Talk:British Rail Class 170

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)

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)

SWT
[SWT 170 page]

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

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)

I think every class deserves it's own page, including sub-classes. --Dennisman (talk) 11:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't. Subclasses change around a lot, and some really aren't notable. For example, the only real difference between the British Rail Class 350 /1 and /2 is that the /2 series have a different seating arrangement. Really that does not warrant another page in my opinion. The current arrangement, whereby families of trains have their own page with an overview (eg Turbostar, Electrostar), and then each specific class has its own page (eg 170, 171 and 172), is a much better compromise. There is also a lack of reliable sources for data about older classes. NRTurner (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

www.thejunction.org.uk
Having made an FOI request to the Department for Transport in regards to the distribution of Class 170s among TOCs, I received a reply detailing the following:
 * The DfT are not required to provide this kind of information because it is reasonably accessible through other means.
 * This particular information can be provided by asking the relevant TOCs or ROSCOs.
 * Other sources recommended by the DfT include enthusiast publications such as Platform 5 stock books and websites such as www.thejunction.org.uk.

I think therefore that thejunction.org.uk, as it has been recommended as a legitimate source by the DfT, should be accepted here. Hammersfan 14/01/09, 09.28 GMT


 * I'm afraid I don't consider it to work quite like that. It seems that thejunction.org.uk is simply a personal website run by Gareth McMurray to which a number of different individuals contribute. With regards to self-published sources, Reliable sources notes that they "may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution" and Wikipedia:Verifiability states "it is usually not acceptable in Wikipedia to cite... personal websites". We've already found a reliable source for the majority of this information, the DfT, it isn't particularly clear why we need to cite a somewhat more questionable website such as thejunction.org.uk. The DfT suggesting you consult "enthusiast publications such as Platform 5 stock books and websites such as www.thejunction.org.uk" because they don't have the time or resources to provide this information to you doesn't seem to be conclusive evidence of the credibility of thejunction.org.uk. I assume from looking at thejunction.org.uk that rail enthusiasts submit information to Gareth McMurray. Is this checked in any way by Gareth? Are we really confident of the ability of train spotters to correctly identify what TOC a particular vehicle belongs to? Trains seem to be transferred between TOCs very frequently and so I'm concerned about the accuracy of this information. I suggest we are better, in terms of verifiability, using reliable sources like DfT for fleet details and add a link in the external links section to thejunction.org.uk if appropriate for more comprehensive but less reliable fleet information. Adambro (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

tidy
I rearannged operations by region, with the subsections dealing with the workings in historical order (oldest first).

I added/created a 'tech' section

Removed livery images as per the reasons given here Talk:British Rail Class 168

The table I have also removed (possibly temporary) - it doesn't give the past operators/original buyer as given here http://www.therailwaycentre.com/New%20DMU%20Tech%20Data%20/DMU_170.html.

It's worth noting that there is practically no difference between the subclasses except the colour/number of seats - so maybe it's not even notable.

Hopefully no mistakes slipped in whilst I was doing that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 20:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Commons images
Hi. Just to let you know, the Commons category for Class 170s is now completely sorted by operator and livery. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Number of units?
The Info box states 122 built. The Fleet list at the bottom totals 132. Seven of Southern's class 171 fleet were initially numbered as 170s before conversion (couplers). Should the number built be in fact 139, with 132 in service as 170s? Or is one of the number sources badly wrong?--Cambridge al (talk) 14:57, 7 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.

Owners - which ROSCOs?
I suspect that this is true for many British train pages, but the page does not mention anywhere who owns the units, which is what I can looking for.Talltim (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ? -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Talltim (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Southern obtained six 2-car Class 170/7 units,
Why has Southern been removed as an operator?

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on British Rail Class 170. 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/20131221005408/http://www.rssb.co.uk/RGS/Pages/MECHANICALANDELECTRICALCOUPLINGINDEX.aspx to http://www.rssb.co.uk/RGS/Pages/MECHANICALANDELECTRICALCOUPLINGINDEX.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613200455/http://bombardier.com/en/transportation/products-services/projects/details?docID=0901260d80012880 to http://bombardier.com/en/transportation/products-services/projects/details?docID=0901260d80012880#

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) 22:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on British Rail Class 170. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://bombardier.com/en/transportation/products-services/projects/details?docID=0901260d80012880%23
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/ScotRail-25th-anniversary
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140312230704/http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/campaigners-fury-nine-transpennine-express-6768197 to http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/campaigners-fury-nine-transpennine-express-6768197
 * Added tag to http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/tractor_driver_suffers_serious_injuries_following_collision_between_train_and_tractor_at_roudham_near_thetford_1_4489243

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) 04:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on British Rail Class 170. 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/20110613200455/http://bombardier.com/en/transportation/products-services/projects/details?docID=0901260d80012880 to http://bombardier.com/en/transportation/products-services/projects/details?docID=0901260d80012880
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151129050858/http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/system/files/documents/tsc-basic-pages/Redacted%20Franchise%20Agreement%20-%20CU%20version.pdf to http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/system/files/documents/tsc-basic-pages/Redacted%20Franchise%20Agreement%20-%20CU%20version.pdf

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) 06:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Northern Class 170.png

Orphaned references in British Rail Class 170
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 170'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 128:  From British Rail Class 143:  From British Rail Class 158:  From British Rail Class 150:  From British Rail Class 153:  From British Rail Class 129:  From British Rail Class 120:  From British Rail Class 124: </li> <li>From British Rail Class 144: </li> <li>From British Rail Class 141: </li> <li>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 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 ⚡ 09:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Eh...?
(Past operations ---> Southern)

"At the end of the First ScotRail franchise in March 2015, 170416 to 170424 were returned to Eversholt Rail Group. The first five units then remained on hire to Abellio ScotRail via a sublease arrangement until March 2020, while 170421 to 170424 moved to Wolverton railway works in April 2015. They were overhauled and converted to Class 171s intended for Southern. Following issues with the conversion and reliability issues, the remaining units were then handed back to Eversholt Rail Group where they were then re-leased to East Midlands Railway. Two became two-car 171/2s and two four-car Class 171/4s."

Issues...? Handed back...? They're still with Southern though, yes...? I don't get the bit in bold, it's confusing. 143.159.50.70 (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Inaccuracies of the Class 170 page.
There are a number of inaccuracies on this page. They need to be addressed ASAP, with a source supplied.

170270-170272 are now with EMR. 170270 and 170272 are even in service. 170271 is at Barrow Hill.

170422-170424 are actually numbered 170922-170924.

Thank you. ScotRail02 (talk) 11:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Welcome to one of the frustrations of Wikipedia for new (or infrequent) editors. You know the truth, you can see it for yourself, but unless it is written down in a reliable source that can be verified by others, the truth counts for nothing. See WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:V. Please do all you can to find sources to back up what you know to be the truth. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

170397-170398
"According to Rolling Stock Review: 2019-2020" (ISBN: 9781912205981), the Cross-Country units have the Motor Standards 56397-56398 re0inserted to form 3-car formations. I'll try to find a citeable source. E6Bruz6R (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Isn’t that source you just quoted reliable enough? Danners430 (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've reached out to railway sources to confirm if the currently cited source (Clinnick) was true, since it appears to conflict with the source I have (Key Modern Railways). It may be that both are correct and the formations were changed. 2001:BA8:1F1:6A0:8CB3:D555:2ED:D87C (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Having re-read the article, I was misreading the "2" in "trainsets" as the formation. So no error to correct! E6Bruz6R (talk) 12:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)