Talk:Hitachi A-train

Out-of-date information
The list of trains built dates back to 2006, but a number of new types have been built since then, so the list will need to be updated. The Navigation box lists all the trains mentioned on the Japanese article, so it should be more or less up-to-date. --DAJF (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hitachi A-train. 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/20110719001923/http://www.hitachi-rail.com/products/rv/a_train/features/index_2.html to http://www.hitachi-rail.com/products/rv/a_train/features/index_2.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090726022528/http://www.hitachi-rail.com/rail_now/hot_topics/2006/railway/ to http://www.hitachi-rail.com/rail_now/hot_topics/2006/railway/

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) 13:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Chassis
Most train carriages have a chassis. When looking at the A-train construction video on Hitachi's website there appears to be no chassis. Is the A-train really monocoque construction? If so, this would be a significant design feature and ought to be mentioned in the article. FreeFlow99 (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Accidents and defects deleted
The following was deleted very shortly after I added it to the the United Kingdom section (copied from British Rail Class 800, which is a Hitachi A-class). The edit summary was "Reverted good faith edits by Pol098 (talk): Not sure direct duplication of content is useful, not clear that this is relevant to the A-train family as a whole and could therefore be covered in much less detail, if at all".

I included it in this article as defects in this type of train are highly relevant to the article; removing these paragraphs can be viewed as "sanitising" the article, removing sourced material about problems and issues (trains possibly susceptible to cracking, and not designed to withstand a collision at low speed. (Later checking user contributions, I find no indication that the deletion was not in good faith.)

If anyone wants to reinstate this, the following paragraphs were copied verbatim from the article, and can just be copied back after the paragraph beginning "Many other UK operators have bid" and before the table.

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I just don't see the value or relevance in repeating this (especially verbatim) from the Class 800 article. That article is already linked from here and is clearly the most appropriate place to cover it, particularly in the absence of any indication (at this time) that this is fundamentally related to the "A-train" family as a whole. For example other UK A-train based classes (395, 385 etc.) haven't been affected as far as I know. If my objections aren't widely shared and you feel this is still important for inclusion you could re-add it, I wouldn't fight to keep it out. Beevil (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)