Talk:British Rail Class 360

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 22:29, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thai versions
I think that most of the information about the Thai versions should be removed from this article, either into its own article, or added to the information already in Siemens Desiro, probably the latter.

The latest edit appears to imply that British Rail Class 360 EMUs are available in 3-car formation, but only Thai EMUs based on the Class 360 are. I'll do the move in the next few days unless there are objections. Tim PF (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Quite. It's clearly utter tosh. Tony May (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have an objection. Both the 360 and 158 articles will be put back to normal tonight, and information about 360 and 158 based units in Thailand on their respective articles should remain UNTIL a seperate article is created or seperate articles are created BY a person AGAINST it being merged with information on Great Britain units. Anamyd (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No. You won't User:Anamyd, because it's clearly WP:OFFTOPIC.  This can be put in another separate article, that's no problem. Tony May (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I won't what...? It's clearly on-topic. If you want to put it in a seperate article then go ahead, but until then the 360 and 158 articles will be put back to normal tonight. Anamyd (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, this is long-standing information that you destructively removed with nothing to replace it. Anamyd (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Because this article is entitled British Rail Class 360, - and not Siemens Desiro UK. we do though have an article on Siemens Desiro, so go figure where this should go... The idea that "it was long-standing" just meant nobody could be bothered to remove it and have the inevitable patience-straining one-sided debate with whosoever put this WP:OFFTOPIC rubbish in the first place.Tony May (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I did not realise there was already a discussion on this. and others, why would the inclusion of the (identical) Thai units be any different to the Thai units in British Rail Class 158? It seems common sense to me that identical Class 360 units, used elsewhere in the world would all be on one page. Looking through the history of the page, it seems that this information was in the article before and ..ahem... was removed.
 * Not even a "identical units are used in Thailand and more info about that can be found here"? Turini2 (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In the case of British Rail Class 158, they were designed and built by British Rail Engineering Limited specifically for British Rail before there were any plans to privatise that organisation; only later did the possibility of outside sales arise. The Siemens Desiro was always intended for sale to multiple customers, and whilst each customer could specify certain details, the general specification and design was that of Siemens. Those supplied to Great Britain were all ordered after the Privatisation of British Rail. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay that's a fair point - as above, would you consider something along the lines of "identical units are used in Thailand and more info about that can be found here etc" in the article then to provide context? Turini2 (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Original research
Recently there have been some uncited edits on the units moving to East Midlands Railway. For inclusion they need to be reliable sourced. Personal observations, forums, social media etc, are original sources and not considered reliable. It needs to be in a published work, e.g. one of these publications.

Wikipedia isn't a train spotter's blog, so it doesn't need to be an up to the minute accurate reflection of every movement or repaint. It should reflect what can be reliably sourced. Metro140 (talk) 03:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Stop removing this information from the article. Look at other British Rail Class wiki pages they have no sources in the fleet details. So why is this one different? E.Wright1852 (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, not a valid excuse here. SK2242 (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Content Dispute
Recently people have been adding and removing the information regarding the transfer of Units to East Midlands Railway. This is becoming an issue since the content for fleet details is now changing every day. Please add your opinion below as to if you think that the units that have transferred to East Midlands Railway should be included or not. This discussion will be closed on 14:41 29 November 2020 (UTC). E.Wright1852 (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , wikipedia requires not sources but reliable sources. A fansite is not reliable. Wait until it's in a publication such as RAIL, Modern Railways, etc. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * After seeing a link that told me to see I think it is best if we only include 360120 as being transferred to EMR as it is the only one that East Midlands Railway themselves have confirmed. Unless a tweet from EMR themeselves is considered unreliable. E.Wright1852 (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a primary source, which isn't ideal, but I think in this circumstance it's acceptable. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The key point is WP:VNT, with no valid cites produced, all the movements reported have been WP:OR. As Mattbusk stated, It will be reported in the next magazine publishing cycle, so best to wait for this to happen. Metro140 (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

An IP has changed the fleet details to claim that all former GA 360s are now with EMR, citing the following tweet:   What is the consensus on using it? SK2242 (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * All Class 360s are now with EMR but are currently stored and expected to enter service in May 2021. I think that the source should be used to backup the claim. I have also found these which might also help support the claim if they are acceptable. https://twitter.com/13milepost/status/1354167424380264448 http://bed-pan.homestead.com/Class-360-.html. E.Wright1852 (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no deadline, or harm in waiting a few weeks until there's a decent secondary source on the matter. Turini2 (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Twitter is not a reliable cite per WP:RS/SPS. This is self published and likewise not a WP:RS. Metro140 (talk) 04:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

What happened to the update for 360/2s to ROG? DAB (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It was removed because it was not accompanied with a WP:RS that wasn’t self published. SK2242 (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So ROG’s announcement, on their website, that they have purchased all five Class 360/2s, is not evidence enough? DAB (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it's not, because it is a primary source, and inherently biased. What have the independent railway press written on this matter? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In the latest issue of Rail the 360/1s have been confirmed to have moved to EMR. However it mentions nothing on the 360/2s. Best to wait for the next issue as it will probably be in that. E.Wright1852 (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Reference 6
Hey just a heads up reference 6 needs to use an archived version of the page it links to, as the link no longer directs to a page on the Class 360 like it says it does. Maurice Oly (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ --PhiH (talk) 06:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Maurice Oly (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Non-gangwayed cab ends
I'm sure this article used to mention that the 360s were originally going to have gangwayed cab ends (like the 350s/450s/444s) but that someone didn't like it or something, so they were built with non-gangwayed cab ends. Why was this removed from the article, and can it be added back? Anamyd (talk) 06:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * probably because it wasn't sourced! Turini2 (talk) 07:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)