fleet/ to http://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/about-us/our-train-fleet/

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) 22:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in British Rail Class 168
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of British Rail Class 168's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "TRC1": From British Rail Class 143:  From British Rail Class 128:  From British Rail Class 129:  From British Rail Class 150:  From British Rail Class 158:  From British Rail Class 153:  From British Rail Class 156: </li> <li>From British Rail Class 142: </li> <li>From British Rail Class 151: </li> <li>From British Rail Class 124: </li> <li>From British Rail Class 120: </li> <li>From British Rail Class 141: </li> <li>From British Rail Class 144: </li> <li>From British Rail Class 155: </li> <li>From British Rail Class 121: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Infobox Image
Hi all,

Recently the image of the 168 was changed (I have no complaints about this!), but the image that it was changed to was of a /0 wearing the former Chiltern livery - so some years ago at this point!

I just wondered if we could come to an agreement that any infobox images should be mostly up-to-date with the new livery just to ensure those reading have an idea of what the train currently looks like? I've reverted the image back to the previous image (which happens to be mine), as it is far more recent (which I believe is quite important in these things!). I have no complaints regarding changing the image if need be, but perhaps a more modern image would be more suitable?

Thanks Vanmanyo (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Your image is not a good representation of the current livery. In fact I couldn't find a suitable recent image on commons at all and I went through all the permutations of categories. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you are wrong. It's definitely not a bad representation. The livery aspects are still visible including the style of the livery & the Chiltern logo. I still think it's better than an outdated image from over 8 years ago. The previous image has been on the page for several months with no complaints. Regardless of whether it's a better angle than the updated one, it's still a better representation of the current fleet, thus I would keep it (my one) as interim whilst I or someone else can perhaps achieve a better image. Vanmanyo (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also perhaps one of these two would be better?
 * c:File:168-109_Chiltern_Banbury_14-03-17_(34752669050).jpg
 * c:File:DMU_168_001.jpg Vanmanyo (talk) 21:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd go with the second one, 168 001 Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No objections so I've used it in the infobox. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No objections after seventeen hours. Some of us log in for just three hours a day. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Feel free to change it if you don't like it. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

More photos needed
I think more photos are needed, to show the different look of the 168/0 and 168/1/2/3. Maybe a gallery section? 2A00:23EE:15B8:5387:BB50:B726:3E7C:56E3 (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * That’s what Commons is for IMO. Danners430 (talk) 09:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, WP:IG. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)