Talk:British Rail Classes 253, 254 and 255

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)

Merge proposal
Suggest merge into InterCity 125 - please use that pages talk thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 00:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Pages merged.
 * There was an objection - I will resuggest the merge.

Merge Proposal
I suggest redirecting this page to InteCity 125 Reasons
 * Both InterCity 125 and this page refer to exactly the same thing - the set of coaches and locomotives that make up an 'Intercity 125' train, or a 'BR Class 253' etc.


 * Beyond that I understand that one of the two titles may be a better heading for the article. Please discuss which is best, or why the articles should not be merged etc. ThanksFengRail (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A discussion similar to this has taken place with Advanced Passenger Train and British Rail Class 370; the reason they have not been merged applies equally here - InterCity 125 is a brand name used by British Rail to advertise the services provided by its new rolling stock. The relevant rolling stock numbers are Classes 253 and 254, when classed as multiple units, and Class 43 and Mark 3 coaches when classed as locomotive hauled stock. If you follow the logic of this argument, then Class 43 should also be merged into the IC 125 article, while Class 91 and Mark 4 should be merged into the InterCity 225 article. Hammersfan 25/02/09, 16.37 GMT
 * No I don't follow your logic becuase "Class 43" is an article about the locomotive, and "Mark 4" is an article specifically about the coaches. Whereas "Class 253" is an article about the same thing as the article "InterCity 125" - namely the combination of power and coaches that make up the train If you stopped telling me "what my logic is" you might be able to see that.
 * One additionaly reason not to merge Class 43 into "HST" is that it would make too long an article.
 * (Comment: the APT/Class 370 articles are different - the APT article refers to the experimental trains as well as the Class 370s) In this case the experimental version "Class 252" is dealt with separately.
 * As far as I can tell "Class 253" and the others are designations the HST trainsets carried for part of their working lives - as such the article here is really a subsection of the article "InterCity 125" - do you agree or not?

FengRail (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Also the "brand name" you describe correctly, is the most common name for these trains, and in the longest use.
 * You may see that other brand names have articles - for example Daz (detergent) - this article isn't called by whatever chemical constitution the thing is made of.
 * In other words two separate names exist for the same article - try taking the "thick hat" off and facing up to that.
 * I'm not saying "InterCity 125" is the best name - there are alternatives - that is a different issue.FengRail (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Try a web search or book seach for the different terms for the train - you will see that HST and InterCity 125 are more commonly used. You already know, I assume that "Class 253 etc" only applies for a fraction of the period of use of these trains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 17:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * First, please don't leave so many different paragraphs, as it hurts my eyes to try and read what you've said. Second, the IC125 article also refers to the prototype of that system, the Class 252. Are you suggesting that that also be merged into the IC125 article? The way you are describing it, I can perfectly see the logic of including all elements of the IC125 in the same article, so why not merge Class 43 into it? The point is, this article is about the initial operation of the system as a multiple unit - elements about the operation of these trains while they were classed as such should be moved here FROM the IC125 article. Now, moving on to the rest of what you've said - you're quite right that other brand names have articles on their own, which link to the elements that make them up. Class 253 and 254 are elements that make up the InterCity 125 brand. The fact that InterCity 125 may be the most common name for the system doesn't mean that Class 253 and 254 are any less valid or relevant to have seperately - you yourself have constantly said that we should "be encyclopaedic", which means having all the relevant information in the relevant places, and in my opinion, it is relevant to have this information seperately in its own article. In addition, you neglect the reference to Class 255, which although made up of Class 43 power cars and Mark 3 coaches, should not be referred to as IC125 but as Virgin Challenger, just as the Class 220 was Virgin Voyager. Finally, I would watch out with the insulting comment about the "thick hat", because I will report you if you use that kind of term again. Hammersfan 25/02/09, 18.30 GMT
 * No i'm not suggesting merging class 252 into the article.
 * Please don't waste my time making me respond to things you 'think' I've said.
 * Stop telling me what my logic is - the only logic you can describe is your own - good luck with that.
 * Don't move any info from the intecity article please - if you want to duplicate or expand on that information in the (Class 253 etc) page please do so.
 * For the majority of people (I think), including the average reader - "HST" or "InterCity 125" is the article they will tend to search for, so please leave it with the full compliment of information.
 * Your obviously very keen on having this article covering the period when the units were classified as DMUs so I will retract the merge proposal, and add a 'see also' in the relevent section of "Intecity 125". (I've done that)
 * Please note - please don't remove the entire text of section leaving only a 'see also' - its usually to leave a short explanation for those that don't wan't to read more.
 * I hope that is acceptable to you. I don't really want to be involved in long discussions about the 'way it should be' - so hopefully retracting the merge will mean that everyone can get on with what they were doing.
 * Is that ok? If so can I help you in another way? I'm always open to suggestions if you want an article looking at or whatever...FengRail (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want to be disruptive to you, or be disrupted myself - will this be ok?

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.

Discussion notice which affects this page
I've started a discussion which affects this page, over at Talk:British Rail Class 43 (HST). Please do come over if you have any thoughts about the three articles mentioned there. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)